California voters are deciding on Proposition 40, a ballot measure that would impose a one-time five percent tax on residents with a net worth over one billion dollars.
State records show that eighty donors have poured over $333 million into the organization. According to a nonprofit started this year to fight Proposition 40 named Building a Better California, twenty-four wealthy individuals or their advisers have joined a conference call every Tuesday for the past few months as the election approaches next week.
The campaign centers on a one-time five percent tax on certain taxpayers with assets over $1 billion, with ninety percent of the raised revenue designated primarily for health care. The remaining ten percent could be used for education and food assistance.
Billionaire Backers and Silicon Valley Tech Leaders Finance Opposition
Google cofounder Sergey Brin contributed $102 million, former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt gave $40 million, investor John Doerr provided $40 million, and Stripe chief executive Patrick Collison donated $33 million, as reported by state records cited in campaign disclosures listing the top contributors opposing the measure.
Silicon Valley investor Trevor Traina, who is not part of the coordinating group but knows many of the participants socially, described the pushback during an interview.
The effort to beat it is nothing short of an Avenger-level effort.
Trevor Traina, Silicon Valley investor, via Yahoo
Traina added that the participants represent diverse backgrounds united by a single objective. Like the Avengers, this is not a homogenous group of people, but rather heroes of different stripes who share the same goal of protecting California,
he said.
Abby Lunardini, a spokeswoman for Building a Better California, defended the contributions and outlined the group’s stance. Our supporters have created companies, entirely new industries and hundreds of thousands of jobs here in California, and they want our state to remain the place where the future is built and where people can still afford to live, dream big and succeed,
Lunardini stated, adding that the tax would permanently damage the state budget, tax base, and economy.
Organizers cautioned in a recent memo that the billionaires should not serve as the face of the campaign despite providing the financial backbone for the opposition.
Union Leadership and Progressive Allies Press for Healthcare Funding
Regan contends that California stands to lose roughly $100 billion in federal healthcare funding over the coming years following cuts made under the Trump administration. On the supporting side, Dave Regan, the head of the union leading the ballot measure, argues that taxing extreme wealth is necessary to address upcoming funding shortfalls.
Supporters calculate that because California is home to roughly 250 resident billionaires, the state could raise approximately $100,000 million through the levy, helping offset federal reductions to healthcare and food assistance programs.
Senator Bernie Sanders traveled to San Francisco to rally more than 1,600 people at the Curran Theatre in support of the initiative, calling it the most important ballot measure in the country. Even with all their money and all their power, the people united are going to beat them,
Sanders told the crowd.
Political Divisions and Competing Ballot Measures Over Proposition 40
Governor Gavin Newsom and likely gubernatorial successor Xavier Becerra oppose Proposition 40, arguing that a state-level wealth tax places California at a competitive disadvantage and risks driving wealthy residents away. Becerra has characterized the initiative as doubtful.
Opponents have also placed Propositions 41 and 42 on the ballot as counterweights. If approved, Proposition 41 would nullify any new state tax enacted after January 1, 2026, that does not count toward California’s spending limit, while Proposition 42 seeks to ban new state taxes on personal property such as stocks and artwork.
According to an analysis by the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, while the tax could generate substantial initial revenue, the departure of wealthy residents could eventually reduce state income by roughly $1 billion per year, affecting the General Fund that supports education, healthcare, and prisons.