Brianna Lee
is LAist’s senior producer for community engagement, working to build closer relationships between our newsroom and the communities we serve.
Published September 26, 2025 3:27 PM
California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks about California redistricting plans at a press conference at the Democracy Center at the Japanese American National Museum on Aug. 14 in Los Angeles.
(
Mario Tama
/
Getty Images North America
)
Topline:
Donors have contributed nearly $130 million so far in the fight over Proposition 50, the statewide measure to determine whether to redraw California’s congressional lines.
How much money is on each side? The fundraising so far marks one of most expensive ballot measure efforts in California's history. Supporters have raised $88.6 million so far, while opponents have raised $40.1 million.
What’s next: California’s special election is slated for Nov. 4 and ballots will be arriving in voters’ mailboxes in early October. You can read our full voter guide on Prop. 50 here.
Read on … to dig into the latest numbers on who’s funding Prop. 50.
Donors have contributed more than $128.8 million so far in the fight over whether to redraw California’s congressional lines with supporters of the ballot measure raising over twice as much as opponents.
The fundraising so far marks one of most expensive ballot measure efforts in California's history.
Proposition 50, the statewide proposition slated for a Nov. 4 special election, would allow new congressional maps that would benefit Democrats to stand through 2030. (You can check here to see if where you live is affected.) If approved, the ballot measure would temporarily upend California’s nonpartisan approach to drawing congressional lines that’s been in place since 2008.
The ballot measure was approved by the California Legislature back in August, escalating tensions between California Democrats and President Donald Trump, who first urged Texas lawmakers to redraw their state’s maps to favor Republicans.
Five of the districts that would be most heavily impacted under the plan are in Southern California.
Last Thursday was a key filing deadline for Prop. 50 campaign finance disclosures, giving us the clearest picture yet of how much money is flowing in this race and who’s been donating to each side.
Here’s what the numbers show as of Tuesday.
How much money has each side raised?
Out of the total $128.8 million raised, the “yes” campaign has raised more than $88.6 million, while the “no” campaign has raised about $40.1 million.
Multi-million dollar fundraising is pretty common for high-stakes statewide propositions, and this is no exception. For comparison, here are some of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in recent years. You'll see in every case below, the side that raised more money was successful:
$176 million for Prop. 33, a failed 2024 measure that would have allowed cities to pass stronger rent-control laws. The “yes” campaign raised nearly $51 million while the “no” campaign raised $125 million.
$408 million for Prop. 27, a failed 2022 measure that would have legalized online sports betting in California. The “yes” campaign raised more than $170 million while the “no” campaign raised more than $238 million, making Prop. 27 the most expensive ballot measure campaign in California history.
$225 million for Prop. 22, a successful 2020 measure that created a carve-out for app-based drivers, like those working for Uber and Lyft, to work as independent contractors rather than employees. The “yes” campaign raised more than $205 million while the “no” campaign raised just under $20 million.
Who’s donating money to the Prop. 50 campaigns?
The “no” campaign: The largest individual donor to this campaign so far is Charles T. Munger Jr., who's donated $32.8 million. He’s a Palo Alto-based physicist, former chair of the Santa Clara Republican Party and son of the late billionaire Charles Munger, former vice chair of Berkshire Hathaway. Earlier this month, he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times detailing his reasons for opposing Prop. 50.
“I oppose gerrymandering in any state, regardless of the party responsible for initiating it,” he wrote.
Another $5 million came from the No on 50 Congressional Leadership Fund, a Washington, D.C.-based Super PAC (an independent group allowed to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns) dedicated to electing Republicans to the House of Representatives.
Outside of Munger and the Congressional Leadership Fund, there are more than 190 donors to the “no” campaign so far, some of them individual contributors and others ballot measure committees.
The “yes” campaign: Fundraising in support of Prop. 50 is made up of more than 65,000 different funders so far. This is quite a list to unpack, so here are some highlights among top spenders:
The Fund for Policy Reform: This is the biggest contributor to date for the “yes” campaign, with $10 million in donations. It’s a Delaware-based lobbying firm founded by billionaire George Soros. The fund has contributed to California state ballot measure campaigns before, notably to support Prop. 64 (a 2016 measure voters approved to legalize recreational marijuana) and Prop. 10 (a failed 2018 measure that would have expanded cities’ abilities to enact rent-control laws).
HMP: This stands for the House Majority PAC, a Super PAC dedicated to electing Democrats to the House of Representatives. This group has contributed a total of about $10 million so far.
Labor groups: Top contributors include the California Teachers Association Issues PAC ($3 million), the California Nurses Association ($2.6 million) and Dignity California SEIU Local 2015 ($2 million). These groups have traditionally contributed large sums to the California Democratic Party and party-endorsed ballot measure campaigns or candidates.
Billionaires: Sequoia Capital chairman Michael Moritz ($2.5 million), Cargill heiress and philanthropist Gwendolyn Sontheim ($2 million) and Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings ($2 million) are all among top donors. All three have previously contributed to campaigns supported by the California Democratic Party.
The takeaway
There is a lot of money flowing in the Prop. 50 race, much of it coming from outside California and falling heavily along partisan lines — largely Democrats support Prop. 50 and Republicans oppose it. And with more than a month to go before the election, there’s still a lot of time for more fundraising.
Need more information about Prop. 50 to make your choice for the election? Here’s our full voter guide. You can also ask us any of your election questions below, and we’ll follow up by email with an answer.
What questions do you have about this election?
You ask, and we'll answer: Whether it's about who's funding the campaigns or how to track your ballot, we're here to help you understand the 2026 election
Gab Chabrán
covers what's happening in food and culture for LAist.
Published September 10, 2026 5:00 AM
A fruit vendor sells on Whittier Boulevard in East L.A.
(
Andrew Lopez
/
Boyle Heights Beat
)
Topline:
A recent AirTalk segment highlights the decades-long debate over street vending in Los Angeles. Despite efforts by the City Council and statewide law, enforcement remains murky at best, even though it's a fixture of Los Angeles culture.
Why now? During a recent debate, Mayor Karen Bass made a series of comments that cast street vending in an unsavory light, prompting an almost immediate backlash from her opponent, Nithya Raman, who has devised her own nine-point plan to address street vending if elected.
Why is it important? Street vendors are as much a part of L.A.'s identity as its restaurants — but the system meant to support them is so broken that only a fraction operate with full legal standing. As this becomes a defining issue in the mayor's race, it's worth knowing the difference between political rhetoric and how the rules actually work on the ground.
Last month, street vending became a flashpoint during one of the recent debates for L.A. mayor when incumbent Karen Bass said, "I do not think that you should have a food vendor in front of a restaurant. Period," drawing a comparison to unhoused encampments.
The remarks set off an almost immediate backlash. Mayoral candidate Nithya Raman, who has her own 9-point plan to support street vendors, said Bass "took a shot" at the street vending community and reiterated her commitment to work toward regulations and legalizing their operations.
Bass's office later eased its stance, saying it had directed the LAPD to stop issuing criminal citations to street vendors — and to dismiss any that had been issued in error.
Street vending remains part of the Los Angeles landscape, and the backlash from the debate brought to light just how confusing its legality can be. To understand how we got here, it helps to start with the basics.
Is street vending legal?
Yes. Since SB 946 in 2018, state law has decriminalized it. That means cities and counties can't criminally cite vendors or ban them from specific zones. They can, however, still enforce health and safety rules — things like sidewalk clearance and ADA access.
So why does it feel unregulated?
On a recent segment forAirTalk, Memo Torres ofL.A. Taco pointed to a stark gap between L.A.'s vending population and its permitted vendors. According to an email from the California Restaurant Association reported byFOX 11, an estimated 50,000 street vendors operate across Los Angeles — yet only 53 hold permits specifically for food sales.
Why so few permits?
Vending requirements largely mirror restaurant-grade standards — large refrigeration units, multi-basin sinks — that don't fit the reality of most vendor setups: flat-top griddles, folding tables, pop-up tents.
That isn't to say there haven't been efforts by the city to address the permitting gap. In 2024, the City Council, with Raman's backing, voted to drop the annual permit fee from $541 to $27.51.
Raman's mayoral campaign has since proposed another potential fix: extending a state permit category — currently used by vendors at farmers markets who share equipment like a communal three-compartment sink — to street vendors, so operators wouldn't need their own restaurant-grade setup to qualify.
What about health and safety?
County health inspectors technically oversee street food vendors, but both industry and vendor advocates agree enforcement is inconsistent — leaving reliable data on violations hard to come by.
Are vendors and restaurants actually enemies?
A 2015 Economic Roundtable study found that businesses located near street vendors were more likely to see job growth than those without nearby vendors.
What’s next
Proposals like Raman's permitting reforms aim to close the gap — but for now, most of L.A.'s vendors remain outside the formal system.
Outside the Melbourne Cricket Ground ahead of the NFL game between the Rams and 49ers. (AP Photo/Asanka Brendon Ratnayake)
(
Asanka Brendon Ratnayake
/
Associated Press
)
Topline:
The longest road trip in NFL history has brought the San Francisco 49ers and the Los Angeles Rams to Australia’s sports capital for a season opener in front of more than 100,000 football-hungry fans packed into the Southern Hemisphere’s largest stadium.
Why it matters: The NFC West rivals are playing Australia’s first NFL game, and the starkly differing ways in which they made this epic journey have attracted almost as much attention as the two star-studded rosters preparing to put on a show.
The backstory: The 49ers have been Down Under for more than a week, adjusting their body clocks and winning over thousands of Aussie fans who appreciate their commitment to the historic moment. The Rams were only scheduled to arrive in Melbourne around dawn Thursday, roughly 28 hours before the Friday morning kickoff that’s necessary to play the game Thursday night in prime time in the U.S. That’s because head coach Sean McVay is convinced they can thwart jet lag and optimize their game readiness by staying home on California time.
What's next: The Rams and 49ers kick off at 5:35 p.m. Thursday night on Netflix.
The longest road trip in NFL history has brought the San Francisco 49ers and the Los Angeles Rams to Australia’s sports capital for a season opener in front of more than 100,000 football-hungry fans packed into the Southern Hemisphere’s largest stadium.
The NFC West rivals are playing Australia’s first NFL game, and the starkly differing ways in which they made this epic journey have attracted almost as much attention as the two star-studded rosters preparing to put on a show.
The 49ers have been Down Under for more than a week, adjusting their body clocks in the traditional manner and winning over thousands of Aussie fans who appreciate their commitment to the historic moment.
The Rams were only scheduled to arrive in Melbourne around dawn Thursday, roughly 28 hours before the Friday morning kickoff that’s necessary to play the game Thursday night in prime time in the U.S. That’s because head coach Sean McVay is convinced they can thwart jet lag and optimize their game readiness by staying home on California time.
Both teams agree this contrast in preparation is not a referendum on the best way to handle a pair of 16-hour flights with a football game in between — even if the rest of the world might see it that way after the final whistle.
Instead, this game is primarily a difficult early test for both the Super Bowl favorite Rams and the talent-laden 49ers, who also intend to be a title challenger. The coaching staffs and veteran players all know each other thoroughly after a decade of competition between Shanahan and McVay, who are both constantly looking for an edge.
“I don’t think there’s any right way to do it,” said defensive end Myles Garrett, who will make his Rams debut in Australia. “They have a plan, and I’m sure they consulted different teams and people to find out a way to combat jet lag and such long travel. We’ve done the same thing. I think we’re both riding our methodologies.”
Garrett will be joined by star cornerback Trent McDuffie and cornerback Jaylen Watson in their debuts with Los Angeles’ revamped defense.
“I’ve never been more excited to be wrong about something,” Shanahan said.
Keep up with LAist.
If you're enjoying this article, you'll love our daily newsletter, The LA Report. Each weekday, catch up on the 5 most pressing stories to start your morning in 3 minutes or less.
Frank Stoltze
is a veteran reporter who covers local politics and examines how democracy is and, at times, is not working.
Published September 9, 2026 6:36 PM
The Jail complex in downtown Los Angeles
(
Robert Garrova / LAist
)
Topline:
The U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it has opened an investigation into the Men’s Central Jail in downtown Los Angeles, specifically looking into whether L.A. County has failed to provide environmentally safe, humane and habitable conditions for people held there.
The details: The jail has long been plagued by allegations of poor conditions. Monitors from the American Civil Liberties Union have documented problems including overcrowding, severe mold and mildew, and rodent infestations.
The context: The federal investigation is expected to focus on conditions within the facility and not the actions of the county sheriff’s deputies who staff it, according to the Justice Department. The new investigation is separate from a 2015 settlement between the county and federal government, which stemmed from allegations of inadequate mental health care provided at county jails.
What happens next: Investigators will determine whether the county has violated the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment, and 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law.
Reaction: L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger welcomed the investigation, and said she had said for year that the jail was “antiquated, inhumane, and unfit for our workforce and those incarcerated there.”
Jason Wells
manages the daily news product that you hear and read every day.
Published September 9, 2026 5:13 PM
Smoke rises from a brush fire near the Getty Center on Sept. 9, 2026.
(
CBS LA
)
Topline:
Firefighters appeared to make quick progress against a brush fire the broke out Wednesday near the Getty Center.
What we know so far: As of 5 p.m., evacuation warnings had been issued for zones LFD-0895 and LF-0967, although the LAFD said no structures were immediately threatened as the water-dropping helicopters attacked the fire from above.
Read on ... for more on evacuations and weather conditions.
This story is no longer being actively updated. For the most up-to-date information about the fire you can check:
Firefighters appeared to make quick progress against a brush fire the broke out Wednesday near the Getty Center.
As of 5 p.m., evacuation warnings had been issued for zones LFD-0895 and LF-0967, although the LAFD said no structures were immediately threatened as the water-dropping helicopters attacked the fire from above. Forward progress of the fire was reported stopped shortly after 6 p.m. at a little over 20 acres.
