The Brief

Thousands of people have turned to GoFundMe for help in the wake of the L.A. County wildfires.

It allows communities to quickly respond to people’s needs by donating funds online. But if you’ve been affected by the fires and set up a campaign yourself, you may want to tread with caution.

GoFundMe campaigns and other crowdfunding platforms can affect how much federal disaster relief you could be eligible for, depending on how you word them.

How the donations interact with FEMA 

Federal law prohibits FEMA from “duplicating” benefits you receive from another source, which include the crowdfunding site. Brandi Richard Thompson, a public affairs officer with FEMA, shared a scenario with LAist.

Let’s say you apply for assistance through FEMA because your vehicle was damaged and then you put up a GoFundMe campaign clearly saying that you need help getting your car replaced.

“Just like we can’t give you money for your vehicle that you get from any other source like insurance, we can’t do it for GoFundMe either,” Thompson said. “That’s the challenge. It really has to do with how people explain their needs on GoFundMe.”

In a video posted to X, she told viewers to “carefully consider” how you describe your needs when creating a GoFundMe page.

Former California state assemblymember Wendy Carrillo posted an Instagram video with suggested ways to protect yourself.

Navigating federal disaster aid

If you’ve already made a campaign, there is a silver lining to keep in mind.

Thompson said these funds can be used to offset whatever funds you could receive from FEMA — so you’re not immediately ineligible if you’re gathering funds.

If your donations are under their maximum limit, you may still be able to apply for certain programs. FEMA also has multiple types of disaster aid available. If you have a campaign online for a specific need, you may still be eligible for something else.

The agency encourages everyone in need to apply for assistance so they can make the determination.

FEMA agents are stationed at two disaster recovery centers in L.A. County to help fire victims navigate the forms and ensure they apply for the right aid programs. Here’s where to find them:

• UCLA Research Park
  
  • Where: 10850 West Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064
  • When: Every day from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.
• Pasadena City College Community Education Center
  
  • Where: 3035 East Foothill Boulevard, Pasadena, CA 91107
  • When: Every day from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m.

LAist reporter Makenna Sievertson contributed to this story.

If Proposition 3 looks familiar, it’s because this is the third time the income tax measure has appeared on California ballots. But this time might be the last.

Prop. 3 would permanently extend an income tax on the wealthy to fund schools, healthcare and other state services. It first appeared on the ballot as a temporary tax in 2012 to help schools through the Great Recession, and voters renewed it in 2016. Now, its supporters are asking voters to make it permanent before it expires in 2031.

“I can’t overstate how important this is,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, the state’s largest teachers union and a primary supporter of the measure. “It’s only a tax on the wealthiest Californians, but it’s vital for our schools.”

Prop. 3 would extend a tax on individuals who earn more than $371,000 or couples who earn more than $743,000 annually. It generated between $5 billion and $15 billion a year, fluctuating with the stock market, interest rates and other factors that affect the income of the state’s top earners.

Top earners would continue paying an income tax rate of 12.3% if the measure passes. Tack on the state’s additional 1% tax on income over $1 million for mental health services and California’s highest-earners wind up with an income tax rate of 13.3%, the highest in the nation.

The bulk of the money would be funnelled through the state’s Proposition 98 funding mechanism, which guarantees 40% of the state budget be set aside for K-12 schools and community colleges. If the money surpasses a certain level, the extra would go toward a budget rainy day fund.

Prop. 3 would also pay for healthcare and other services because it frees up money the state would ordinarily spend on schools for other services, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Of the Prop. 98 money, 89% goes to K-12 schools and 11% goes to community colleges.

In flush years, the income tax makes up about 15% of the state’s overall K-12 education budget. If it doesn’t pass, school districts will be forced to lay off up to 50,000 teachers and make other cuts, Goldberg said.

Union’s big push

The teachers union is aggressively supporting the measure. It collected thousands of signatures to win a spot on the ballot and sent members to knock on more than 200,000 doors throughout the state. Goldberg described the campaign as “one of our biggest, most ambitious efforts yet.”

The powerful union as well as other groups have raised more than $40 million to pass Prop. 3. Opponents, which include taxpayer associations, have raised $5,500.

The measure appears to have an edge with voters. According to a Public Policy Institute of California poll conducted in September, 58% of likely voters said they planned to vote yes on the measure. Among Democrats, 82% said they favored it, while 18% of Republicans said they did.

Prop. 3 is not the only tax-the-rich measure on the Nov. 3 ballot. Proposition 40 would levy a 5% tax on Californians with assets of more than $1 billion, with 90% of the money going toward healthcare and the rest divided between schools, food assistance programs and other services. The teachers union opposes Prop. 40 because it argues schools wouldn’t receive enough of the money, Goldberg said.

“We’re not campaigning against Prop. 40. We’re just prioritizing Prop. 3,” Goldberg said.

The union decided to put the measure on the ballot now, more than four years before the current tax expires, because schools typically plan their budgets many years in advance and need plenty of advance warning of significant changes in revenues, Goldberg said.

‘Not sustainable’

Susan Shelley, vice president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, questioned whether schools need more money, considering the state’s recent investments and declining enrollment.

“We have fewer and fewer students. Does this mean we need fewer teachers? Maybe it does,” Shelley said. “It’s time to revisit some of these costs. Some districts have unaffordable labor contracts, fewer students … It’s not sustainable.”

In addition, she said, California already has the highest personal income tax rate – 13.3% – in the country. Adding more will only drive the wealthiest residents – and their money – from the state, which will have a disproportionate impact on state revenues, she said. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the state’s top 2% of earners pay about half the state’s income taxes.

California’s K-12 enrollment has declined steadily for at least a decade, with schools losing more than 500,000 students since the mid-2010s. Families are having fewer children, immigration is down and many families have left California because of the high cost of living.

Still, California has among the country’s highest student-to-teacher ratios. In 2022-23, California had one teacher for every 22 students, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The national average was 1:15. In New York, it was just over 1:11.

That’s why California schools need more money, said Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal adviser at the advocacy group Children Now.

“Those ratios mean that students who need extra help aren’t getting it, which is why we have such a large achievement gap in California,” Manwaring said. “It’s dire.”

He also noted that federal budget cuts will continue affecting California, including its schools, and the state will need revenue to backfill those costs. The chance of an economic downturn in the next few years will also imperil school funding.

“No one wants to project out too far, but schools might see some very tight budgets,” Manwaring said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

The state workers who are planning the first-ever statewide walkout in 44 years this week once were on much better terms with their boss, Gov. Gavin Newsom.

SEIU Local 1000, state government’s largest union, kicked in one of the single biggest checks to Newsom’s 2018 campaign, a $500,000 contribution. It followed up with $1 million more to help Newsom fend off a recall in 2021.

That alliance made sense for the union, especially considering that Newsom’s Republican opponents were much less friendly to labor.

But today the two sides are far apart with Local 1000 preparing its first statewide strike since signing its first collective bargaining agreement in 1982 as it accuses Newsom of bad-faith bargaining. Its members are trolling Newsom online with memes likening him to infamous Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, caricaturing him as a sci-fi villain and mocking his presidential ambitions.

What happened to the labor love fest?

At the bottom line, Newsom was stingier with public employees than voters who think of him as a labor-aligned Democrat might assume. He demanded wage reductions from state workers over three years of his tenure and limited raises to 3% in financially flush times. He also took a hard line in calling employees back to the office four days a week after many grew accustomed to working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The fact the state has refused to bargain in good faith is what got so many members active,” said Anica Walls, president of Local 1000. The union represents about 100,000 workers. “They’re just kind of tired of always feeling the budget is balanced on state employees’ backs.”

That feeling goes back more than 20 years for some California public employees. Like many workers, they accepted furloughs and wage reductions during the Great Recession. That period lasted from 2008 to 2013 under former governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown. But Brown then pressed for more concessions, including an additional paycheck deduction to fund retiree healthcare and higher worker contributions toward pensions.

Union leaders had high hopes Newsom would end the trend of temporary pay cuts and givebacks, as shown by the campaign contributions he gained in 2018.

It didn’t work out that way.

Here’s a look at some of the issues that led the state’s largest public employee union to break with Newsom and put him on the spot with its first statewide strike.

Money, money, money

California state government spending surged during the Newsom administration, climbing from $201.4 billion in the 2018-19 financial year to $321 billion in Newsom’s 2025-26 budget. That’s a 59% increase.

Payroll is up, too, but at a slower rate. Compensation for state workers hit $25.2 billion in 2025, about 32% more than 2019.

To be sure, Newsom gave bonuses to many public employees — especially prison staff — when the state was flush with money just after the pandemic. But he’s been thriftier with wage increases. They topped out 3% in most contracts.

Meanwhile, Newsom at two key moments pressed public employees to accept pay cuts. The first happened in the panic of the early pandemic when the governor braced for a severe recession. Unions agreed to wage cuts of roughly 9% and in exchange workers received days off that they could save and bank for later.

The second wage cut happened in 2025 when the governor sought to close a severe budget deficit. Most unions, including Local 1000, again accepted deals for two years of wage reductions in exchange for days off. They also agreed to defer raises until next year.

One union did not accept those terms, the California Association of Professional Scientists. The scientist union was the first to strike against Newsom, holding a three-day walkout in 2023. It viewed the contract it negotiated in 2024 as critical, and it didn’t want to give up its raises when Newsom asked.

But, just before an agreed-upon raise was supposed to take effect last summer, it learned that the state budget didn’t include money for the wage increase.

The conflict again angered public employees who expected a pay boost. The union appealed to state lawmakers, who funded the raises in a follow-on spending bill.

“We negotiated that collective bargaining agreement in good faith and believe a deal is a deal,” said the union’s vice president, Justin Garcia.

Working from home

California government changed overnight during the pandemic, when Newsom ordered employees to work from home unless the nature of their job required them to report to a prison or state hospital. That was a major cultural adjustment for a bureaucracy known for time cards, rigid schedules and a refusal to pay for workers’ office parking.

The Newsom administration commended workers for making the change and it publicized a dashboard that showed state employees were just as efficient at home as they were in the office.

But as time passed Newsom said he grew concerned that remote work stifled the in-person collaboration that he argued was important for a successful organization. He called employees back to the office two days a week in 2024, and four days a week beginning last summer.

Many state workers want more flexibility. They point to a 2025 state audit that found the state could save $225 million a year by allowing more remote work.

Retirement plans diverge

State workers hired before 2013 have a better retirement deal than public employees who joined since then. That issue is not front-and-center in the Local 1000 strike, but it’s bubbling up as newer workers learn about their colleagues’ benefits.

Former Gov. Brown championed the law that trimmed pension benefits. It came out of the Great Recession, which caused California’s major pension funds to hemorrhage billions of dollars and highlighted a generous pension enhancement that former Gov. Gray Davis had signed into law a dozen years earlier.

Now, public employees work longer and pay more of their own income toward their pensions. Newsom last month vetoed a bill that would have sweetened retirement formulas for police and firefighters, a proposal that likely will return to Newsom’s successor in the near future.

“What people thought before was a cush state job because we had good retirement, the ability to retire with a pension, that does not look the same to people who came after 2013,” said Walls, the Local 1000 president.

Where else can they go?

Local 1000 and other state government unions might be frustrated with Newsom, but they tend to get a better hearing from Democrats than Republicans. Schwarzenegger, after all, championed four failed ballot measures that would have stripped them of their power and influence.

“They (unions) have to make converts in the church in which they worship,” said Don Perata, a union-aligned Democrat and former Senate president pro tem who battled with Schwarzenegger.

He praised Local 1000 members for carrying state government through the pandemic and for taking on difficult jobs to serve Californians. He recognized governors and lawmakers have to pass balanced budgets, and said that means they should be more careful in running up the cost of programs that might eat away at funding that could be used to pay public employees better.

“It’s past time to show there’s recognition and not just by blowing smoke at them,” Perata said.

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.