Public funding for elections? The idea is back in California

A group of legislators is seeking to lift the ban on public financing for elections in California, a move to counter the ever-increasing amount of money spent on campaigns in the Golden State.

Supporters say the California Fair Elections Act could be a game changer for underfunded candidates facing well-financed opponents and make races more competitive.

“The California Fair Elections Act is all about trying to improve our Democracy and elections,” said Sen. Ben Allen (D-Santa Monica), who co-authored the bill,  in a statement to LAist. “Public financing programs serve as a tool to lessen the power of big money, expand opportunities for more people to run for office, and allow candidates to focus more on voter appeal instead of donor appeal.”

If passed, SB42, would place the measure on the November 2026 ballot. Sen. Tom Umberg (D-Anaheim) and Sen. Sabrina Cervantes (D-Riverside) are sponsors.

Common Cause, a group that fights to strengthen democracy, is among the bill’s backers.

“It’s essentially leveling the playing field,” said Sean McMorris, the group’s transparency, ethics and accountability program manager. “It’s also an attempt to diversify the candidate field, which gives voters more choice.”

Opponents of the bill,  including the California Taxpayers Association, say public money should not be given to people running for office — that the money is better spent on services for the public.

Right now, only cities governed by their own charter may enact public financing. And five of the state's 121 charter cities, including Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Francisco, Oakland and Berkeley, have done that. 

Under the proposed ballot measure, the state’s other 361 cities and 58 counties would be able to set up public financing in their jurisdictions. In addition, the state Legislature could establish public financing for statewide offices, the senate and the assembly.

The measure would allow a candidate to accept public funds unless the funds are earmarked by a state or local entity for education, transportation, or public safety. 

The bill would also require candidates to abide by expenditure limits and prohibit public funds from being used to pay legal defense fees, fines or to repay personal loans to their campaign.

Ways to publicly finance campaigns

There are a variety of public campaign financing schemes where governments use taxpayer money to fund candidates who agree to limit their spending.

In Los Angeles, candidates for City Council who agree to spending limits must first raise $5 each from 100 residents in their respective districts and about $77,000 from residents anywhere in the city before they qualify for matching funds. 

In the last election cycle, the maximum matching funds for the primary and general elections combined was $425,000. The city doled out $3.8 million in matching funds.

Trent Lange of the California Clean Money Campaign, which backs the bill, said public financing has helped diversify the L.A. City Council, which has gone from one woman member a decade ago to eight now.

“All of them were elected using public funds that helped them get their message out and run and compete,” Lange told LAist.

In the 2022 L.A. mayor’s race, billionaire Rick Caruso spent more than $100 million compared to Mayor Karen Bass’ roughly $10 million. But Bass benefitted from $2.3 million in matching funds. 

Caruso rejected spending limits, which prohibited him from receiving matching funds.

In Oakland, voters have approved a voucher program. Under the program, the city will disperse $100 in so-called Democracy Dollar vouchers to eligible residents who can then give the money to the candidate of their choice. Eligible residents must be 18-years-old, an Oakland resident and a U.S. resident or green card holder.

The program, which puts free cash in the hands of voters to spend on campaigns, launches in 2026.

A group called Los Angeles for Democracy Vouchers is lobbying L.A. to institute democracy vouchers.

Previous efforts have failed

Lange said two other efforts to overturn the statewide ban on public financing failed in 2006 and 2010.

That was before the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 landmark Citizens United decision, which prohibited restrictions on expenditures in politics.

“That decision really, really exploded the amount of money spent in politics and really raised the understanding that voters have about the problems of big money in politics,” Lange said. 

Opponents of public financing of elections argue it diverts public money from more pressing needs. Republicans have generally opposed using taxpayer dollars to finance political campaigns. 

“People when they pay taxes want to pay for schools, fire departments, libraries, roads, that sort of thing,” David Kline of the California Taxpayers Association said. “The last thing they want to pay for is a negative political ad that is going to hit them on the radio or T.V. during election season.” 

He noted someone you disagree with is going to end up getting your tax dollars under public financing of campaigns.

UCLA Law Professor Rick Hasen, director of the school’s Safeguarding Democracy Project, called public financing of elections “potentially democratizing.”

“Some of the systems have allowed for more non-traditional candidates to run - more women and racial minorities for example,” he said. 

But some worry that empowering small dollar donors with matching funds can fuel more extreme candidates, Hasen said, noting those candidates can attract large numbers of small donors.

“If you give matching funds, you might be fueling that tendency to reward flashier or more extreme candidates,” he said.

Hasen noted public financing does nothing to prevent exorbitant spending by outside groups like labor unions, corporations and wealthy individuals on campaigns.

Nonetheless, Dora Rose, of the League of Women Voters, said public financing has been a top priority of the organization.

“Public financing really helps engage unrepresented communities in the political process and it makes our democracy ultimately much stronger,” she said.

Incumbents may balk

It's far from clear that the Democrat dominated state Legislature will place the measure on the ballot. 

Politicians elected under one system tend to like that system, said Fredric Woocher, an attorney and recognized expert on campaign finance law.

“Obviously, under the current system it's easier to raise funds as an incumbent than it is as a challenger,” he told LAist.

Woocher said, progressive candidates in Los Angeles who otherwise may have been underfunded have benefitted from public financing.

“We’ve seen a number of these progressive candidates compete in elections and win in races where they probably wouldn’t have been able to without public financing,” he said.

Woocher pointed to the victory of progressive candidate Zohran Mamdani in New York’s Democratic primary for mayor as another example of matching funds helping a progressive candidate.

Umberg, one of the sponsors of the bill, said if the Legislature places the measure on the ballot and voters approve it, voters in individual cities would still need to approve public financing. “Its not mandatory,” he said.

“The playing field is never going to be completely level but it is a step toward leveling the playing field where the average Joe or Jane has a more profound voice than they do today,” Umberg said.

The bill is currently being held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee. A vote is expected on Aug. 29.

If approved, it would move to the full Assembly.