Paper Trail Politics Election page My Area

Statewide ballot measure · November 3, 2026

Proposition 38

Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute.

The question: Should California borrow $8.4 billion for immunology and immunotherapy research?

Qualified for ballot Initiative statute Majority vote to pass Statewide

Start with the decision

What your vote would do

The legal effect of each choice, based on the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Yes

Authorize a new research bond

Allow California to borrow $8.4 billion for immunology and immunotherapy research at California universities and research institutes.

No

Do not authorize this bond

Do not permit this $8.4 billion borrowing. A no vote would not end other medical research funding.

No forecasts here. Paper Trail Politics does not publish polls, betting markets, win probabilities, momentum labels, or predicted outcomes on ballot-measure pages.
$8.4 billionNew borrowing authorityGeneral obligation bonds
At least halfResearch on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer’sRequired allocation
20%Discount for covered California treatmentsBelow the national average price
2%Maximum state administrative shareOf bond funds

Status quo and proposal

What Proposition 38 changes

Immunology studies the immune system; immunotherapy uses it to help treat disease.

Current system

Research has several funding sources

Companies and government agencies fund medical research. California’s earlier voter-approved bonds supported stem cell research.

If approved

A dedicated immunology research program

  • Divide funds between one qualifying UC-affiliated nonprofit institute and competitive grants for public or nonprofit research institutions.
  • CDPH would select the institute; a council would award grants among its member institutions.
  • Require public reports and independent financial audits.
  • Require a share of research revenue to repay the state, plus California purchasing and patient-discount provisions.
Official analysis

Official fiscal analysis

What it could cost

Estimated costs and uncertain returns should be considered separately.

Estimated state repayment

$500–$600 million a year

Estimated General Fund repayments for about 20 years. Interest makes borrowing more expensive than paying up front.

What remains uncertain

Research revenue is uncertain

Revenue could offset some or all costs in later decades. The timing and amount depend on successful discoveries; effects on state health-program costs could go either way.

The submitted opposition argument uses a 25-year repayment description. This page uses the current LAO estimate of about 20 years.

Claims from each campaign

The case for and against

Condensed advocacy from the submitted arguments and campaign materials. These claims are separate from official findings.

Supporters say

Stable funding could accelerate treatments

  • Dedicated funding could advance treatments and cures while federal research support is uncertain.
  • Patient discounts, audits and spending disclosures would protect Californians.
  • Licensing revenue and future health savings could offset costs.
Support campaign

Opponents say

Research priorities should stay flexible

  • Borrowing commits future budgets before research benefits are known.
  • Scientific review and health planning should set research priorities, rather than ballot campaigns.
  • Commercial returns may not cover repayments, and price discounts could discourage California sales.
Official opposition argument

Campaign finance

Who is funding each side

Money provides influence context, not evidence that a position is correct or likely to win.

FPPC top-contributor aggregate$81,426,370.13

Support committees

FPPC list modified October 29, 2026. Main committee 1485847: $71,426,370.13 from listed top contributors; nonprofit committee: $10,000,000.

  • Gary K. Michelson$45,000,000 to the main Yes on 38 campaign (committee 1485847)$10,000,000 to Michelson Center for Public Policy, Inc. – Yes on 38 (nonprofit committee 1494727)$55,000,000
  • Michelson Center for Public Policy → committee 1485847$21,400,000
  • Meyer Luskin → committee 1485847$5,000,000
  • California Democratic Party → committee 1485847$26,370.13
FPPC top contributors
Secretary of State reported opposition contributions$11,990

No on Proposition 38

Committee 1495405. Secretary of State total through October 22, 2026. No opposition committee met the FPPC top-list threshold; that does not mean no opposition money was raised.

Secretary of State committee totals

Checked October 31, 2026. These figures use different dates and reporting scopes. FPPC top-contributor aggregates are not all receipts, spending or cash on hand, and transfers between committees can count the same underlying money more than once. Do not add these figures to other committee totals.

Endorsements and opposition

Positions we could verify

A sourced directory, not a tally of public support. Affiliations identify signers and do not imply an organization’s separate endorsement.

These names come from submitted advocacy, not independent verification by the Secretary of State. The list is not exhaustive. Positions checked October 31, 2026.

Coverage and perspectives

Read beyond the campaign mail

Source labels distinguish nonpartisan analysis from advocacy.

Independent official analysis

Legislative Analyst’s Office

Background, proposal, repayment estimates and uncertainties.

Read the LAO analysis
Paid support campaign

Yes on Proposition 38

The support campaign’s explanation, coalition and advocacy materials.

Visit support campaign
Opposition advocacy

Argument against Proposition 38

The submitted opposition argument and rebuttal, published in the state voter guide.

Read the opposition argument
Immunology researcher Ruchi Srivastava working in a UC Irvine laboratory in February 2021.Leonard Ortiz, Orange County Register via Getty Images
CalMatters · Updated August 3, 2026
Independent reporting

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

CalMatters examines the connection between Proposition 38 donor Gary K. Michelson and the research institute he co-founded and chairs, which its reporting identifies as very likely the only institute eligible for half the bond funding.

About Gary K. Michelson

By Mikhail ZinshteynRead original ↗

Primary documents

Read the official record

About this information: This guide draws on the official voter guide, nonpartisan fiscal analysis and campaign disclosures. Campaign claims and positions are attributed to their sources; follow the citations for details. Checked October 31, 2026.