Election Countdown
11 days until the November election
We’ve gone over a lot of ballot props. That includes:
- The wealth tax, or Proposition 40, and its countermeasures, Prop. 41 and Prop. 42
- Prop. 5, the initiative to change how California recalls officials and
- Another proposal, Prop. 4, to lift a ban that prohibits political candidates from financing their campaigns with public dollars.
This week, we’ll break down three bond measures on the ballot, which, if voters approve, would add a collective $45 billion before interest to the state’s debt for biomedical research, housing construction and home loans.
What to Know About Prop. 38
University budgets were rocked last year after the Trump administration slashed hundreds of federal research grants.
While much of that funding has been restored, the uncertainty left institutions cautious and looking to find alternative ways to fund research. An $8.4 billion bond to subsidize immunotherapy research to fight cancer, Alzheimer’s and heart disease could help address this, say backers of Prop. 38.
Half of the money would go to a single University of California-affiliated institute, while the remaining $4.2 billion would be doled out to other select nonprofit and research organizations.
Any medications developed from research supported by the bond funding would have to be sold at a 20 percent discount to Californians and 10 percent of any revenue would go back to the state’s coffers.
Surgeon and billionaire philanthropist Gary Michelson put it on the ballot. Medical groups such as the American Association of Immunologists are supporters, and Alzheimer’s San Diego said it is backing Prop. 38 because it’d more quickly provide treatment research to the nearly 100,000 people in the county living with Alzheimer’s or dementia. San Diego County Democrats also endorsed the measure.
The League of Women Voters and Stanford researcher and former National Institute of Health Director Robert Kaplan oppose it, arguing that billions of dollars for years to come shouldn’t just be for one field of health research.
Critics have also increasingly questioned why a single nonprofit would receive half the bond money. CalMatters’ reporting showed that Michelson’s own institute, the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, would be the beneficiary.
Michelson is Prop. 38’s primary financier, contributing $61 million of the Yes campaign’s $66 million total. Opponents have raised $9,000.
What to Know About Prop. 1 and Prop. 37, the Other Megabonds
The end is near in our bond measure journey. Here’s the quick and dirty run-down:
Voting yes on Prop. 1 would mean California could borrow $11.25 billion for all kinds of affordable housing programs, from rentals to student dormitories, to veteran and farmworker housing.
Democrats in the Legislature put this one on the ballot, and it’s backed by the governor and statewide apartment association who say it’ll spur much-needed building to address California’s homelessness and affordability crisis.
Some Republicans, including San Diego GOP Assemblymember Carl DeMaio, are not feeling it. He and others argue it would do little to make housing more affordable while taxpayers will be left on the hook.
Its cousin, Prop. 37, would create a loan program to allow private lenders to give up to 17 percent of the cost of a newly built home to would-be buyers. It’d do this by allowing the California Housing Finance Agency to sell up to $25 billion in bonds.
A coalition of real estate and labor groups put the measure on the ballot, and SEIU and the California Association of Realtors are its bankrollers. They argue that in a state where the median home price is $900,000, it’d create a pathway for middle-class families to enter into homeownership.
But … but … but …
Doesn’t that mean taking on even more debt?
Yes, critics such as the League of Women Voters say. They think it’s not a good idea to let people buy homes they otherwise can’t afford by allowing buyers to go deeper into debt.
Unconventional Alliances
Things get curious if we zoom-in on Prop.38’s backers and naysayers.
Take the California Democratic Party, to which Michelson is a longtime donor. The Los Angeles-based philanthropist physician has given more than $100,000 to Democrats this cycle alone. That includes at least $25,0000 to Xavier Becerra in his campaign for governor as well as nearly $80,000 to fellow Angeleno Antonio Villaraigosa for his failed gubernatorial bid. He’s also donated to Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas’ re-election campaign.
Michelson has spread his fortune in San Diego, too. In 2020, he gave Assemblymember Tasha Boerner $4,700 for her re-election campaign, and labor leader and former Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez received thousands of dollars from Michelson for her 2020 re-election campaign. Two years later, he gave more than $10,000 to her brief, unsuccessful run for secretary of state.
The California GOP has endorsed Prop. 38, while choosing to stay neutral on Prop. 1, the $11 billion bond to build more affordable housing, and Prop. 37, the $25 billion bond to help finance new homeowners’ mortgages. DeMaio also supports the immunology research bond, saying in a podcast episode that it’s a better deal for taxpayers than to most other loans because therapies developed with the funding would be sold at a discount to consumers. He is against the two housing bonds.
Meanwhile, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes all three bond measures, which they call an inappropriate use of public funds. They argue that biomedical research should be financed by pharmaceutical companies or the federal government rather than California residents.
They’re in company with the League of Women Voters who similarly argue that Prop. 38 is a misappropriation of public dollars, and that such funding shouldn’t be directed toward one UC-affiliated nonprofit.
Plenty of state lawmakers from the San Diego area didn’t want to wade in on this one, though, with one notable exception.
In a statement, San Diego Assemblymember Chris Ward said he’s against the research bond because the funding would go to the one institution rather than to other California researchers who are best positioned to find cures and deliver treatments. He supports the housing bonds.
Getting responses from other Democrats, meanwhile, proved difficult.
Derek Humphrey, a campaign spokesperson for Boerner, said she doesn’t take public positions on propositions because she believes voters should weigh in on them, not their elected officials.
Chula Vista Assemblymember David Alvarez is still undecided about the research bond, campaign manager Chris Jonsmyr said, but he supports both of the housing measures.
Campaign manager Skyler Johnson did not respond to emails asking if Encinitas state Sen. Catherine Blakespear supports or opposes Prop. 38, nor did Jeremy Addis-Mills, campaign manager for state Sen. Akilah Weber Pierson.
These peculiar alliances between left and right-leaning groups on either side of the proposal could be explained by its seemingly positive intent, which is to cure cancer, Cal State Fullerton political scientist Sarah Hill said. That makes Prop. 38 harder to publicly oppose even if it’s not well designed and appears questionable, she said.
“It’s a really interesting example of the problems of the ballot initiative process in California and how there aren’t checks on it,” Hill said.
What I’m Reading Now
The midterms aren’t over yet but 2028 is right around the corner for these three California power players vying for the White House, SF Chronicle reports.
Newsom weighs a controversial move before he leaves office: reversing the death sentences of hundreds of people, The Sacramento Bee writes.
Congressional candidate and San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond spent nearly a quarter of a million dollars in public funds for social media ads, public records obtained by Voice of San Diego show.
Thanks for reading this week’s report! Please reach me at nadia@voiceofsandiego.org for any questions or comments.