Search the site

Enter a name, publication or topic to begin.

    Menu
    No on 38
    12 major editorial boards all agree: No on Prop 38The Daily CalifornianSanta Cruz SentinelThe Press DemocratThe Bakersfield CalifornianSan Francisco ChronicleThe Mercury NewsSanta Barbara IndependentSacramento Bee / McClatchy CaliforniaSan Francisco Bay GuardianBay Area ReporterSan Diego Union-TribuneOrange County Register
    The Mercury NewsNew · November 2 · Campaign Q&AWe asked the No on Prop. 38 campaign why voters should reject the measureRead the campaign Q&A San Francisco Chronicle · Emily HoevenThis is the worst measure on California’s ballot — and Gavin Newsom supports itRead the full column

    Proposition 38: Follow the money

    A billionaire is pushing Prop 38.It steers $4.2 billion to one institution. His.And California taxpayers get the bill—for 20 years.

    This billionaire-backed measure would require an estimated $500 million to $600 million in General Fund payments every year for roughly 20 years—putting more pressure on California’s already constrained budget.

    Donate to defeat Prop 38 See what’s in the fine print ↓Watch the four-minute overview ↓Read the CalMatters reporting ↗

    Follow the money. Vote No.

    Follow No on 38

    Campaign news, videos and ways to help.

    $4.2Bpositioned for one unnamed institution
    $8.4Bin taxpayer-backed borrowing
    20 yearsof estimated General Fund payments

    Featured video · 51 seconds

    Her questions deserve answers.

    Marianne O’Malley · Former state legislative analyst

    Marianne O’Malley asks the proponents of Proposition 38 key questions. Watch her message, then help others see it.

    Download video · MP4Open shareable video page →

    Vertical 9:16 · Captioned · 51 seconds · 11.5 MB

    Share this link: https://votenoonprop38.org/marianne

    About Proposition 38

    Good science deserves better than Proposition 38.

    Medical research matters. So do open competition, independent review and honest accounting for public money.

    About Prop 38 · Video overview

    What’s wrong with Proposition 38?

    David Panush, co-chair of the No on Proposition 38 campaign, explains the measure’s funding arrangement, transparency exemptions, and long-term cost to California taxpayers.

    4 minutes, 25 seconds

    About Prop 38 · Video overview

    Robert Kaplan on the cost and the science

    Robert Kaplan, co-chair of the No on Proposition 38 campaign and a former NIH associate director, explains the measure’s narrow eligibility rules, its cost to the state, and why promised research returns could take years.

    6 minutes, 9 seconds

    01Follow the $4.2 billion

    A billionaire is pushing Proposition 38—which unfairly steers $4.2 billion to one institution. The one he helped create.

    Proposition 38 appears written to direct approximately half its funding—about $4.2 billion—to a single UCLA-affiliated institution without naming that institution for voters.

    California has many world-class universities, hospitals and independent research centers. No institution should be guaranteed billions of taxpayer dollars through eligibility requirements written into a ballot measure.

    Public research funding should be awarded through open competition based on scientific merit—not predetermined by the measure’s sponsors.

    Bottom line: Californians should not approve a ballot measure that conceals its largest beneficiary while effectively guaranteeing that beneficiary billions of dollars.

    02The guaranteed bill

    Proposition 38 would saddle taxpayers with decades of debt, consuming funds that could otherwise support the important services Californians rely on.

    Proposition 38 would borrow $8.4 billion, requiring an estimated $500 million to $600 million in annual debt payments for roughly two decades. Those payments would come from California’s General Fund, where they would compete with health care, education, housing, public safety and other essential services.

    Proponents suggest that royalties and other returns could help offset the cost. Californians have heard similar promises before, but speculative future revenue is not a responsible basis for taking on billions of dollars in public debt. Taxpayers remain responsible for the bond payments whether the research produces profitable treatments or not.

    Bottom line: The benefits are uncertain, but the debt is guaranteed.

    03The wrong way to fund science

    Proposition 38 would lock California into fixed funding decisions—and could hinder the search for tomorrow’s cures.

    Immunology and immunotherapy are important and promising fields. That is precisely why funding decisions should be made through rigorous peer review and open competition among California’s best scientists—not permanently fixed through a ballot initiative.

    Science changes rapidly. The most promising approach today may be overtaken by a discovery in another field tomorrow. Proposition 38 would commit billions of dollars to one scientific area and concentrate half the funding in one institution for years to come. It cannot adapt as evidence, technology and public-health needs change.

    California should invest in biomedical research, but it should fund the strongest proposals wherever they originate—not place billions of taxpayer dollars in one institutional and scientific basket.

    Bottom line: Let scientists compete to fund the best science. Don’t lock research decisions into the ballot box.

    Broad agreement. One conclusion.

    A growing coalition says No on Proposition 38.

    Across the political spectrum, respected editorial boards, civic organizations, progressive groups and taxpayer advocates agree: Proposition 38 is the wrong way to fund medical research.

    Read what they said

    Editorial boards

    Organizations and voter guides

    Public officials and individuals

    Press conference highlights

    The case against Proposition 38—in under a minute.

    Former Legislative Analyst’s Office experts explain the measure’s personal stakes, scientific flaws and taxpayer risks in four short clips.

    Marianne O’Malley · Former Legislative Analyst’s Office

    I have Parkinson’s. Prop 38 is the wrong way.

    O’Malley explains why her own experience with Parkinson’s led her to speak out against a billionaire-backed measure she says lacks scientific rigor.

    Marianne O’Malley · Former Legislative Analyst’s Office

    $4.2 billion. One preselected institute.

    A concise explanation of Proposition 38’s narrowly written eligibility criteria and lack of open competition.

    Judy Heiman · Former Legislative Analyst’s Office

    Scientific merit—not institutional favoritism.

    Heiman argues that even Californians who favor research investment should demand an open, transparent and accountable structure.

    Dan Carson · Former Legislative Analyst’s Office

    A cancer survivor: Prop 38 won’t pay for itself.

    Carson connects his support for medical research with his warning that Proposition 38’s repayment promise does not survive scrutiny.

    Watch the full press conference

    One more question

    Why less sunlight for billions in public money?

    Despite promises of accountability, the selected institute would not be treated as a public agency under key California transparency and ethics laws, including the Public Records Act, open-meeting requirements and the Political Reform Act.

    Public money should come with full public accountability.

    Straight answers

    Support Research. Fund it wisely and transparently.

    Does voting No mean opposing medical research?

    No. We support biomedical research, including immunology. We oppose a measure that appears to preselect one institution, limits California’s ability to adapt scientific priorities and finances the program with decades of General Fund debt.

    Who is positioned to receive the $4.2 billion?

    The measure does not name the institution. CalMatters reported that its eligibility criteria very likely point to the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, whose co-founder and board chair is the largest financial backer of Proposition 38.

    What if royalties pay back the bond?

    That is possible, but not guaranteed. The Legislative Analyst says the amount and timing of revenue are uncertain and that offsetting the bond cost could take decades. California’s principal and interest payments would still be legally due.

    What should California do instead?

    Use independent scientific review and open competition to fund the strongest proposals across institutions and fields. Research priorities should be able to change as evidence, technology and public-health needs evolve.

    Sources: California Legislative Analyst and CalMatters reporting.

    CBS Sacramento video report

    CBS takes a closer look at Proposition 38.

    Dr. Robert Kaplan, co-chair of No on Proposition 38 and a former associate director of the National Institutes of Health, explains why Proposition 38 is the wrong way to support medical research.

    CBS Sacramento · Video report
    CBS News SacramentoProposition 38
    Dr. Robert M. KaplanCo-chair · No on Proposition 38
    Former NIH associate directorSenior scholar · Stanford School of Medicine

    CBS News Sacramento presents a closer look at the arguments over California's Proposition 38. Watch the original report at CBS News ↗

    Featured interview excerpt

    A closer look at Proposition 38.

    California Policy Center CEO Will Swaim discusses Proposition 38 during California Insider’s review of the 2026 statewide ballot.

    Interview excerpt · 3:14
    California InsiderAugust 19, 2026
    Siyamak KhorramiHost
    Will SwaimGuest · CEO, California Policy Center

    Excerpt runs from 28:41 to 31:55. Video courtesy of California Insider. Open the excerpt on YouTube ↗

    Newsroom / Press

    Reporting and campaign resources.

    Independent reporting and materials for journalists, voters and organizations following Proposition 38.

    The Mercury News · Opinion / Campaign Q&A · November 2, 2026

    We asked the No on Prop. 38 campaign why voters should reject the measure

    The Mercury News asks the No on Proposition 38 campaign to make its case for rejecting the measure.

    Read the Mercury News Q&A
    San Francisco Chronicle

    San Francisco Chronicle · Emily Hoeven · Opinion column · October 31, 2026

    This is the worst measure on California’s ballot — and Gavin Newsom supports it

    “The measure is a Trojan horse that would funnel billions of taxpayer dollars into an untested pet project founded by the same group of billionaires that paid to put Prop 38 on the ballot.”—Emily Hoeven, San Francisco Chronicle

    Hoeven challenges Newsom’s support for Prop 38, the billions directed to an unproven institute and the debt taxpayers would carry for decades.

    Read Emily Hoeven’s column
    Watch the press conference

    Press conference · October 20, 2026 · Full recording

    UC researchers explain their concerns about Proposition 38

    Susan Bookheimer (UCLA), Jonathan Eisen (UC Davis) and Steve Shoptaw (UCLA) discuss why the measure’s design could work against supporting the best science and advancing new treatments.

    Watch the conference and highlights

    Davis Vanguard · Marianne O’Malley · Op-ed · October 29, 2026

    Why I Support Medical Research—but Oppose Proposition 38

    Marianne O’Malley, a veteran of the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office who has Parkinson’s disease, raises four tough questions about Prop 38’s funding rules, transparency, uncertain royalties and debt costs.

    Read Marianne O’Malley’s op-ed

    CBS News Bay Area · John Ramos · TV news coverage · October 27, 2026

    CBS: Robert Kaplan explains Prop 38’s design risks

    Kaplan warns concentrated funding could squeeze other research; financial returns remain uncertain.

    Watch and read the CBS report

    RealClearScience · Robert M. Kaplan, PhD · Op-ed · October 26, 2026

    Should Californians Vote to Fund Cancer Research? Why They Should Think Twice.

    Campaign co-chair Robert Kaplan distinguishes support for immunotherapy from support for Prop 38’s financing plan, examining debt, funding rules and uncertain research returns.

    Read Kaplan’s RealClearScience op-ed

    Los Angeles Times · George Skelton · Columnist recommendation · October 26, 2026

    George Skelton recommends No on Proposition 38

    Skelton recommends No, favoring open competition for state research funding.

    Read Skelton’s recommendation

    The California Stem Cell Report · David Jensen · Analysis · October 23, 2026

    A Proposed Immunology ‘Field of Dreams,’ Billions of Taxpayer Dollars and a Ballot Initiative in California

    David Jensen examines growing national attention to Prop 38 and compares its narrowly drawn eligibility rules with California’s earlier stem-cell research initiative.

    Read David Jensen’s analysis

    Times of San Diego · Dan Walters, CalMatters · Commentary · October 20, 2026

    California voters to consider $8.4 billion bond measure to fund only one field of medical research

    Dan Walters questions Proposition 38’s narrow research focus, preferential funding for Gary Michelson’s institute and the budget tradeoffs of long-term borrowing.

    Read the Times of San Diego commentary

    CalMatters · Mikhail Zinshteyn · News coverage · October 20, 2026

    This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready?

    CalMatters examines CIII’s readiness to manage $4.2 billion in potential Proposition 38 funding. The report finds the institute had three employees as of September, far below its hiring plan, and examines construction timelines and exemptions from state transparency laws.

    Read the CalMatters investigation

    Also published by LAist — read the story

    CalMatters · Instagram video · October 27, 2026

    CalMatters: $4.2 billion for an institute with three staff

    A CalMatters social video looks at the institute positioned to receive half of Prop 38’s bond funding and its staffing.

    Watch on Instagram

    Video details and share link →

    The Center Square · Madeline Shannon · News coverage · October 19, 2026

    Group challenges constitutionality of $8.4B proposition

    Madeline Shannon reports on the No on Prop. 38 campaign’s request for the attorney general to examine the measure’s constitutionality, including concerns about eligibility rules favoring a single institute. The story also covers the debate over research funding and the proposed 2028 research bond.

    Read The Center Square article

    KQED · News coverage · October 20, 2026

    California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them

    KQED examines differing views among cancer patients on whether Proposition 38’s $8.4 billion research bond would benefit them.

    Read the KQED article

    STAT · News coverage · October 19, 2026

    Leading immunology society sharply divided over Proposition 38

    STAT reports that the American Association of Immunologists’ policy and advocacy committee recommended rescinding its endorsement after learning of the likely windfall for a research center co-founded by Gary Michelson. Its governing council retained the endorsement after meeting with Michelson.

    Read the STAT excerpt

    Full article at STAT requires a subscription.

    California Post · Jon Fleischman · Opinion · October 11, 2026

    California Post columnist: No on Proposition 38

    “Prop. 38: No thanks.”

    In his statewide ballot guide, Fleischman recommends No, citing the $8.4 billion bond and the funding positioned for the sponsor’s favored nonprofit.

    Read the California Post column
    San Francisco ChronicleCapitol Confidential

    News coverage · Kathryn Palmer · October 14, 2026

    Why are former parks officials upset about a health bond?

    Kathryn Palmer reports on former parks officials’ concerns that Proposition 38’s bond repayments could squeeze funding for parks and other state priorities, and examines the measure’s institution-specific funding rules and uncertain research revenue.

    “Any measure that increases our bonded indebtedness increases pressure on programs like state parks.”

    —Ruth Coleman, former director of California State Parks

    Read the Chronicle’s Capitol Confidential article
    The Press DemocratEditorial Board

    Editorial endorsement · October 14, 2026

    The Press Democrat recommends No on Proposition 38.

    The Press Democrat recommends a No vote on Proposition 38, warning that rigid funding rules favor one institute, research returns are uncertain and bond repayments compete with other state priorities.

    “Research dollars should support the centers with the most promising results and best scientists.”

    Read the Press Democrat endorsement
    ABC7 Los AngelesEyewitness News

    TV news coverage · Josh Haskell · October 14, 2026

    “California voters can’t be bought.”

    —David Panush, No on Prop. 38 campaign, speaking to ABC7

    Josh Haskell interviews both campaigns about the research bond, including the dispute over CIII’s readiness and its eligibility for a $4.2 billion award.

    Watch the ABC7 report
    San Francisco ChronicleEditorial endorsement

    Chronicle Editorial Board · October 3, 2026

    Prop 38 is one of the most noxious deposits on California’s political dung heap in years.

    The Chronicle urges a No vote, citing the measure’s preferential $4.2 billion award to a new institute that lacks a track record, completed facilities, key leadership and a public strategic plan.

    “They should spend their own money and come back to taxpayers when their institute actually has some progress to show.”

    Read the Chronicle endorsement
    The Mercury NewsEditorial Board

    Editorial endorsement · October 13, 2026

    No on California Proposition 38: An $8.4 billion money grab

    The Mercury News editorial board recommends a No vote, adding another major California newspaper to the growing opposition to Proposition 38’s costly, institution-specific funding structure.

    “An $8.4 billion money grab.”

    Read the Mercury News endorsement

    The Bakersfield Californian · Editorial endorsement

    The Bakersfield Californian recommends No on Proposition 38.

    The editorial board recommends a No vote on Proposition 38 in its editorial on California’s bond measures.

    Read the Bakersfield Californian endorsement

    Santa Barbara Independent · Editorial endorsement · October 8, 2026

    “We do know a sweetheart deal when we see one.”

    The Independent recommends a No vote, warning that Proposition 38 would effectively guarantee half the bond proceeds to the institute founded by its biggest financial backer—and that special interests have usurped California’s proposition process.

    Read the Santa Barbara Independent endorsement

    Los Angeles Times · Voter guide / News analysis · October 1, 2026

    Your guide to Proposition 38: Immunology and immunotherapy research funding

    The Times explains the measure’s $8.4 billion borrowing plan, taxpayer cost and highly specific eligibility criteria—and reports the Yes campaign’s acknowledgment that the Michelson-founded institute is very likely to receive half the funds.

    “As written, Proposition 38 is deceptive.” —Robert M. Kaplan

    Read the Los Angeles Times voter guide
    The Mercury NewsCommentary

    Loni Hancock and Tom Bates · October 6, 2026

    Prop. 38 is a business scheme disguised as a public health plan. Vote ‘no.’

    The former East Bay legislators argue that this unaccountable multibillion-dollar bond would enrich wealthy founders while draining money from vital community services.

    “This isn’t a ballot measure—it’s a business plan disguised as one.”

    Read the Mercury News commentary
    Orange County RegisterOpinion · Sal Rodriguez

    Opinion / Commentary · October 7, 2026

    Reform California’s bizarre endorsement of Proposition 38

    Columnist Sal Rodriguez questions a conservative group’s support for Proposition 38, pointing to decades of General Fund debt, uncertain repayment claims and the specially tailored $4.2 billion award to one institute.

    “It sounds either like a half-baked cynical money grab or boondoggle in the making.”

    —Sal Rodriguez

    Read the Orange County Register opinion piece

    Open letter · September 28, 2026

    UC Regents urged to release the CIII–UCLA agreement before voters cast their ballots.

    “Voters need and expect” the facts before deciding whether to borrow $8.4 billion.

    The No on Proposition 38 campaign is asking the University of California to expedite release of the 80-page affiliation agreement governing UCLA’s relationship with the institute likely to receive $4.2 billion under Proposition 38.

    Read the open letter Download PDF
    The Sacramento BeeCapitol Alert

    News coverage · October 8, 2026

    Is Prop. 38 unconstitutional? Opponents take immunology bond fight to AG

    The Bee reports on the No on 38 campaign’s request that Attorney General Rob Bonta review whether the measure’s effectively preselected $4.2 billion award to a private nonprofit violates the California Constitution.

    Read the Sacramento Bee report
    The Sacramento BeeMcClatchy California Editorial Board

    Editorial endorsement · September 30, 2026

    “Proposition 38 is a sleeper on the ballot. California voters should beware.”

    McClatchy’s California editorial board urges voters to look closely at an $8.4 billion borrowing proposal that would direct half its proceeds to a single UC-affiliated institute.

    Read the editorial endorsement
    San Diego Union-TribuneOpinion

    Robert M. Kaplan · October 1, 2026

    Proposition 38 promises far more than it can deliver.

    Biomedical researcher and former NIH associate director Robert M. Kaplan explains why uncertain discoveries and royalty revenue cannot be treated as a dependable plan for repaying billions in taxpayer-backed debt.

    Read Kaplan’s opinion article

    Healthcare Uncut · Video interview · October 6, 2026

    Billionaires Want Your Tax Dollars

    Host Ben Phillips interviews Dr. Robert Kaplan, former NIH associate director and former UCLA department chair, about who benefits from Proposition 38, its repayment promises and the risks California taxpayers would carry.

    Kaplan’s central point: Supporting medical research does not mean accepting every deal presented in its name.

    Watch on YouTube ↗

    Courage California · Endorsement · September 23, 2026

    Courage California announces opposition to Proposition 38.

    “Courage California urges voters to reject Proposition 38 as another naked attempt by billionaires to exploit taxpayer dollars for their own gain.”—Irene Kao, Executive Director, Courage California

    The statewide organization’s statement says California has many leading immunology research institutions and calls for research funding to be distributed more equitably and transparently.

    Visit Courage California A more responsible alternative: read the SB 895 fact sheet

    Independent voter guide · GrowSF

    GrowSF recommends No on Proposition 38.

    “Research is a good cause—and that is exactly why it deserves better than a bond one donor wrote around his own institute.”

    GrowSF’s analysis highlights the measure’s narrowly tailored eligibility rules, limits on competitive grants and decades of General Fund debt payments.

    Read GrowSF’s analysis

    San Diego Union-Tribune · Editorial endorsement · September 18, 2026

    “An $8.4 billion wolf in sheep’s clothing”

    The San Diego Union-Tribune endorses a No vote on Proposition 38. Read the editorial board’s case against the measure.

    Read the endorsement
    Los Angeles TimesCapitol Journal

    George Skelton · September 21, 2026

    Why Proposition 38 should make California voters skeptical.

    In his review of California’s November bond measures, veteran Capitol columnist George Skelton calls Proposition 38 “problematic” and focuses on its apparent benefit to a single UCLA-affiliated institute co-founded and led by its chief backer.

    “Being backed by a billionaire isn’t the problem. It’s being written to substantially benefit one research institute that’s led by the billionaire.”—George Skelton, Los Angeles Times

    Read the Los Angeles Times column
    Golden State ReportCommentary

    Paul Thornton · September 21, 2026

    Prop. 38 is an unethical way to fund lifesaving medical research.

    Thornton supports the promise of immunotherapy, but argues that Proposition 38 abandons open, competitive scientific grantmaking while positioning one not-yet-open institute to receive more than $4 billion.

    “Knowing that my wife and late mother might have benefitted from a similar bond, I will still vote against it.”—Paul Thornton, Golden State Report

    Read the Golden State Report article
    POZHIV/AIDS community perspective

    California’s Prop 38 immunotherapy bond promises almost nothing for HIV/AIDS.

    An HIV/AIDS activist examines the gap between the measure’s broad promises and its actual funding requirements. Proposition 38 specifically reserves at least $4.2 billion for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’s research, while providing no dedicated allocation for HIV/AIDS research.

    A community perspective on who is—and is not—assured funding under Proposition 38.

    Read the article at POZ

    San Francisco Chronicle Open Forum · September 12, 2026

    Two cancer survivors agree: Prop 38 is the wrong way to fund medical research.

    By Jon Fleischman and Steve Maviglio

    “The debt is guaranteed. The discoveries and royalties are not.”

    A conservative and a Democrat explain why their personal commitment to finding better cancer treatments leads them to oppose Proposition 38’s unfair financing scheme.

    Read the op-ed

    The Sacramento Bee · September 11, 2026

    Retired analysts raise transparency concerns over Prop 38.

    The Bee reports on concerns raised by former Legislative Analyst’s Office experts about Proposition 38’s funding structure, accountability provisions and apparent benefit to one institution.

    Supporting scientific research does not require supporting Proposition 38.Judy Heiman’s takeaway

    Read the Sacramento Bee story
    Watch the press conference

    Campaign video · September 10, 2026

    Press conference with former LAO analysts.

    Campaign policy experts explain their opposition to Proposition 38 and answer questions about the measure’s funding structure, public debt and lack of open competition.

    Watch the press conference

    CalMatters · July 31, 2026 · Updated August 3, 2026

    This CA proposition will send $4 billion to a single nonprofit. Who’s behind it?

    CalMatters examines Proposition 38’s eligibility requirements and reports that they very likely point to a single UCLA-affiliated institute—without naming it for voters in the measure.

    Read the CalMatters reporting

    CalMatters · Video explainer

    Prop 38 explained.

    CalMatters presents both sides of Proposition 38 and explains how the $8.4 billion bond would distribute research funding.

    What the video makes clear: Half the money—$4.2 billion—would go to one unnamed institute selected under highly specific eligibility rules.

    Watch on YouTube ↗

    Science · Independent reporting

    California to vote on spending $16 billion to boost research after Trump cuts

    Science examines Proposition 38’s unusual funding structure and reports on concerns raised by Dr. Robert Kaplan and David Panush about directing half the bond money to a single institution outside a competitive, peer-reviewed process.

    “There is a strong case for investing more in biomedical research, but Proposition 38 is not the right way to do it.”—Dr. Robert Kaplan

    Read the Science article

    Daily Bruin · News coverage · October 28, 2026

    Will Proposition 38’s $8.4B bond help or harm research?

    Daily Bruin examines the question of whether Proposition 38’s proposed $8.4 billion bond would help or harm research.

    Read the Daily Bruin report

    90.3 KAZU · Radio news coverage · October 21, 2026

    KAZU newscast: Proposition 38 health research funding

    A brief roundup of the Prop 38 debate, including concerns about half the bond funding going to one institute. The segment draws on CalMatters reporting.

    Read and listen at KAZU

    Bloomberg · John Gittelsohn · News coverage · October 21, 2026

    Billionaire Asks Californians to Bankroll Disease-Prevention Lab

    Bloomberg examines Gary Michelson’s research bond proposal and reports Robert Kaplan’s concerns about taxpayer risk, concentrated funding and uncertain royalties, alongside supporters’ case for the measure.

    Read the Bloomberg article

    MedPage Today · News coverage

    Immunology Institute Could Get $4 Billion From a Ballot Measure. It Has 3 Workers.

    MedPage Today covers the institute’s staffing and questions about its readiness for potential Proposition 38 funding.

    Read the MedPage Today article

    The Sacramento Bee · Kiara Adams · Video explainer · October 27, 2026

    Proposition 38 explained: CA’s $8.4 billion immunology bond

    Watch reporter Kiara Adams explain Proposition 38 and its proposed medical research bond in 89 seconds.

    Watch the Sacramento Bee video

    PBS SoCal · Video explainer

    Prop 38 explained | California 2026 election

    PBS SoCal explains the research bond, funding allocations, proposed drug discounts and revenue payments to the state.

    Watch the PBS SoCal explainer

    ABC10 · Video explainer

    ABC10: Prop 38 explained

    A video explainer on Proposition 38’s proposed $8.4 billion medical research bond.

    Watch the ABC10 explainer
    KCRA 3 video report about Proposition 38Watch the KCRA 3 report

    KCRA 3 · Video report · August 30, 2026

    California voters weigh the promises—and the price—of Proposition 38.

    KCRA presents both sides of the measure and explains that roughly $4 billion would go to one unnamed institute, while taxpayers would repay an estimated $12.5 billion from the General Fund. Any research revenue that might offset those costs is not guaranteed.

    “Bonds sound really good. They sound like free money, but they’re not free money.”—Susan Shelley, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

    Watch at KCRA 3

    Ballot recommendation · League of Women Voters of California

    League of Women Voters of California recommends No on Proposition 38.

    The League says the measure would commit taxpayers to decades of debt while restricting California’s future research choices.

    Read the League’s analysis

    Editorial endorsement · Orange County Register · August 23, 2026

    Orange County Register endorses No on Proposition 38.

    Calls Prop 38 “an $8.4 billion money grab.”

    Read the endorsement

    Campaign statement · Open letter

    An Open Letter to Prop 38 Proponents

    No on Proposition 38 asks the measure’s proponents to explain why more than $4 billion appears reserved for a single institution—and why ordinary safeguards of competition, peer review and full public transparency do not appear to apply.

    Read the open letter

    Press Release #1 · August 3, 2026 · PDF

    CalMatters investigation reveals Prop 38 would steer $4.2 billion to its top donor’s institution

    The No on Proposition 38 campaign responds to the investigation and calls for open competition, full transparency and honest accounting for billions in taxpayer-backed debt.

    Read Press Release #1

    Campaign fact sheet · September 12, 2026

    Prop 38 Says It Will Pay for Itself. California Has Heard That Before.

    California’s stem-cell bonds show why promised research royalties should not be confused with guaranteed repayment of billions in public debt.

    Read the fact sheet

    Independent voter guide · Pete Rates the Propositions

    Pete Stahl rates Proposition 38: No.

    Stahl has published plain-language recommendations for nearly every California statewide election since 1980. He calls Proposition 38 a misuse of both bond financing and the initiative process.

    “Government funding should be distributed competitively, based on the merit of the applicants, not who wrote the proposition.”

    Read Pete’s Proposition 38 rating

    Additional coverage · Times of San Diego · September 7, 2026

    Voters could fund what Trump and California lawmakers will not

    “A ‘No’ vote does not reject science. It rejects an inefficient financing mechanism and a fragmented approach to setting research priorities.”—Robert M. Kaplan

    Read at Times of San Diego ↗

    Opinion · Los Angeles Sentinel · October 7, 2026

    Vote No. Prop 38 Is an $8.4 Billion Money Grab

    “California’s initiative process is not for sale.”—David Panush

    Read the Los Angeles Sentinel op-ed →

    Opinion · Davis Vanguard · October 8, 2026

    Billionaires Already Own the Courts. Now They’re Coming for Your Ballot.

    “Californians’ compassion should support the strongest science—not be used to turn a billionaire’s preferred project into our financial obligation.”—Daryl V. Rowland

    Read the Davis Vanguard op-ed →
    No on 38

    Open competition. Honest accounting.

    Vote No on Proposition 38.

    Help us protect California taxpayers and keep medical research competitive, accountable and guided by science.

    Donate now Join the campaign
    Follow the campaign

    Contributions to this committee are not tax deductible.