The Brief

This is adapted from Make It Make Sense, our pop-up newsletter on the 2024 election that included a mini-series on campaign finance through the month of September. Make It Make Sense returns in November to break down the results of the general election. Sign up here.

Statewide propositions are confusing, and a major reason is that there’s often more to a ballot measure than meets the eye. For years, different groups have used propositions as bargaining chips or proxy wars for their larger goals, leaving voters on their own to figure out what’s going on.

Let’s peer behind the campaign spending curtain to get a sense of those behind-the-scenes battles and the power players funding them. We’ll explore Proposition 34, a health care measure that’s also part of an expensive multi-year battle that two groups — the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and the California Apartment Association — have spent millions to wage through the years.

What’s Prop. 34?

It’s a state ballot measure that would limit how certain health care organizations spend revenue from a federal discount drug program. If passed, the measure would require these groups to spend 98% of the funds on providing health services to patients. Currently, federal and state law don’t restrict how health care providers spend these revenues. (You can read the official ballot summary here.)

As far as anyone can tell, Prop. 34 is written so narrowly that it seems to apply to only one group — the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Proponents of the measure have said the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has abused the federal discount drug program and that this measure would provide needed accountability.

Now let’s check out the money behind it.

Who’s funding support and opposition for Prop. 34

As of Sept. 25, $29.8 million had been raised to support Prop 34. That makes it among the top three propositions with the highest amount of contributions in the November election (along with Props. 33 and 35).

According to the California Secretary of State’s website, only one committee has been formed to support Prop. 34. So far, $29.5 million — almost all of the money this committee raised — has come from the California Apartment Association Issues Committee.

Meanwhile, one committee is raising money to oppose Prop. 34. As of Sept. 25, it had raised more than $1.2 million, and almost all of this committee’s funds come from one source, too: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

What’s going on?

What might be happening here is a proxy war — chess moves in a larger beef between California power players. Some of the signs are there: multi-million dollar spending; a single group raising funds on each side.

The No on 34 campaign has called Prop. 34 a “revenge initiative” and argued that the Yes campaign is unfairly targeting the nonprofit for its support of rent control measures.

The Yes on 34 campaign says Prop. 34 is about accountability for health care spending. Its campaign releases allege the AIDS Healthcare Foundation has “severely abused” the federal drug discount program at the center of the proposition. (You can read more about the arguments from both sides in our Prop. 34 voter guide.)

Let’s dig into the backstory to learn more.

How these groups spent money in past elections

The committee pages on the California Secretary of State’s website for both organizations (links below) allow you to search for contributions going back to 1999.

Notable contributions from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to state and local ballot measure campaigns include:

• $6.3 million in the 2017 election to support L.A.’s Measure S, a proposal that would have imposed a two-year moratorium on new major development projects in L.A.
• $105,500 in the 2022 election to support Pasadena’s Measure H, which imposed new rent control regulations in the city
• $23.3 million in the 2018 election to support Prop. 10, $40.6 million in the 2020 election to support Prop. 21, and $43.4 million in the 2024 election (through Sept. 25) to support Prop. 33. All of these props are variations of the same state ballot measure, which would expand cities’ and counties’ ability to enact rent control.

The AIDS Healthcare Foundation owns and operates housing for low-income residents, and its CEO, Michael Weinstein, has been a vocal supporter of rent control. The nonprofit also sponsored statewide rent control Props. 10 and 21, which failed in their respective elections. It’s once again sponsoring Prop. 33, another version of that same measure, in the November 2024 election.

Notable contributions from the California Apartment Association Issues Committee include:

• $180,000 in the 2018 election to support Prop. 1, a successful $4 billion bond measure for veteran housing
• $88,665 in the 2022 election to oppose Pasadena’s Measure H, which imposed new rent control regulations
• $140,000 in the 2018 election to oppose Prop. 10, $50,000 in the 2020 election to oppose Prop. 21, and $34.4 million in the 2024 election (through Sept. 25) to oppose Prop. 33, all variations of the same measure to expand cities’ and counties’ ability to enact rent control
• Many more contributions that opposed rent control and supported various tax and development measures in Northern California cities, including El Cerrito, Santa Rosa, Sacramento and San Francisco.

Note that this is not the only political committee tied to the California Apartment Association — there are several others, each with their own long list of contributions.

The contributions listed above show the two groups on opposite sides of the rent control issue going back at least to 2016. It’s also clear they’re deeply interested in local measures, not just statewide ones.

They also show that spending has escalated over the statewide rent control issue, including the measure on our ballot this year: Prop. 33. (You can read all about Prop. 33 in our Voter Game Plan guide.)

The takeaway

Scrutinizing past and present campaigns can help you figure out whether there’s something else going on behind that ballot measure you’re trying to decide on. And the more you look at campaign finance over time, the more familiar certain names start to become. In some cases, people and organizations place initiatives on the ballot, back candidates, fundraise to influence your vote — and show up election after election.

The better you’re able to recognize these players and track the money they’re raising, the bigger your window is into who’s wielding power in California and how they’re wielding it.

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

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