We continue with our look at the propositions on the November 2026 ballot in California (links to previous posts are at the bottom of this post) by examining Proposition 4, which, if passed, would allow public funding of election campaigns. What could possibly go wrong?
Presently, California prohibits the use of public funds for most state and local-level elections. Federal elections are their own universe, and some charter cities do make funds available for city elections. Some examples of cities so inclined are San Francisco, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Berkeley, and Oakland. If there’s a better argument against such financing, darned if I know what it is.
The proposed law would authorize state and local governments to, quoting the voters’ manual:
… create public campaign financing programs in the future if they wish. Proposition 4 does not create a public campaign finance system for the state or local governments directly.
Gee, even coloring books have lines to suggest where the different colors should go.
Okay, so what does the law do? Some background: California has a Fair Political Practices Commission. According to its website, the Commission is:
… a five-member independent, non-partisan commission that has primary responsibility for the impartial and effective administration of the (1974) Political Reform Act.
The commission consists of a chair — a person, not an actual chair, smartalecs — and four commissioners. The chair and one of the commission members are appointed by the Governor, and must not be from the same political party. The other three commissioners are appointed, one each, by the State Controller, Secretary of State, and Attorney General. No more than three members can be from the same political party. At present, there is a vacancy on the commission. As always, there will not be a quiz in the morning.
Here’s where it gets interesting. Proposition 4 is written in a way that would warm the heart of any Obama administration official, as it treats the law more in the realm of suggestion than, you know, law. It sets vague rules regarding campaign finance programs, leaving many of the details up to whichever local body chooses to take them on. For example, it states a candidate must meet “strict criteria” to be eligible for public funds. Yet when asked to define “strict criteria,” this is the definition:
“Strict criteria” means the requirements set by statute, ordinance, or charter that candidates must meet to receive public funds. These criteria shall require candidates to demonstrate broad-based support in their district, such as by requiring candidates to receive small-dollar contributions or vouchers from a specified number of voting-age residents.
I hear several NFL franchises are currently trying to discover who wrote this to find out if they are as good at kicking a football as kicking the can down the road.
Surely the vaunted Fair Political Practices Commission has massive input and oversight into this …
The Commission is not responsible for the administration or enforcement of a system of public funding of candidates established by a local governmental agency.
Sleep easy, Californians, your local yokels will be in charge of setting up the rules and regulations. What could go wrong? I mean, you already have public financing in most of your major cities, and they’re running like a well-oiled machine … assuming, of course, your definition of a well-oiled machine is a certain currently offline nuclear power plant near Pripyat, Ukraine.
California’s Proposition 4 has just enough rules to make it sound semi-plausible, yet on close examination reveals itself to be the living embodiment of the great man Ronald Reagan’s quip about how the nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help.” It is a legal Etch A Sketch, waiting for someone else to design a law no one needs and no one, save politicians, wants. The problem in California isn’t the lack of public financing for candidates seeking public office. It’s how said candidates are, far more often than not, found utterly lacking.
Earlier:
- Proposition 1 — California State Proposition Pledges to Help Veterans Obtain Affordable Housing, Sort Of
- Proposition 2 — A Rainy Day Fund Increase, or Making a Shell Game the State's Umbrella?
- Proposition 3 — In Shocking (or Not) Development, California Asks Voters to Make Temporary Tax Increase Permanent