Latest / Groundwork Policy / 2026 California Props 44, 45, and 4: What They Actually Do

Transcript

2026 California Props 44, 45, and 4: What They Actually Do · Groundwork Policy

• Sean Bhardwaj: Today we're talking about why doctors, hospitals, and clinics are fighting a measure that says 90% of their money has to go to patient care. James Joyce III: While construction unions are spending millions against a measure that would get housing, water and energy projects approved faster. Sean Bhardwaj: And why the one measure on your ballot about money in politics has no money behind it. This is Groundwork, the podcast where we take what's being decided at the local, regional, and state levels and tell you what it actually does to you, your business, and your community, and most importantly, what you can do about it. I'm Sean Bhardwaj I work with business owners and leaders, so I read every policy the way they would. What would this do to my organization? James Joyce III: And I'm James Joyce. I was trained as a journalist and I've worked inside government for more than a decade. So I know some of the players and how the game gets played. We do the homework and follow the money, so you see what each choice gets you, and we'll each tell you where we land. Where you land is your call. Sean Bhardwaj: this week, the ballots are going out, and we're gonna be taking all of the measures on them, but a handful at a time. Today we're gonna jump into propositions 44, 45, and 4. Let's get into it. So Prop 44 at the surface sounds like something we can all get behind. Community clinics that serve low-income patients would have to spend 90% of their revenue on patient care or pay a penalty. If we look at it at the local level here in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, that's groups like Clinicas del Camino Real and Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinics. If your employees get their care there, this one's about your business too. James, why would anyone oppose this? James Joyce III: The yes side says clinics that run on public money should answer for how they spend it. And too much of it goes towards executive pay, consultants, overhead, things instead of patient care. The no side, the clinics, the doctors, the nurses, those groups are saying that it would close clinics, cut services, and hand the attorney general the power to decide what counts as care. But what I think it's really doing is is in encouraging a cultural shift, right? both sides say that they want more of the money reaching patients. they just tend to be split on whether executive pay is the problem, how fast to get there, and what tool to use. the way I read it, the yes side wants to force the shift now with a hard number. knowing that it hurts before it helps. The 90% sets the floor on how clinics spend everything they bring in. And the culture inside them is how is what's supposed to follow. So Sean, what's under the hood? Sean Bhardwaj: So if you've run a business, there's gonna be two words in here that I think are really important. The first is the word overhead, which is a very small word that describes a very large amount of things. It's everything it takes to run the place besides treating patients. So rent, IT, the front desk, the calls that schedule appointments, things in the stock room, all of that is overhead. And executive pay is just one piece of the puzzle. Now, how do we decide what counts as overhead? Well, in businesses, their standard accounting practices. But if this proposition were to pass, what counts as care would be up to the attorney general. And the second word in here that I think is really important is revenue. The 90% number is based on everything a clinic brings in, not its net profit and not what it spends. So this is money that a clinic puts into building a new site or saves as a reserve. That doesn't count as care. So if you run a clinic that's saving up to open up a second site, the year you save might be the year you missed the bar, even though no one got paid a dollar more. So to make this really clear, let's imagine it applied to your neighborhood grocery store. 90 cents of every dollar that comes in has to go to the food on the shelves. All of the other things, the shelves, the checkout, the lights, the rent, the refrigeration, all would come out of the 10 cents that's left out of that dollar. And I think that's a very difficult way to run a business. So James, how is this decision gonna be made by the Attorney General, who, to my knowledge, is not an expert in clinics or healthcare either? James Joyce III: Well, Sean, it starts with a line on the clinic's federal tax returns, that one line for program services. Essentially, the attorney general gets to move things in or out of that line and hasn't said how that's going to be done. The measure sets no deadline. the office can just announce its decision, skipping the formal process for when the public gets to comment on how this impact is gonna play out. You miss the bar and the clinic pays the shortfall as a penalty. It can get the money back if it clears the bar within five years, but until then the cash is gone But Sean, this isn't all clinics, is it? Sean Bhardwaj: That's right, James. So this only applies to private nonprofit community clinics. and so county run and tribal clinics are exempt, hospitals aren't touched at all. James Joyce III: That's the no sides case. and the way I'd put it, it's a hammer when we could really use a scalpel it's it's one number that ninety percent figure, that's one number for all the clinics. And so it's kind of a blanket rule for something that requires much more nuance. Sean Bhardwaj: So, James, let's do our box score, which is something we do with every measure. we're gonna give it a number from one to ten, one being not at all and ten being a perfect match, for whether these propositions, do what it say it's going to do on the box? this is not about whether it's a good idea or not. And we'll get into the whether or not it's a good idea in a minute here. So James, where do you land on the box score for Prop 44? James Joyce III: I I'd give my box score for Prop 44 about an eight saying that on my read, the aim is to ensure that most money for these clinics is used towards the patients. It says that. I think it would do that for good or bad. How about you? Where are you? Sean Bhardwaj: So I'm actually at a four right now. I don't think this is outright misleading, but when we're setting this ratio and applying it to a small subset of clinics, I don't think it's gonna guarantee that you're gonna get the intended effects that people are saying in terms of reducing executive pay, and you might get a bunch of unintended effects. James, let's get into who's lining up on each side. James Joyce III: the folks that are supporting this measure are essentially the people who introduced it: SEIU United Healthcare Workers. these are the healthcare workers, the people who staff hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes. So far, they've put in about $17 million in the campaign to get this passed. On the contrast is the no folks, The the clinics themselves. they've raised about twice as much $34 million to oppose this measure. So what's interesting to me on this is who is aligned with the union, right? Normally a a union measure Brings in other unions as part of that coalition to get the measure passed. This one brought in the State Federation of Labor and not much else. To me, that makes it one union's measure, not necessarily a labor measure. And it's a union known for ballot measures. Since it's also the same union that's behind the billionaire's tax. And we'll talk about that a little bit more in a future episode. And so what we have here is we have the doctors, hospitals, and nurses who are usually at odds over pay and who's allowed to do what. They're together on Prop 44, on the same side, along with the teachers union and the state's business chamber. Sean Bhardwaj: Yeah, and what's interesting, James, the doctors group say that it hands the attorney general control over what clinics spend on. And a leader of that family doctors group wrote that closures would push patients into crowded emergency rooms. James, this sounds like something that could have been handled, with these groups talking to each other. How did this end up? James Joyce III: Well, it did start that way, And it started as a bill in 2025. that bill cleared a committee, but it never made its way to get voted on for by the full assembly. so the union gathered the signatures necessary and took it to voters instead. the Clinics Trade Association sued to keep it off the ballot, and a federal court said that the clinics aren't gonna be harmed unless the measure passes, and so they can challenge it then. There's talk that all of this is tied to a longer dispute between the unions and the association over clinic workers. The bill carved out any clinic that joined a statewide committee made up half of unions, half of clinics. And in September, the association sued the union, claiming it offered to drop the measure if clinics let the workers vote to join. The union calls that false, and the case is still in court. this one has ended up before voters after extensive efforts at both the legislative challenges at the judicial level and now collecting enough signatures and the will to put it before voters So Sean, what does Prop 44 mean if you run a business or an organization around here? Sean Bhardwaj: So I think the good news is there's time to weigh in. Obviously, voting is the first step, but if this proposition were to pass, the 90% rule doesn't apply right away. What counts as care still has to be decided by the Attorney General. And it's good to remember that that is a publicly elected office, which means you can reach out to them and let your opinion be known. But here's how it reaches business, Covered clinics spend already, on average, about 80% of their revenue on care today. So let's picture one. That's like $100 million per year in revenue. So to clear this bar, it would have to shift $10 million out of its overhead bucket and into care, or they would pay $10 million as a penalty, So I think the first thing that would happen is this would be an accounting exercise. you would figure out what counts as care, and you would relabel as many things as possible to fit it. And then whatever is left has to come out of that. And so that might mean that let's say you could. Can only get 5 million out of that 10 million into care. So your total spend right now is 85%. you have to get to 90. And so rather than spending that 5 million as a penalty, clinics might just be cutting things that count as overhead. So that could be schedulers and phones and the front desk, or maybe they're closing an entire site because that doesn't directly line up, And so I don't know that cutting executive pay would be the first or or any of the steps that are taken and even if they did a seven figure salary is still just like a small slice of that so a lot of other things would still get cut. James Joyce III: So what does a clinic do while it waits to hear from the attorney general what counts as care? Sean Bhardwaj: fundamentally for businesses, it's about managing the uncertainty. So what they're gonna already start to do if they think this is gonna pass is to protect their cash. The clinics that are affected by this proposition Don't really turn a giant profit. Many of them operate at a loss. there's no cushion for them to pay that penalty from. So they're going to probably stop filling jobs as people leave, because that saves money without laying anyone off you're going to reduce buying things that count as overhead, You're gonna look at your leases, you're gonna look at all of the different levers we've talked about, What that means for the businesses within the community is if your workforce uses these clinics or your neighbors do, in lower wage professions, think about farms or hospitality or home care or food processing, that may make it harder for those folks to get health care, or it might be too far away. And so they might just either A, not get care, B, have to travel further, or C, wait until things are bad enough to go to the emergency room, which is far more expensive for everyone involved. This sets an interesting precedent for a nonprofit that takes public money. And so if the state gets into the habit of deciding the spending ratio for a private nonprofit, does this stop at clinics? Or or does this, you know, maybe start to expand and we see it happening in other areas? So, James, how would this affect someone who's walking into one of these nonprofit clinics? What would they notice if this passed? James Joyce III: Yeah, let's just say interpreters end up counted as overhead. as one leaves, the job stays open. translation services drop to two days a week where it might have been four day or five days a week previously. a kiosk takes place of a person during check-in. we see less human interaction and interaction with more computers and machines. Sean Bhardwaj: what's the impact to everyone who never sets foot in one of these clinics? Why should they care? James Joyce III: Well, essentially if clinics cut, some of their patients end up in our county's own clinics and hospitals, and that lands on the county's budget and which taxpayers pay that. Sean Bhardwaj: Okay, so let's get down to where we land on this, Is this 90% rule a good way to get more of a clinic's money to patients and patient care and less to executive pay and overhead? James Joyce III: I think it's a way to the end goal of ensuring that more of a clinic's money is spent on patients. when I say a way, it's a blunt object towards a long-term cultural shift as the aim. Sometimes we have to pay a short-term pain for long-term gain, and money taken to serve patients should reach them. But I can't ignore and lean towards the coalition against it, the ability to coalesce around an issue should still mean something. And the Union is standing alone essentially pushing this more than once. And even if it passes, it could still face challenges in court. So where do you come down, Sean? Sean Bhardwaj: Yeah, I think I'm I'm with you on that last point, James. I don't think this is the best approach for the argument that it's making that executive pay and healthcare is out of control. if that is the goal, I could get behind it if this was more focused, but this seems like what it'll actually do is just create an accounting exercise. That ultimately reduces services at clinics So while we're taking all these actions and we're saying we want to increase patient care and increase the quality of patient care, this seems to do the opposite And so with everything that we've learned that's going on behind the scenes, behind the with the union and the clinics, I wonder if this 90% thing is the whole point, or if it's just the football that's being kicked around for for something else. James Joyce III: Yeah, Sean, and essentially that's what makes civic engagement in this great democracy fun, isn't it? Sean Bhardwaj: It is, James. And I think if the goal is to cap executive pay, why not add some hard numbers and say it's capped at some multiple of the lowest paid staff and make it apply to everyone, Or or at least any organization that takes state money for care and include the hospitals. why wouldn't something like that work? James Joyce III: Not saying that it couldn't. Philosophically, it could. Mechanically, it's a challenge, these clinics run mostly off of public money, so the state can attach strings to that money. capping pay across all of healthcare is a big elephant, and you eat a big elephant one bite at a time. Sean Bhardwaj: So, to bottom line it, a yes means that private nonprofit community clinics have to spend at least 90% of everything they bring in on patient care every year with the Attorney General deciding what counts. A clinic that falls short pays the difference as a penalty. A no on this means that those clinics keep today's rules with no required share for patient care. James, if this passes, what can people do about it? James Joyce III: the Attorney General decides what counts as care. and that's an elected office. there's no deadline or comment period to wait for as far as making those comments. So call or write the office right away. Sean Bhardwaj: And what happens if it fails, but you're interested in some of the ideas that are behind it? James Joyce III: Sure, the the legislature has already had this once as a bill. the full assembly never voted on it, just got out of committee. so if you if you want to go with a narrower a more narrow tool, there's still a likelihood that it could happen at the legislative level. And so reach out to your assembly member, reach out to your state senator and let them know how you feel on this issue. Sean Bhardwaj: Alright, that covers prop 44, so let's go ahead and move to prop forty five. 45 gives projects on an essential list like housing, water, clean energy, clinics, schools, and broadband an optional fast track through California's environmental review. If you need one of those built, or you'd live next door to one, this one is for you. James, for everyone who isn't a real estate developer, what is this regulation called CEQA? James Joyce III: it's an acronym for the California Environmental Quality Act. it means that before a project gets approved, someone has to study what it's going to do to and for the environment. It's essentially the thing that makes California California. It's also one of the rules that makes building take time. it's one of the top complaints from anyone who wants to build. housing or other projects in California saying CEQA slows things up. Sean Bhardwaj: for this proposition, what are the two sides arguing about? James Joyce III: Sure, the yes side says delays and red tape are blocking the basics we need and driving up costs of living, so, yeah, we want to still have environmental review, but we want it to be faster. The no size says it limits environmental review and the public's right to be heard, and that nothing in it guarantees cheaper homes or lower bills. Where I stand government was built to move slowly, intentionally, and I support that. But the slow movement shouldn't just be slow movement for slow movement's sake. Let's just say Goleta for instance, is building roughly 1800 houses, In a normal year, Lake Cachuma supplies about three-quarters of Galita's water. Add those 1800 houses, drawing from that same water there's less water for the homes that already exist. So when a fire pops up, where does that water come from? Weighing that, is essentially what this environmental review would do. What does a project get if it opts in though? Sean Bhardwaj: Yeah, James. So this really sounds like a shot clock, right? so if you opt in, the agencies doing the environmental review get 365 business days to finish it, which is more than a year. It's actually about 17 months. And smaller reviews will get shorter clocks. if they do not get the review done in that time, the applicant, Can demand a hearing where the agency has 60 days to say yes or no. And if they still don't decide whether to say yes or no, the applicant can go to court to make them say so, And so the win is a decision, not approval. So what this is really doing is buying an end to waiting and waiting an unknown period of time. so if you're building like a clinic or a water line. This clock would tell you when you'll get an answer, but whether or not it's a yes or no answer still depends on the agency doing the review. a project can stay on today's track or it can take the new rules if this were to pass, even piece by piece, And so if you're already deep in today's process and you're halfway through the current review timeline, you might not want to just restart with the new rules. but James, just like before. what counts as essential is gonna be key in this. Do you have any insight on that? James Joyce III: The measure spells it out itself. fire, police stations, wildfire work and transportation. it says what's out, no nuclear plants, no tunnel under the delta, no high speed rail, no new oil or gas production. Where the two sides disagree is the edge of that list. The broadband category covers internet services to customers plus the equipment around it. A data center is a building full of computers that run websites and AI. The sponsors say that can't count, and the opponents say it could pass as equipment serving internet customers. That tends to be a sticking point. The state just added scrutiny of its own. A new law requires environmental review for every data center. So Prop 45 wouldn't skip that review. It would put it on a clock. And how those two fit together is still an open question, When Santa Barbara City Council weighed in on this issue back in September, it didn't take a position. And the reason was largely because of that data center issue. But I think the important thing here is to remember is that nothing gets skipped from review. Sean Bhardwaj: Yeah, I think that's maybe the strongest argument for the folks backing this bill, right? Is like this doesn't carve out an exemption. Every environmental law still applies, but it just changes the clock, which also changes how long the public gets to comment and what a court can do about a flawed review. so let's get into box score time. James, to what degree, does Prop 45 do what it says on the box? James Joyce III: I'd give this one a seven. It seems clearly stated. The goal is to shorten the timeline and to not skip any part of the process. But for me, it's tinkering with a landmark regulatory process known as CEQA. And I maintain that skepticism towards that Knowing the power that the policy carries for developers and their opportunity to make money. There's a potential for a hidden incentive there. Where are you at on this one, Sean? Sean Bhardwaj: Yeah, I'd give this one an 8 It feels pretty specific and pretty targeted. So let's take a look at who's backing 45 and who's against it, if there's anything interesting there. James Joyce III: yes, follow the money. Among the top donors, you'll see that twenty-six million dollars have of it of the yes supporters for this have been from home builders, the business chambers, the region's electric company. the no side has raised about 19 million, and that's mostly from environmental groups, construction unions, and one philanthropist. the biggest single check on the yes side comes from a committee. set up mainly to fight the billionaires tax. And we'll get into that more in the next episode. The builders and the electric company, that makes sense. Housing, power lines for clean energy, and wildfire work are all on the list, and they'd move much faster under this proposal. Here's the surprise we started with. Construction unions are paying to stop a measure that would get projects approved faster. Their stated reason is that it takes away a family's right. To make sure a project is safe. A longtime state columnist has written that construction unions have used challenges to a project's review, which can hold it up. It's a tactic to press builders towards more union labor. And my read is that a 30-day window to file a challenge shrinks that leverage for the construction unions. But Sean, what changes for a business that needs something built under this proposal? Sean Bhardwaj: Yeah, so again, nothing moves faster until the election results are official. So vote, get people to vote, either either way you lean. And a project then has to be filed under the new rules. So I think the big question is for the developers is the time what's stopping the projects you need? and or if it's in your community and you're not a real estate developer, do you feel like there are essential projects that you need, like housing that your employees Can afford or water or enough power to hook up a new building. if those are some of the challenges that you or your business has faced, then this might be something that seems good for you to speed up that paperwork on projects this doesn't change the laws. So, you're still gonna have to pay the same costs, still have to figure out your financing, zoning, all those fun things. But the paperwork can be sped up. And you have some sense of predictability about when you will know when things happen. And that's very useful for business leaders. If you're an organization that builds, so you don't just have to be a real estate developer, you can be a clinic, a school, or a water district. you can opt in project by project. The good part about it is the review will use the laws that are written on the day you file. And so you can budget for the approvals and the timelines on the things you know instead of rules that change halfway through, which can be really important for those multi-year build projects, right, for complex infrastructure. James, what does this do though for enforcement, on the local level? James Joyce III: it lands on the cities and the counties planning staff. What is their capacity? They don't have unlimited people. every reviewer already carries a caseload, and these reviews take water and soil experts, planners, not necessarily somebody just sitting there stamping paperwork. so when a stack of fast track projects lands on on a desk, either everything else waits or the reviewer gets rushed. So under a deadline, things can slip through the cracks. What it doesn't touch is SORE, and that's Ventura County specific. That's Ventura County's rule that farmland and open space can't be rezoned without a public vote. So the county's voters will still decide whether farmland gets built on. Sean Bhardwaj: And how would this affect, you know, folks who are living next door to one of these projects? or if it's happening in your community, how does it impact your ability to have a say in what's going on? James Joyce III: Well, today, if a neighbor sues and wins, the court can stop the whole project until the review gets fixed. On the fast track, a court can stop only the part that broke the rules. And the court generally has 270 days to finish that review. so the rest of the project is able to keep going. The window to raise a concern changes too. So today the law sets at the least amount of time. To get a comment for a project. On the fast track, it sets the most 45 days for a full review. So whether it's a water supply or traffic on the street, you're going to have to be on your P's and Q's to make sure that you're getting your input heard on these kinds of projects. And to top it all off, we're all busy folks and have numerous things to keep track of. Sean Bhardwaj: so James, is this a fast track shot clock kind of thing, a good way to get essential projects approved faster and still protect the environment? Can we have our our development cake and and eat it too? James Joyce III: Yeah, well, with what I've flagged so far, under a deadline, things can slip through the cracks, as I said. And with CEQA's history, there may be motives beyond just that speed, with data centers as the main flag for that, so I think this might be more of a drastic step than what's needed How are you feeling about it, Sean? Sean Bhardwaj: Yeah, I definitely see the risks more clearly now that we've talked through it, but I still think this is a good way to get there, a shot clock and a fixed rule book are worth a lot to anyone trying to build something. It creates predictability, which is really useful in budgeting and planning. but where I think this might be missing something is how are we gonna pay for faster reviews, it might be that we need more people to run the review processes. And so we got to find some money to pay for that. James Joyce III: Indeed, I don't disagree with that. I have some concerns about staff capacity as well. can AI be helpful in speeding up environmental review? Is that something that they're utilizing? How does that all work out? those are areas of opportunity. Sean Bhardwaj: so what if we keep the shot clock and we use the application fees to fund folks staffing up or or having better tools to do the reviews so that the timeline's actually doable? Why isn't something like that in the measure? James Joyce III: Yeah, a city or county can already charge an applicant a reasonable fee to recover some of those review costs. So money isn't the whole gap here. the legislative analyst office, the LAO, the legislators non partisan budget office, it says that fees would cover some of the new costs, and its review doesn't say who does the work. Sean Bhardwaj: Okay, well if that's the case and the funding is baked in, I might even have to bump my box score up. But let's bottom line this. So a yes on Proposition forty five means a project on the essential list could choose a fast track, agencies get about seventeen months for a full review, public comment gets a cap, and a court can only stop a part of a project that broke the rules. A no means that every project keeps going through the review process in the same way it does today. So James, if 45 passes, where do people go to have a say? James Joyce III: Well, the list is set, so the question moves to the first project that tests its edge. Like a data center. For most local projects, your city council, the planning commission, they still make the call. So that's the room to be in, and that's the system to continue to engage. Sean Bhardwaj: And if it doesn't pass. James Joyce III: Yeah, last year's law that already sped up most housing inside built up towns, that stays in place. the next round happens in Sacramento. That's the state assembly, the same members the of the assembly and your Senate that we pointed to before. go reach out to them, plus the governor who just vetoed a bill that he said would slow the push to build. Sean Bhardwaj: Okay, that covers prop 45. Let's move on to prop 4. Proposition four Lifts California's ban on public money for political campaigns. It doesn't build a program or make anyone build one. It leaves the state, your county, your city, and your school board to decide whether to and what kind. James, some cities can actually already do this, Why is that? James Joyce III: Indeed, Sean. Ventura and Santa Barbara, they're charter cities, which essentially means that they run their own charter for some things. and the courts have let charter cities fund campaigns since 1992 Oxnard and both counties, Santa Barbara County and Ventura County, run under the state's rules. So the ban holds for them today. Sean Bhardwaj: Okay, so where do people split on this one? James Joyce III: Yeah, the yes side says big donors decide who can run, and public money lets a candidate without wealthy backers compete in that environment. The no side says it puts tax money into politicians' campaigns with no cap on how many candidates or how much. Almost everyone agrees a good teacher should be able to run for school board, and nobody wants a blank check for politicians. The split is whether tax money should pay. For politicking at all. Sean Bhardwaj: I'm thinking of this like a permission slip. It lets the state, your county, your city, or your school board build a program and leaves the design to whoever's doing the building. By itself, this doesn't fund any campaigns or allocate any funds or say anyone has to spend any money on it. So nothing changes until one of them acts. And programs can come in more than one shape. in Los Angeles, they match each small donation six times over. So if you are a candidate who has a lot of neighbors behind you and you've done the groundwork to go knock on doors and build that coalition, you can compete with someone who just has a few big checks. Seattle actually gives residents vouchers that they can sign over to the candidates they pick, and then that's a way that they can do fundraising, which is really interesting. But if you take something like a city council seat in Ventura, they have certain laws where they've said, a campaign can run up to $55,000 under the city's voluntary spending ceiling, But this type of program, if they put something in place, could make that money easier. To come by. At the same time, this only affects campaigning, so the cost of running, But it does not change how much a person would make if they ran and won So, James, are there any strings that come with this sort of stuff that we should be on the lookout for? James Joyce III: Any program comes with limits that only voters can change. no school, road, or public safety money. Candidates have to show support in their district and accept spending limits. No public money for legal bills or to pay themselves back, as far as candidates, and no favoring incumbents or a particular party. Because if we remember, local positions, local elected local elected offices in California are by state constitution nonpartisan. It's and it's not only a local issue, right? The legislature could build a program for state races by passing a law as well. it can also rewrite the definition behind those limits with a two-thirds vote without going back to the voters. So the choice is local. And part of the rule book stays in the hands of Sacramento. Sean Bhardwaj: Let's do our box scores. James, how do you feel about Prop 4 James Joyce III: Yeah, this one's pretty clear for me. it I'd give it a ten. it aims to provide the ability for a local body to decide, and there's essentially no campaign money for or against it. Simple enough, your turn. Sean Bhardwaj: I'll I'll give it a nine. I'm not seeing any peekaboos inside this and it seems to do what it says says it does. but I guess I'm more of a tough grader. but James who's taking a side on this if there's no campaign money behind it? James Joyce III: it is interesting. Almost nobody is spending money. the only money that's come in is is about a quarter million dollars as as last report we were checking at the beginning of October. the yes side is the good government groups, they're s on the same side as the state's labor federation. The no side is the taxpayer groups, the board of the state's business chamber, they voted no too. so the big players aren't neutral. Business is against it, labor tends to lean for it, but neither has written a big check to go towards their view. So my read on why is the measure taxes nothing and builds nothing. Right? Nobody gains or loses a dollar until someone builds a program. So the money waits for that, The two times voters saw public financing with a price tag. A corporate tax in 2006 and a fee on lobbyists in 2010. they turned those down. Sean Bhardwaj: So how did 4 make its journey onto the ballot? James Joyce III: Yeah, with this one, voters wrote the ban themselves in 1988 The legislature repealed that ban in 2016 and a court said only voters who can only voters can undo what voters did. And so the legislature put the question back in front of the voters, and here we are. Sean Bhardwaj: That's really interesting. So we kind of get to go back and look at something from 38 years ago, and decide if if that's still the way we want things to to operate. That's our that's our democracy at work. James, I wonder if we can get a little bit more, personal about this. You ran for mayor of Santa Barbara in 2021. how would something like this have, changed the experience you and others had if it was to pass? James Joyce III: Well, it would put public financing option on the table. I was one of six candidates running for mayor of Santa Barbara in 2021 by September of that November election year, I'd raised $42,000 the candidate who won that race, by that same time had won had raised close to $240,000 So there was a an imbalance in how much money was raised. What that means for a campaign is how much money can you spend on advertising, reaching out to voters to get your message out? how many mailers can you pay for? Because the people who are likely to vote, they get mailers sent to their home encouraging the vote one way or the other. And so what a public option would do would level the playing field to be able to pay for some of those things and less focus on actually raising the funds to pay for those things. If a county or city here builds a program, what changes for businesses? Sean Bhardwaj: so the good news is like many policies, right, nothing changes immediately. so there's time. and no program exists until someone makes one, as we've talked about. if you engage in policy by writing checks, you would have to watch your leverage, So in a race for county supervisor here, one check can be as large as five thousand nine hundred. And if this were to pass and and new programs were to be put in place, a candidate who takes public Money has to agree to a spending limit. And so they might not be able to take that much money from one organization or one individual. And the same goes for any of the other associations and groups that currently fund campaigns. On the other hand, I think you get people who are easier to reach without paying as much, right? Because everyone is capped. And they all have more of an incentive to be responsive to larger associations and coalitions, whether those are formal trade groups or Or informally voters in communities. It just depends on how it's actually implemented within your community. And on that note, James, how would this work out for individuals and the community at large? James Joyce III: Well, what it could mean is a shop owner or your employee could afford to be a candidate for office. it might make running for local office in some of these places, if not easier, viable for a larger group of people, And so making it more inclusive to make decision makings in your local government. if we follow the money, whatever kind of program a place builds comes out of the general fund, right? Because schools, roads, and public safety money is off limits, it's only coming from the general fund. And so in the case of Los Angeles, which budgets about 15 million for a two-year election cycle, accounting your city here could spend a small fraction of that. And it would still compete with everything else that funds pay for. Sean Bhardwaj: Okay, so let's let's kind of talk about where we land on this. is lifting the ban a good way to open up who can run for office? James Joyce III: It's one way. It removes a barrier with respect to local control. You still need to pay attention. Good people still need to step up to run for office. If local entities, the state legislature approve a program, it could provide more equity in fundraising dollars for potential candidates. Same question for you, Sean. Sean Bhardwaj: I think this gives more options and local control and potentially enables more people to participate in the election process. And those folks would hopefully be more responsive while requiring less dollars to support them. But this doesn't guarantee that any places are going to actually make these changes and create these programs. So I don't expect this to be a wholesale fix. James Joyce III: Okay, to be fair, the no sides best case, It's tax money going to campaigns, including candidates you'd never vote for, out of the same general fund that pays for a city's other services. And no program touches what outside groups spend on their own. Sean Bhardwaj: Yeah, so if I'm reading this right, it also doesn't touch the cost of serving, So I think Ventura City Council seats pay six hundred a month, which still locks people out unless they can afford to serve without getting paid. So why not pair something like this with a pay scale? For every elected seat, city, county, state, the way the federal government has for most of its civilian employees. James Joyce III: Well, Sean, I think that the answer for this one lies in that space of local control. it makes sense for the people closest to an issue to decide the outcome of that issue. the city charter in cities like Ventura or Santa Barbara, those cities already are making determinations on. what their elected officials are compensated. You wouldn't want that decision coming from folks in Sacramento. You want that coming from folks that are closest to the community that's going to be impacted by that. State law already sets a pay schedule for general law cities. and so in charter cities like Ventura or Santa Barbara versus those general law cities, that pay can swing widely from city to city. state law has also given county supervisors the ability to set their own pay. and so all of these local compensation levels are determined. at the local level. Sean Bhardwaj: Okay, so bottom line here is that a yes vote on Prop 4 means that the state, your county, your city, or your school board could build a public financing program for candidates. It can't use funds that are specifically for school, road, or public safety. and candidates would have to show local support and accept spending limits. A no means that the ban f stays for the state and most local governments, except for charter cities like the ones we talked about, Ventura and Santa Barbara, and and others. So James, if this passes, who should people talk to and and what should they do about it? James Joyce III: Well, as you pointed out, Sean, this proposal essentially remove or provides a permission slip. And so nothing exists until somebody builds it. So tell your county supervisor, your city council members, your school board members now whether you'd want a program and what should be in that program. For state races, that's your assembly member and your state senator, Sean Bhardwaj: Okay, so what if voters say no, we don't want this? James Joyce III: The ban stays everywhere except in the charter cities as we had identified earlier. Ventura and Santa Barbara can build a program either way right now. and four of Ventura's seven, the four of the city of Ventura's seven council seats are on the same ballot as this measure. So ask those candidates how they feel on this measure. Sean Bhardwaj: All right, that covers prop four, and that's our episode. James Joyce III: Next time, three measures about who pays. Prop 40 is a one-time tax on billionaires. Prop three makes a tax on high earners permanent. And prop one is a housing bond. If you're wondering what those would do to your taxes, your business, or your rent. This one's for you. Sean Bhardwaj: Groundwork is a podcast from Common Ground Policy and Public Affairs. The rest of the week we do this work for businesses and organizations. We tell them what's coming at the local, regional, and state levels, what it means, help them decide what to do about it, and see it through with them. James Joyce III: If you like this, send it to someone you know who needs help filling out their ballot this year. Also, if you have different ideas, questions, or something we didn't get to, tell us in the comments. And if your organization needs support with policy and public affairs, reach out to us at hello @ common groundppa.com. And let's talk.