Argument for
By Lorrel Plimier, Co-President, League of Women Voters of California; Catherine Kennedy, President, California Nurses Association; Tom Umberg, California State Senator
Black-and-White FallacyGlittering Generalities
YES ON PROPOSITION 4, THE CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT: ELECTIONS SHOULD BE WON, NOT BOUGHT
The amount of money in California elections is outrageous; it's distorting our democracy. Since 2020, more than $1 billion has been spent on California state candidate races alone. This massive spending gives special interests greater access and influence while drowning out the voices of ordinary Californians.
PROP. 4 HELPS QUALIFIED CANDIDATES COMPETE
Running for office today often requires either personal wealth or access to wealthy donors. Deep pockets have become an unofficial requirement to run for office, leaving too many qualified candidates behind.
PROP. 4 CHANGES THE WAY WE FINANCE ELECTION CAMPAIGNS
Programs like small-dollar donation matching help candidates compete without relying on wealthy donors. However, most California communities are banned from using these tools, allowing the influence of big money to grow.
Proposition 4 lifts that ban, giving voters and local governments the option to adopt public financing with strict safeguards so qualified candidates—regardless of their income—can compete against candidates who are backed by wealthy interests.
PROP. 4 BUILDS ON A PROVEN MODEL
We know this reform works because it's working in other states. Thousands of candidates from different backgrounds have been elected in fourteen states and 26 localities using similar systems. They are new people with good ideas from all walks of life. Because they don't rely on wealthy donors, they can speak their mind and work for the people, not the special interests.
PROP. 4 GIVES LOCAL COMMUNITIES A CHOICE
Proposition 4 does not create a public financing program. It simply gives local governments the option to adopt one if they choose.
If a community does, the cost is as little as $1 per resident each year—a small investment to help counter the billions spent influencing California's elections.
PROP. 4 PROTECTS TAXPAYERS
Taxpayer Safeguards:
Requires candidates to meet strict eligibility criteria and abide by spending limits to qualify for public funds.
Prohibits public funding from favoring incumbents or discriminating based on political party.
Prohibits the use of public funds for legal defense or fines.
PROP. 4 CRACKS DOWN ON ILLEGAL FOREIGN MONEY
Proposition 4 triples the maximum fines for illegal foreign campaign contributions and expenditures, strengthening penalties for those who attempt to interfere in California's elections.
PROP. 4 IS SUPPORTED BY LEADERS ACROSS CALIFORNIA
Proposition 4 is backed by a broad coalition including League of Women Voters of California, California Nurses Association, Mental Health Advocacy Services, Social Security Works, California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause, California National Organization for Women, Californians for Disability Rights, Consumer Watchdog, Courage California, Democracy for America, Indivisible California: Statestrong, La Defensa, Money Out Voters In, Voters Right to Know, and many others.
PROP. 4 GIVES CALIFORNIANS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECLAIM THEIR ELECTIONS and ensure they reflect the values of the people, not just the wealthiest donors.
YES ON 4—Restore power to voters, not wealthy donors
Black-and-White Fallacy · “voters, not wealthy donors” — Frames the measure as a binary choice between power for voters or for wealthy donors, ignoring other options.
Glittering Generalities · “Restore power to voters” — Uses vague positive language about 'restoring power to voters' without specifics.
From voterguide.sos.ca.gov, the official voter guide.
Argument against
By Dan Schnur, Former Chair, Fair Political Practices Commission; Colleen McAndrews, Former Commissioner, Fair Political Practices Commission; Julian Canete, President, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
Loaded LanguageExaggeration/HyperboleRepetition
Why did Sacramento politicians put Proposition 4 on the ballot? They want access to YOUR TAXPAYER MONEY to fund THEIR OWN CAMPAIGNS.
Loaded Language · “YOUR TAXPAYER MONEY”, “THEIR OWN CAMPAIGNS” — Capitalized, emotionally charged phrasing frames the measure as politicians grabbing the public's money.
Proposition 4 repeals a voter approved law that PROHIBITS these politicians from using public taxpayer funds for their own campaigns. That's right, Proposition 4 allows politicians to use your taxpayer money to fund their campaigns.
Proposition 4 has NO LIMIT on the number of candidates who can get taxpayer money and NO LIMIT on how much money they can get! Proposition 4 is a BLANK CHECK. There isn't even a limit on how much they can spend on their campaigns! More negative ads. More junk mail. More annoying text messages. More, more, more.
Exaggeration/Hyperbole · “NO LIMIT on the number of candidates”, “NO LIMIT on how much money they can get” — Absolute claim of no limits at all is an overstatement of the proposal's effect, with capitalized emphasis.
Repetition · “NO LIMIT”, “There isn't even a limit”, “More, more, more” — The phrase 'NO LIMIT' is repeated for emphasis, and repeated again in the following sentence.
Loaded Language · “BLANK CHECK”, “More negative ads”, “More junk mail”, “More annoying text messages” — 'BLANK CHECK' is an emotionally charged metaphor implying reckless unaccountable spending.
Proposition 4 is so poorly written, it could allow every state or local “candidate” to get public funding. They don't even have to actually qualify for the ballot to get taxpayer money. Proposition 4 allows for public funding of thousands of state and local candidates. It even allows for public financing of candidates for county political party committees.
In just the last primary election, there were more than 60 candidates for Governor. Do you want YOUR TAXPAYER MONEY going to support more of their negative campaign ads and junk mail?
Proposition 4 has NO LIMIT on how much taxpayer money a candidate can receive. It says it requires “strict criteria” to receive taxpayer funds but provides NO DETAILS on what the criteria are! Read the fine print:
“‘Strict criteria' means the requirement set by statute, ordinance, or charter that candidates must meet to receive public funds.”
But there is no current statute, ordinance or charter setting any criteria. Guess who will be setting the criteria? The same politicians who want to get your taxpayer money!
Some good government groups support public financing of campaigns because they want to get special interest money out of politics. BUT PROPOSITION 4 DOES NOT GET RID OF SPECIAL INTEREST MONEY! Under Proposition 4, candidates can raise money from special interests AND get public funding too.
Proposition 4 is the worst kind of public financing scheme. It provides no specifics. It leaves all the details to be worked out by the same politicians who want to get access to public funds.
It is a blank check. But worse than that, Proposition 4 allows special-interest funding of political campaigns.
Please join California's leading taxpayer protection organizations, including the California Taxpayers Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Family Business Association of California, United Latinos Action, as well as former members of California's Fair Political Practices Commission, who all oppose Proposition 4.
PLEASE VOTE NO ON THE POLITICIANS' BLANK CHECK PROPOSITION. VOTE NO ON PROP. 4.
Loaded Language · “POLITICIANS' BLANK CHECK PROPOSITION” — 'Blank check' is an emotionally charged label that frames the proposition as reckless, unchecked spending rather than describing its content.
From voterguide.sos.ca.gov, the official voter guide.