Our View: Vote NO on Proposition 4: Public campaign funding: ‘Definition of insanity'

U.S. Viewpoints Our View: Vote NO on Proposition 4: Public campaign funding: 'Definition of insanity' How many times do California voters have to tell legislators that they don't want their tax dollars used to fund political campaigns? Apparently, at least one more time this November. But don't bet this will be the last time. Proposition 4 on the general election ballot is yet another attempt to convince voters to publicly fund political campaigns. They already have made themselves clear. To appreciate how clear voters have been, consider the history. In 1988, two competing propositions appeared on the ballot - 68, which would provide public financing and set spending limits for state legislative candidates; and 73, which banned public financing. Both passed, but 73 received more votes and the California Supreme Court ruled in 1990 that 73's ban prevailed. However, two years later, in 1992, the state Supreme Court ruled the ban did not prevent charter cities from adopting their own public financing systems. But consider: There are 483 incorporated municipalities in California; 125 are charter cities. In the more than three decades since that ruling, only five have opted to start their own publicly financed campaign program. Does that tell you something about how popular such a program is? That's not the end of this sad story, however. In 2000, Proposition 25, a proposal to repeal the ban and establish public financing of campaign advertising and voter information, was defeated by 65% of the voters. In 2006, Proposition 89, another attempt to establish a public financing system for state candidates, received even less support. About 74% of voters said no. But we're not through yet. In 2010, Proposition 15, which proposed a public-financing pilot program for the position of Secretary of State, was placed on the ballot. Yep, another flame out, with 57% of voters rejecting it. Tired of asking voters, the Legislature in 2016 passed SB1107, which the governor signed into law, to repeal the longstanding voter-mandated ban on publicly funding campaigns. Predictably, the state Supreme Court invalidated the law because the Legislature and governor lacked the power to sidestep voters. And that brings us to this November and Proposition 4, which has been placed on the ballot by the Legislature's passage and the governor's signing of SB 42. Kern County Republican state Sen. Shannon Grove and Assemblyman Stan Ellis voted no. Democratic state Sen. Melissa Hurtado and Assemblywoman Jasmeet Bains voted yes. It basically is the same old pitch for public campaign financing. It does include eligibility and use restrictions. In a new twist, it grants legislators the power to make future changes to the public financing law without having to return to voters for approval. Supporters of Proposition 4, who include the California Democratic Party, California Working Families Party, California Common Cause and the ACLU of California, contend the California Fair Elections Act is all about trying to improve our democracy by lessening the power of big money and expanding opportunities for more people to run for office. Opponents, who include the California Taxpayers Association and the California Republican Party, contend people, when they pay taxes, want to pay for schools, fire departments, libraries, roads, etc. The last thing they want to pay for is a negative political ad that is going to hit them on the radio or television during the election season. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.