The Brief

It’s been less than a week since the California Legislature triggered a special statewide election this November over redistricting, and already the political mail is flooding in.

The ballot measure headed to voters for a decision, Proposition 50, would allow California politicians to redraw congressional maps to benefit Democrats for elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030. It’s an effort to counter a similar move that President Donald Trump promoted successfully in Texas to benefit Republicans.

This is a high-stakes moment — your yes or no vote will affect who represents our communities and which political party will drive the nationwide agenda.

Millions of dollars are pouring in to sway your decision. As of Wednesday, more than $7 million had been raised by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ballot measure committee to support the proposition, while opponents had raised more than $10 million to fight it. This fundraising will likely continue to ramp up all the way to November.

Mailbox already stacked with campaign mailers? We’ll help you sort out who’s funding these campaigns and what information is available about them. Here’s how to follow the trail.

Step one: Examine what the mailer says 

As a first step, take a look at the mailers themselves. By law, every political ad is required to include information about who paid for it.

My newsroom colleagues have already received several anti-redistricting campaign ads from a group called Protect Voters First, so let’s start there.

At the bottom of the mailer, the text reads:

Ad paid for by Protect Voters First, sponsored by Hold Politicians Accountable

Ad Committee’s Top Funder

Charles T. Munger, Jr.

Seems straightforward enough: Charles T. Munger, Jr. is the main contributor to the group that paid for the ad in your mailbox. A quick Google search will tell you he’s a physicist and the son of the late billionaire Charles Munger, former vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. The ad wants voters to vote “no” and describes the redistricting effort as a “threat to California’s landmark election reform.”

But perhaps you’d like to know more. Who are these affiliated groups, Protect Voters First and Hold Politicians Accountable? How much money have they raised? What else have they supported in the past? And who else is funding them?

Before we dig into those details, here’s a quick recap of the basics.

A mailer paid for by the Protect Voters First committee.

(

Rene Lynch/LAist

)

Step two: Understanding political committees

• What’s a political committee? In an election, all political ad spending has to come from a committee. A political committee is any group of people (it can even be just one individual) who wants to raise or spend money to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure.
• How they work: Some committees stick around for a long time, putting money behind various measures year after year. One example is the Protect Prop. 13 committee — a project from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, an anti-tax group that has been around for decades. For the most part, committees are ephemeral: They come together for one specific purpose in an election, then disappear.
• Who's behind it? All committees have to file a form that outlines their purpose, names of officers and some basic contact details. This information alone may not be enough to reveal the source. You can find a fair amount of information about who contributed money to a committee — and that's where you'll find the really juicy details.

Step three: Where to find campaign spending information

For state ballot measures, all the campaign finance information you want to dig through can be found on the California Secretary of State’s website. Its campaign finance database is called Cal-Access.

You can look up any committee’s name from this website to find out what they’re all about — who’s listed on file as treasurer, previous names the committee has used, who’s contributed money to them and where they’ve spent that money. You can also look up any committee that is for or against any ballot measure.

As of Wednesday, there are two committees that have filed to support the measure (including Newsom’s ballot measure committee) and two that have filed to oppose it. The committee from the ad is listed here on the “oppose” side: No on Prop 50 — Protect Voters First, Sponsored by Hold Politicians Accountable.

What we found on the Protect Voters First committee

Here’s what came up:

• Who started the committee? Besides Munger, the names of the other officers listed (on a filing called Form 410) are Christopher E. Skinnell and James W. Carson — they’re attorneys based in San Rafael. The committee was formed in 2015.
• Previous names used: This committee has been around for a while under slightly different names, all of which have included “Hold Politicians Accountable.” Previously, they were “Voters First, Not Special Interests - Sponsored by Hold Politicians Accountable,” they’ve also had “Yes on 54” in their name, and before that, they were just “Hold Politicians Accountable.” (Prop. 54 was a measure from 2016 that required state bills and legislative meetings to be posted publicly to provide transparency on lawmaking.)
• How much money they’ve raised: Munger contributed a whopping $10 million on Aug. 21, the day the redistricting measure was approved in the California state Legislature, and followed that up with $90,000 more on Aug. 22. Before that, the committee had raised just $4,960.50 between January and the end of June.
• Who contributed money to them: Almost every contribution made to this committee over the past 10 years came from Munger, except for one $5,000 contribution from the New Majority PAC in 2016.
• What’s the takeaway? This committee is funded entirely by Munger. He’s not the only one spending money against the redistricting measure, but so far he’s got a $10 million head start.

What we’re watching next

You can use this process to check out any of the groups supporting or opposing Prop. 50. Remember, read the fine print on your mailer and look out for the “ad paid for by” section.

Things are moving fast with this short election cycle, so the bigger campaign fundraising landscape is still emerging into view. But here are a few details we’re keeping our eyes on:

• How much are other opponents spending? Other mailers pushing a “no” vote have been circulating, paid for by “Right Path California.” A visit to the organization’s website shows it’s headed by Jessica Millan Patterson, a former chair of the California Republican Party. Right Path California’s campaign finance forms haven’t yet been posted on the Secretary of State’s website, so it’s unclear how much they’ve raised or spent at this stage. (We reached out to Patterson and didn’t hear back by deadline.)
• Who are the supporters? Meanwhile, Newsom’s ballot measure committee is springing into fundraising action to encourage a “yes” vote with a slew of new donations over the past few weeks. The largest so far come from the House Majority PAC ($3 million), the labor union affiliate SEIU California State Council ($1 million) and business person Bill Bloomfield ($1 million). Another committee supporting the measure, the Progressive Era Issues Committee, hasn’t yet reported any contributions this past month.

We’re sure to be inundated with more campaign ads in the coming weeks — TV and internet spots, texts and robocalls — so if something catches your eye, let us know. You can reach me at blee@scpr.org.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.