Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances measure to give voters option to lift statewide ban on local public campaign financing
Summary
SB 42 would place a measure on the 2026 ballot to end a state ban that prevents general law cities and counties from adopting public campaign financing; supporters said the bill restores local option and helps small-dollar candidates, while opponents raised questions about oversight and costs
The Assembly Elections Committee voted July 2 to pass SB 42, a measure that would place a ballot question before voters to lift the state ban on public campaign financing for general law cities and counties.
Senator Tom Umberg, the bill's principal author in the hearing, said the bill does not itself create any public financing program but instead would allow local governments the option to adopt their own public financing modalities if voters approve such measures. "There is nothing required in this bill. Absolutely nothing. It simply removes the ban that currently exists today and allows general law cities and counties to enact their own legislation," he said.
Supporters — including the California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters — argued that public financing expands the pool of viable candidates and reduces the influence or perception of influence by large donors. Trent Lang of the California Clean Money Campaign said charter cities already have options and the change would ‘‘give voters the option to decide’’ whether their jurisdiction should allow public financing. David Shore of Common Cause highlighted local data showing high shares of contributions from large donors in some cities and said small-dollar public financing ‘‘broadens the donor base, strengthens representation, and makes it possible for more diverse candidates to run.’'
Opponents and some committee members asked about guardrails, oversight, and fiscal impacts. One witness and several members raised concerns about the potential for taxpayer dollars to be used for campaigns and about the level of detail in the ballot measure. Assemblymember Macedo asked how much implementation would cost at the local level; the author and supporters said costs depend on local choices and that programs seen elsewhere have been a small percentage of local budgets.
Assemblymembers representing a range of experience described local examples. An Assemblymember who had used public financing in San Francisco described detailed verification and auditing processes as built‑in guardrails. Supporters said programs typically include qualifying criteria, expenditure limits for participating candidates, and anti‑discrimination language to prevent local statutes from favoring incumbents or particular parties.
The committee approved SB 42 and re‑referred it to the Committee on Appropriations. If approved by the Legislature and placed on the ballot, any local public financing program would still require local adoption or voter approval and would be subject to the governance provisions voters choose in those measures.
