# Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research *measure · California statewide proposition* — November 3, 2026 General Election (2026-11-03), Los Angeles County, California Research pack generated 2026-10-30T23:52:30+00:00 by ballotscope. Summaries are LLM-generated from the linked originals and may contain errors; check the originals before relying on anything. Sources span 2026-04-05 to 2026-10-20. ## Overview (as of 2026-10-28, from 18 sources) Proposition 38, the California Immunology Research and Cures Initiative, is an initiative statute that would authorize $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research, repaid from the General Fund [Vote with the League: Quick Reference Guide, November 2026; KCA-Supported Immunology Research Initiative Advances to California's November Ballot; California's Proposition 38: What the Parkinson's community should know before Election Day]. Half of the bond money would go to a single nonprofit research institute selected by the Department of Public Health under fixed criteria, including a University of California affiliation, and the other half to project grants awarded by a council whose core members are appointed by seven UC campus chancellors [Vote with the League: Quick Reference Guide, November 2026; KCA-Supported Immunology Research Initiative Advances to California's November Ballot]. At least $4.2 billion must go to research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's, state administration is capped at 2 percent, recipients must pay the state 10 percent of revenues from resulting discoveries until bond costs are repaid, and funded drugs must be sold in California at least 20 percent below the national average price [Vote with the League: Quick Reference Guide, November 2026; KCA-Supported Immunology Research Initiative Advances to California's November Ballot]. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates a General Fund cost of $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years, with offsetting revenue it calls uncertain but potentially significant and possibly decades away [KCA-Supported Immunology Research Initiative Advances to California's November Ballot]. Supporters, including the Alzheimer's Association, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Kidney Cancer Association and other patient groups, argue the measure would stabilize research amid federal funding cuts and is designed to pay for itself [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals; Proposition 38: Research bond (CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide); State ballot proposal would approve $8.4 billion in bonds to fund medical research]. Opponents, including former NIH official Robert Kaplan, the League of Women Voters of California, and the editorial boards listed by CalMatters, argue bond-financing a single research field is the wrong approach and that the measure is unlikely to repay its cost [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals; Medical research nonprofit would be sole beneficiary of Prop 38; Prop. 38: The controversial billion-dollar bond measure for immunology research]. CalMatters reported in July 2026 that the institute criteria very likely fit only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy (CIII), whose co-founder and board chair Gary K. Michelson wrote and is the chief funder of the measure; the Yes campaign said the language is not uniquely tailored but later said CIII will 'very likely' qualify [Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research (LAO analysis); This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready?; Prop. 38 explained: California voters to decide $8.4 billion medical research bond]. The most recent reporting, from October 2026, says CIII had three employees as of September and that the measure exempts it from state public-records and open-meeting laws [This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready?; California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them]. As of October 22, 2026, support committees reported $71.2 million in contributions and the opposition $11,990 [CA Decides: Prop 38, Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Bond]. ### Record highlights - The initiative (AG No. 25-0026A1) was filed and financed by Dr. Gary K. Michelson, entered circulation on January 2, 2026, and qualified for the November 3, 2026 ballot in June-July 2026. [Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute. (Official Voter Information Guide); State ballot proposal would approve $8.4 billion in bonds to fund medical research; Vote with the League: Quick Reference Guide, November 2026] - The measure's text requires the selected institute to have existed by January 1, 2025, to have a UC affiliation with a campus health system exceeding 35,000 inpatient admissions and 3.5 million outpatient visits a year, to hold a 200,000-square-foot site by January 1, 2026, and to have $250 million in identified philanthropy plus $50 million commitments for vaccine and microbiome programs. [Vote with the League: Quick Reference Guide, November 2026] - The text names UCLA to receive an offer to collaborate on clinical trials in every grant and makes UCLA's appointee the council's first chair; it declares the selected institute is not a public agency under state law. [Vote with the League: Quick Reference Guide, November 2026] - UCLA and CIII signed their affiliation agreement in August 2024; UCLA Health CEO John Mazziotta told UC Regents on September 16, 2026 that CIII had three employees and had spent $20 million. [This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready?] - Through October 22, 2026, the two Yes on 38 committees sponsored by the Michelson Center for Public Policy reported $71,229,216 in contributions; the No on Proposition 38 committee reported $11,990. [CA Decides: Prop 38, Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Bond] - Governor Newsom signed SB 895 on September 30, 2026, which places a separate research bond (reported as $7.5 billion) for a new state science foundation on the 2028 ballot. [Proposition 38: Research bond (CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide); Prop 38 asks: Should California take on more debt to fund a single field of medical research? (Dan Walters commentary); California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them] ### Stated positions - Supporters (Alzheimer's Los Angeles, ALS Association, Kidney Cancer Association and others, in the official ballot argument) say Prop. 38 is designed to pay for itself 'with no net cost to the state or taxpayers' through the 10 percent revenue return. [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals] - Yes on 38 spokesperson Claudia Briggs said in July 2026 the measure was written 'to ensure a highly qualified nonprofit could receive funding' and is not uniquely tailored to CIII. [Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research (LAO analysis)] - Yes on 38 spokesperson Robin Swanson said in September-October 2026 that it is 'very likely' CIII will qualify for half the funds, that other institutes will qualify for grant funds, and that the Department of Public Health makes the final decision. [This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready?; Prop. 38 explained: California voters to decide $8.4 billion medical research bond] - Robert Kaplan, the official ballot opponent, argues research priorities should be set by scientific review rather than ballot measures and that bonds are inappropriate for research; in an April 2026 Daily Bruin interview, before the measure qualified, he said he would vote for the initiative while calling rapid repayment 'completely unrealistic.' [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals; Proposition 38 contribution totals] - The League of Women Voters of California recommends a No vote. [Medical research nonprofit would be sole beneficiary of Prop 38] - The Michael J. Fox Foundation and the Kidney Cancer Association state that they support the measure. [Proposition 38: Research bond (CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide); State ballot proposal would approve $8.4 billion in bonds to fund medical research] ### Where sources disagree - Repayment period: the LAO's ballot analysis, the official summary, CalMatters' voter guide, LAist's guide and the League estimate about 20 years at $500 million to $600 million a year, while the official argument against, CalMatters reporting, Dan Walters, Hoover and the Daily Bruin cite about $500 million a year for about 25 years (about $12.5 billion), attributing it to the LAO; the 25-year figure appears to come from an LAO estimate dated 2025, before the measure qualified. [KCA-Supported Immunology Research Initiative Advances to California's November Ballot; California's Proposition 38: What the Parkinson's community should know before Election Day; Prop. 38: The controversial billion-dollar bond measure for immunology research; Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws; Medical research nonprofit would be sole beneficiary of Prop 38; Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals; Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research (LAO analysis); Prop 38 asks: Should California take on more debt to fund a single field of medical research? (Dan Walters commentary); Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute. (Official Voter Information Guide); Proposition 38 contribution totals] - Whether only one institute qualifies: CalMatters and a UCLA spokesperson say only CIII meets the criteria, and the campaign's Swanson called that 'very likely,' while the campaign's Briggs said the language is not uniquely tailored and Swanson said 'it's not accurate to say that only one institute would qualify for funds under this measure,' referring to the grant half. [Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research (LAO analysis); This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready?; Prop. 38 explained: California voters to decide $8.4 billion medical research bond] - Total cost: KQED reports about $4 billion in interest on top of the $8.4 billion bond, while the LAO describes the total cost as about 10 percent more than paying cash after adjusting for inflation. [California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them; KCA-Supported Immunology Research Initiative Advances to California's November Ballot] - Stem cell bond returns: Hoover says the state received on the order of a few hundred thousand dollars from funded inventions by the early 2020s, while former LAO analyst Dan Carson told KQED the state received $16 million. [Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute. (Official Voter Information Guide); California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them] - Robert Kaplan's position: in April 2026 he told the Daily Bruin he would vote for the initiative, while the October voter guide carries his signed argument urging a No vote. [Proposition 38 contribution totals; Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals] ### Gaps - No text of the newspaper editorials (Orange County Register, San Diego Union-Tribune, Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle) was collected; only their opposition is listed by CalMatters. - No statement or materials from the No on 38 campaign or California Health Policy Strategies were collected directly; their arguments appear only through news quotes. - No materials from the Yes on 38 campaign website or the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy itself were collected; the campaign's case comes from the ballot argument, supporter organizations and news quotes. - No independent analysis was collected of the number of institutes that could meet each criterion beyond CalMatters' reporting. - No itemized list of top donors was collected; only committee-level totals. - The American Association of Immunologists endorsement page returned an error (HTTP 404). ### Arguments for / praise - Immunotherapy has already transformed treatment for some cancers, and sustained funding could produce treatments and cures for cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, heart disease and other conditions. — *Alzheimer's Los Angeles, Michael J. Fox Foundation, Kidney Cancer Association, Prostate Cancer Foundation, Laurie Adami* [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals; Proposition 38: Research bond (CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide); State ballot proposal would approve $8.4 billion in bonds to fund medical research; California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them] - Federal research funding cuts and uncertainty have disrupted research and slowed cancer trials, and a stable state funding source would fill that gap. — *Yes on 38 campaign, Kidney Cancer Association (Dr. Brian Shuch), Blood Cancer United* [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals; Prop. 38 explained: California voters to decide $8.4 billion medical research bond; State ballot proposal would approve $8.4 billion in bonds to fund medical research; Proposition 38 contribution totals] - The measure is designed to pay for itself: 10 percent of licensing revenue goes to the state to offset bond costs, and funded treatments must be sold to Californians at a 20 percent discount. — *Yes on 38 campaign, Kidney Cancer Association* [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals; State ballot proposal would approve $8.4 billion in bonds to fund medical research] - Accountability provisions, including a 2 percent administrative cap, public disclosure, independent audits and a bar on for-profit grantees, protect taxpayers. — *Yes on 38 campaign* [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals] - The detailed institute criteria ensure the selected institute is focused on immunology, already well resourced, has adequate facilities, and is closely tied to a UC campus so it can begin work immediately. — *Claudia Briggs, Yes on 38* [Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research (LAO analysis)] - Basic biomedical research is a public good that markets underfund, and one major therapy could outweigh the bond's cost; the discount and administrative cap respond to criticisms of the stem cell program. — *Hoover Institution (presenting the supporting case)* [Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute. (Official Voter Information Guide)] ### Arguments against / criticism - Bond borrowing is a poor way to fund research: it commits $500 million or more a year for decades, displaces other General Fund spending, and research returns are slow and uncertain. — *Robert Kaplan, League of Women Voters of California, Dan Walters (CalMatters)* [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals; Medical research nonprofit would be sole beneficiary of Prop 38; Prop 38 asks: Should California take on more debt to fund a single field of medical research? (Dan Walters commentary)] - Earmarking billions for one scientific field by ballot measure bypasses expert priority-setting and locks in funding regardless of future needs. — *Robert Kaplan, League of Women Voters of California, Dan Walters (CalMatters), Judy Heiman* [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals; Medical research nonprofit would be sole beneficiary of Prop 38; Prop 38 asks: Should California take on more debt to fund a single field of medical research? (Dan Walters commentary); California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them] - The claim that it will pay for itself is speculative; the stem cell bonds returned little to the state. — *Robert Kaplan, Dan Carson, League of Women Voters of California, Hoover Institution* [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals; California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them; Medical research nonprofit would be sole beneficiary of Prop 38; Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute. (Official Voter Information Guide)] - The criteria appear written so that half the money, about $4.2 billion, goes to one institute co-founded by the measure's chief backer, excluding other California research institutions. — *No on 38 campaign (David Panush), Sarah Hill (Cal State Fullerton), Robert Kaplan, Marianne O'Malley* [Prop. 38 explained: California voters to decide $8.4 billion medical research bond; Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research (LAO analysis); This CA proposition will send $4 billion to a single nonprofit. Who's behind it?; California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them; Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - The likely recipient institute is not ready: it had three employees as of September 2026 and its facility is not expected to be complete until at least late 2028. — *CalMatters reporting, David Panush, No on 38* [This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready?; Prop. 38 explained: California voters to decide $8.4 billion medical research bond] - Exempting the institute from public-records, open-meeting and political-reform laws means taxpayers cannot track how the money is spent. — *Marianne O'Malley* [California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them; This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready?] - The California price discount could lead companies to prioritize sales in other states. — *Robert Kaplan* [Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals; Proposition 38 contribution totals] ## Text analysis (as of 2026-10-28) Coverage: Full Text of Proposed Laws for Proposition 38 from the Official Voter Information Guide (S1): Sections 1-3 (title, findings, purpose), Section 4 adding Health and Safety Code Division 110.5, Sections 130350-130364 (research program) and 130370-130385 (bond act), and Sections 5-7 (severability, liberal construction, amendment). The text is complete. The stored copy is converted from the PDF, so the italics marking new language are lost (all of the measure is new language, so nothing is struck out), and the file also holds the end of Proposition 37 and the start of Proposition 39 from adjacent pages, which were disregarded. Drafting quality: **mixed**. The bond-act chapter (130370-130385) follows the standard California general obligation bond template and is clear and internally consistent. The research-program chapter is detailed and mostly precise, with defined terms, numeric earmarks, reporting and audit duties, and specific royalty and pricing formulas. Weaknesses are in completeness and balance of discretion: the institute-eligibility criteria are fixed to past dates and numeric thresholds that define a closed class, while the fallback lets the department rewrite them under a loose 'minimum modification' standard; the price-discount and revenue-sharing obligations have no stated enforcement mechanism or remedy; the purpose clause promises a 98 percent research-spending requirement the operative text does not impose on the institute; and the selected institute is exempted from state transparency law while also being given roles in grant decisions, licensing approval and bond-issuance requests. Severability, liberal construction and a two-thirds amendment clause are routine for California initiatives; the bar on amending the allocation of bond proceeds is a stronger lock than usual. - **beneficiary** (high, Health and Safety Code 130353(a)(1)-(4)): Half of all bond moneys (130352(b)(1)) go to one institute that must meet criteria fixed to dates before the election: existence and founding purpose as of January 1, 2025, a UC affiliation agreement and bylaws adopted by January 1, 2025, and a 200,000-square-foot site owned or leased as of January 1, 2026. Because these dates have passed, no new organization can become eligible; the eligible class is closed at enactment. The text does not name any institute, and it does not show by itself how many existing organizations meet every criterion. — "that was in existence as of January 1, 2025, and that was founded for the primary purpose of, and specializes specifically in, conducting research in the fields of immunology and immunotherapy" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **beneficiary** (high, Health and Safety Code 130353(a)(2)(C)): The institute's UC partner campus must exceed specific patient-volume thresholds. This limits eligibility to institutes affiliated with UC campuses whose health systems exceed both figures, which may be a small number of campuses. Which campuses qualify is a factual question the text does not answer. — "The campus health care system has a hospital and clinic volume of greater than 35,000 inpatient admissions and 3,500,000 outpatient visits each year." [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **special clause** (medium, Health and Safety Code 130353(a)(6)-(7)): Eligibility requires specific pre-existing philanthropic commitments, $250 million in identified funding plus two $50 million commitments for two named program types. Requirements this specific are unusual in a funding-eligibility test and further narrow the eligible class to organizations that already have these particular commitments. — "not less than fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) to support a rapid vaccine development program and not less than fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) to support a microbiome research program" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **expansive language** (high, Health and Safety Code 130353(b)(2)): If no institute both qualifies and is willing to sign, the department must rewrite the eligibility criteria itself. The only limits are 'minimum amount of modification necessary' and furthering the chapter's purposes, with no process, public notice, or review specified. This gives the department wide discretion over who receives about $4.2 billion and leaves open which criteria may be relaxed first. — "shall be the minimum amount of modification necessary to identify an eligible nonprofit medical research institute and shall further the purposes of this chapter" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **enforcement** (medium, Health and Safety Code 130353(c)(2)): The institute's funding agreement is reviewed only every five years, and termination is allowed only if non-compliance 'substantially and materially frustrates' the chapter's purposes, after notice and a chance to cure. No other remedy (suspension, clawback, withholding of disbursements) is stated, so the department has limited tools between reviews. — "the failure substantially and materially frustrates the purposes of this chapter" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **gap** (medium, Health and Safety Code 130353(e)(2)): The measure appropriates $100 million from the General Fund as start-up loans to the institute. Repayment is due within 12 months of the related bond draw, or otherwise at a time the Treasurer finds practicable, with no outside deadline, interest, or provision for what happens if bonds are never drawn. — "as soon thereafter as is practicable as determined by the Treasurer" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **expansive language** (medium, Health and Safety Code 130354(a)(1)(A)): The institute may spend its half on research it conducts or research it 'otherwise direct[s],' so it may pass funds to other parties. The text sets no selection process, peer review, or conflict rules for such subawards comparable to those the council must follow under 130356. — "or is otherwise directed by the institute" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **gap** (medium, Section 3(j); Health and Safety Code 130354(a)(3)): The purpose clause describes a 98 percent research-spending requirement, but the operative text caps only the administrative costs of the department, council, committee and Controller at 2 percent (130354(a)(3)). No operative provision limits the institute's own overhead; grants under 130357(g) cap indirect costs at 20 percent, but that applies to council grants, not the institute's half. Purpose statements generally do not create binding duties. — "a requirement that 98 percent of all funds be spent for costs related to medical research and development of cures" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **beneficiary** (medium, Health and Safety Code 130352(b)(2); 130355(b)): The grant half is open only to institutions represented on the council. Seven members are appointed by the chancellors of seven named UC campuses; those seven appoint the 10 to 15 other members. Institutions not given a council seat by that executive committee cannot apply, so the council controls both who can apply and who wins. — "disbursed to those public and nonprofit universities and other nonprofit research institutions represented on the council" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **carve out** (low, Health and Safety Code 130355(b)(1)): Three UC campuses (Merced, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz) are not given an executive-committee seat. They could be represented only if the executive committee appoints them, and the categories for additional members in 130355(b)(2) are limited to institutions 'excluding the University of California' or 'not part of the University of California,' which appears to leave no path for those three campuses to be represented. — "The chancellors of the University of California campuses at Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego, and San Francisco shall each appoint a representative" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **beneficiary** (medium, Health and Safety Code 130357(e); 130355(d)(2)): Every grant agreement must offer UCLA, named in the text, a chance to participate in the grant's clinical trials, and UCLA's appointee is designated the council's first chairperson. No other campus receives a comparable named right. — "offer the University of California, Los Angeles the opportunity to substantially participate in and collaborate on any clinical trials conducted as part of the funded research" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **other** (medium, Health and Safety Code 130356(e)(2); 130357(d); 130358(e)(2)): Beyond its own half, the selected institute must be consulted on final grant decisions, must be offered participation in every grant-funded project (130357(d)), serves as 'clearinghouse and approval center' for all commercialization agreements (130358(e)(2)(A)), and takes primary negotiating responsibility where it collaborates (130358(e)(2)(C)). These roles give one private entity influence over the whole program, including grants to potential competitors. The text does not say how disagreements between the council and the institute are resolved. — "The council shall confer with the institute selected by the department pursuant to Section 130353 in making final decisions regarding the funding of grant proposals" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **conflict** (high, Health and Safety Code 130363(a)): The institute receiving about $4.2 billion in public funds is exempted 'notwithstanding any other provision of law' from state law applicable to public agencies, expressly including Government Code Division 10 of Title 1 (public records), Article 9 of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 (state open meetings), and Title 9 (the Political Reform Act, which 130363(b) names). Public accountability for the institute rests on the annual report (130359), the Controller's review of its audit (130361(a)), and the oversight committee (130362). — "the institute shall not be deemed a public agency for any purpose under state law" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **special clause** (medium, Health and Safety Code 130363(b)(1)-(2)): The Political Reform Act applies to the council, but with exceptions: members are barred only from decisions involving their own employer, may vote on grants to competitors in the same field, and may vote on research into diseases affecting themselves or family. Because grant applicants must be council-represented institutions (130356(a)), members will routinely decide on grants to each other's institutions. — "a member may participate in a decision to approve or award a grant or contract to an entity in the same field as their employer" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **special clause** (medium, Health and Safety Code 130363(d)): Government Code Section 1090, the general bar on officials having a financial interest in contracts they make, applies to council grants only if the grant benefits the member's own entity and the member fails to recuse. This narrows the usual prohibition to a recusal rule. — "Section 1090 of the Government Code shall not apply to any grant or contract made by the council except where both of the following conditions are met" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **enforcement** (medium, Health and Safety Code 130376(a)): The trigger for bond issuance is a written request from the private institute; the department then 'shall request' the finance committee to issue bonds, and the committee decides whether issuance is necessary or desirable. The text does not say whether bonds may be issued for the council's grant half without an institute request. — "Upon written request by the research institute selected by the State Department of Public Health pursuant to Section 130353" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **ambiguity** (medium, Health and Safety Code 130358(a)(1)): Recipients owe the state 10 percent of 'all revenues derived' from IP arising from funded research, even if the research was only partly state-funded. 'Revenues' is not defined (gross or net, before or after any shares owed to partner institutions), and the text does not say how 'arise from research funded under this chapter' is determined when funding is mixed. The answer affects how much the state recovers. — "calculated without regard to whether the research that gave rise to the intellectual property rights was funded wholly or only in part by research funds" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **gap** (high, Health and Safety Code 130358(b)): Recipients that license or sell a funded drug must ensure it is sold in California at least 20 percent below the national average price. The text does not say who calculates the national average, what data source is used, whether the obligation binds downstream licensees and manufacturers who are not recipients, or what penalty or remedy applies if the price is not met. No agency is assigned to enforce it. — "at a price that is at least 20 percent below the national average price, calculated by excluding California" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **conflict** (low, Health and Safety Code 130358(g); 130357(b)): Funded research must be conducted under 'established standards of open scientific exchange' (130353(d), 130357(b)), yet funded institutions may require modifications to publications for patent 'or other reasons' and delay publication. Prepublication patent review is common in research agreements, but the open-ended 'other reasons' sits in some tension with the open-exchange requirement. — "Propose modifications to the publication or presentation for patent reasons or other reasons to be specified with reasonable particularity at that time." [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - **duration** (medium, Section 7): A two-thirds legislative vote to amend only in furtherance of the act's purposes is common in California initiatives. This clause goes further: the Legislature cannot change the 50/50 allocation, the single-institute structure, or permitted uses at all, so any such change would require another vote of the people. — "no such statute shall amend the provisions of this act regarding the allocation and disbursement of bond proceeds or the purposes for which bond proceeds may be expended" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - Beneficiary: The single nonprofit medical research institute selected under Section 130353: Receives 50 percent of bond moneys, a $100 million General Fund start-up loan, consultation on council grant decisions, a participation offer on every grant, and the clearinghouse role over all commercialization agreements, while being exempt from public-agency laws. — "Fifty percent of the moneys shall be disbursed to a single nonprofit medical research institute" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - Beneficiary: University of California, Los Angeles: Named to receive an offer to collaborate on clinical trials in every grant, and its council appointee is the first chairperson. — "The appointed representative from the University of California, Los Angeles shall serve as the first chairperson of the council." [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - Beneficiary: Seven named UC campuses and the institutions they seat on the council: Their chancellors appoint the executive committee, which appoints the other members; only council-represented institutions may receive the grant half. — "shall accept or reject applications for funding received from those public and nonprofit universities and other nonprofit research institutions represented on the council" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - Beneficiary: California patients, hospitals and insurers: Entitled to prices at least 20 percent below the national average for drugs or technologies developed with the funds, if commercialized. — "shall require that the technology or drug is made available to California patients, hospitals, and insurance companies at a price that is at least 20 percent below the national average price" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - Beneficiary: State General Fund: Receives 10 percent of commercialization revenues until the full cost of the bonds, including interest, is repaid. — "shall be deposited into the General Fund until the cumulative amount of those payments equals the total cost to the state of the bonds" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] - Beneficiary: California suppliers: Grant recipients must make a good-faith effort to buy more than half of goods and services from California suppliers. — "in a good faith effort to achieve a goal of more than 50 percent of those purchases from California suppliers" [Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws] Limitations: This reading assesses only the measure's text. It does not determine which institution would be selected, how the department would apply its discretion, or whether the research would produce revenue; those depend on facts outside the text. Statements about Government Code provisions are limited to what the measure itself cites. ## Timeline (newest first) - **2026-11-03** — Proposition 38 appears on the statewide general election ballot (California Secretary of State) - **2026-10-22** — Reporting cutoff for contribution totals (California Secretary of State) - **2026-10-20** — Published: This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure (LAist (republished from CalMatters)) - **2026-10-20** — Published: This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready? (CalMatters) - **2026-10-20** — CalMatters published this report (CalMatters) - **2026-10-20** — Published: California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them (KQED) - **2026-10-20** — KQED published this report (KQED) - **2026-10-20** — Published: Commentary: Voters to consider bond measure to fund limited medical research (Times of San Diego (republished from CalMatters)) - **2026-10-14** — Published: Prop. 38 explained: California voters to decide $8.4 billion medical research bond (ABC30) - **2026-10-14** — ABC30 published this explainer (ABC30) - **2026-10-14** — Published: Prop 38 asks: Should California take on more debt to fund a single field of medical research? (Dan Walters commentary) (CalMatters) - **2026-10-14** — Column published (CalMatters) - **2026-10-02** — Published: California's Proposition 38: What the Parkinson's community should know before Election Day (Michael J. Fox Foundation) - **2026-10-01** — Published: Proposition 38: Research bond (CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide) (CalMatters) - **2026-09-30** — Governor Newsom signed SB 895, according to MJFF (Michael J. Fox Foundation) - **2026-09-29** — Published: Prop. 38: The controversial billion-dollar bond measure for immunology research (LAist) - **2026-09-29** — Guide published (updated 2026-10-14) (LAist) - **2026-09-16** — Mazziotta told UC Regents the institute had hired three employees (CalMatters) - **2026-08-26** — Published: Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws (California Secretary of State) - **2026-08-25** — Published: Vote with the League: Quick Reference Guide, November 2026 (League of Women Voters of California) - **2026-08-10** — Published: Medical research nonprofit would be sole beneficiary of Prop 38 (KALW) - **2026-08-10** — KALW aired this report (KALW) - **2026-07-31** — Published: This CA proposition will send $4 billion to a single nonprofit. Who's behind it? (CalMatters) - **2026-07-31** — CalMatters published this analysis (CalMatters) - **2026-07-16** — Published: Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research (LAO analysis) (Legislative Analyst's Office) - **2026-07-14** — Published: AAI-Endorsed California Immunology Research Initiative Qualifies for Ballot (American Association of Immunologists) - **2026-07** — Initiative qualified for the November 3, 2026 ballot (Hoover Institution) - **2026-06-29** — Published: KCA-Supported Immunology Research Initiative Advances to California's November Ballot (Kidney Cancer Association) - **2026-06** — Initiative qualified for the November 2026 ballot (reported June 29, 2026) (Kidney Cancer Association) - **2026-04-05** — Published: State ballot proposal would approve $8.4 billion in bonds to fund medical research (Daily Bruin) - **2026-04-05** — Kaplan quoted as saying he would vote for the initiative (Daily Bruin) - **2026-01-02** — Initiative entered circulation (Hoover Institution) - **2026-01-01** — Date by which the institute must own or lease a site of at least 200,000 square feet (Section 130353(a)(4)) (California Secretary of State) - **2026-01** — Proponents cleared to gather signatures (Daily Bruin) - **2025-01-01** — Cutoff date by which the selected institute must have existed and signed its UC affiliation agreement and bylaws (Section 130353(a)) (California Secretary of State) - **2024-08** — UCLA and CIII signed their formal affiliation agreement (CalMatters) - **2022** — CIII became a nonprofit (CalMatters) ## Sources ### This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure - LAist (republished from CalMatters) · news · published 2026-10-20 · stance: neutral - ### This institute could get $4 billion from a ballot measure. With just three workers, is it ready? - CalMatters · news · published 2026-10-20 · stance: neutral - CalMatters reporting (Mikhail Zinshteyn) on the readiness of the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy (CIII), which earlier CalMatters reporting found is the only institute currently meeting Prop. 38's criteria for the $4.2 billion half of the bond. Based on public records and UC Regents remarks, it reports the institute had three employees versus a plan for about 51, describes its UCLA affiliation agreement and facility timeline, quotes the Yes campaign, and covers the measure's exemption of the institute from state transparency laws. - As of September 2026 the institute had three employees (a chief operating officer, a general counsel and a scientific advisor), versus about 51 planned by summer 2025, according to UCLA Health CEO John Mazziotta at the Sept. 16 UC Regents meeting. - The 2024 UCLA affiliation agreement requires the institute to pay UCLA 7.5% of net revenue from drugs and technologies developed by its staff; the institute leases 235,000 square feet at a UCLA research park. - The research park is not expected to be fully built until at least late 2028; construction costs still need roughly $100 million, Mazziotta said. - Yes on 38 spokesperson Robin Swanson said at a September press conference it is 'very likely' CIII will qualify for half the funds, and later that it won't get bond money if it isn't ready; the Department of Public Health makes the final decision. - Prop. 38 exempts the selected institute from the Public Records Act, open meetings laws and the Political Reform Act; campaign spokesperson Claudia Briggs said applying those laws to private organizations would 'not fit well.' - Gov. Newsom, the California Democratic Party, the state GOP and the union of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers have endorsed Prop. 38. - Support money exceeds $66 million, including at least $61.2 million from Gary Michelson and his policy institute (about $14 million in loans); the no side had raised about $8,800. - Reference: CalMatters public records (DocumentCloud) - Reference: Earlier CalMatters reporting on institute eligibility - Reference: UC Regents September 2026 agenda item - Reference: CIII board of directors - Reference: SOS voter guide LAO analysis - Reference: Yes on 38 measure text page ### California Cancer Patients Disagree Over Whether Proposition 38 Will Help Them - KQED · news · published 2026-10-20 · stance: neutral - KQED reporting (April Dembosky) on patients divided over Prop. 38. Supporters include a lymphoma survivor whose CAR-T immunotherapy put her in remission and an Alzheimer's caregiver; opponents include a Parkinson's patient and other retired Legislative Analyst's Office analysts who argue the measure is narrow, opaque, expensive and unlikely to pay for itself. - Laurie Adami, in complete remission after a CAR-T trial, supports the measure so more patients can access such treatments. - KQED notes only 15 to 20% of patients achieve durable results from immunotherapy and only 14% of drugs in clinical trials reach FDA approval. - Former LAO health section head Dan Carson said the state received just $16 million of $6 billion promised from the stem cell bond and that Prop. 38 won't pay for itself. - Marianne O'Malley, a former LAO analyst with Parkinson's, said the measure steers funds to a billionaire's project and waives transparency laws. - Former LAO analyst Judy Heiman said research grants should be openly competitive and merit-based, pointing to a broader research bond on the March 2028 ballot. - KQED reports state taxpayers would owe about $4 billion in interest on top of the $8.4 billion bond. - Reference: KQED explainer on Prop. 38 - Reference: KQED voter guide: Prop. 38 - Reference: KQED on the stem cell agency's record - Reference: KQED on the 2028 science agency bond ### Commentary: Voters to consider bond measure to fund limited medical research - Times of San Diego (republished from CalMatters) · third party analysis · published 2026-10-20 · stance: unknown - ### Prop. 38 explained: California voters to decide $8.4 billion medical research bond - ABC30 · news · published 2026-10-14 · stance: neutral - ABC30 (KABC) explainer by Josh Haskell quoting both campaigns. The Yes side frames Prop. 38 as filling gaps from federal research cuts; the No side calls it a bad deal benefiting an institute founded by its billionaire backers, Gary K. Michelson and Meyer Luskin. - Robin Swanson (Yes on 38) says the Trump administration has cut billions from NIH and proposed $5 billion more in cuts for 2027. - David Panush (No on 38) calls it 'a bad deal for taxpayers, it's bad policy, bad science.' - Panush says the institute lacks an address, phone number, executive director or researchers on staff. - Swanson says lots of institutes will qualify for funding but it is 'very likely' CIII will qualify for half under current criteria, with the Department of Public Health deciding. ### Prop 38 asks: Should California take on more debt to fund a single field of medical research? (Dan Walters commentary) - CalMatters · third party analysis · published 2026-10-14 · stance: oppose - A CalMatters opinion column by Dan Walters that places Prop. 38 in the history of California's stem cell bonds (Props. 71 and 14) and questions bond-funding one field of research. It cites CalMatters' finding that the Michelson-founded institute would be the only qualifier for half the money and argues bonds are loans that displace other spending. - Recounts that Prop. 71 (2004) created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine with $3 billion in bonds and Prop. 14 (2020) added $5.5 billion, with no independent analysis of results, in Walters' description. - Cites CalMatters' finding that CIII, founded and headed by Gary Michelson, would be the only organization qualifying for half the money. - Attributes to the LAO an estimate of about $500 million a year for 25 years, about $12.5 billion total. - Notes SB 895 places a $7.5 billion bond for a new California Foundation for Science and Health Research on the 2028 ballot. - Reference: CalMatters analysis of institute eligibility - Reference: LAO fiscal estimate of the initiative - Reference: SB 895 (Digital Democracy) ### California's Proposition 38: What the Parkinson's community should know before Election Day - Michael J. Fox Foundation · third party analysis · published 2026-10-02 · stance: support - A Michael J. Fox Foundation policy news post explaining Prop. 38 to the Parkinson's community. MJFF says it is a member of the coalition supporting the measure and argues it could advance research relevant to Parkinson's, while noting the measure is not solely focused on Parkinson's. - MJFF is a member of the statewide coalition supporting Prop. 38. - Says the measure would dedicate $8.4 billion to immunology research at California universities and nonprofits and include affordability provisions. - Cites nearly 135,000 Californians living with Parkinson's and atypical parkinsonisms. - Notes MJFF also supported SB 895, a state health and science research fund that it says will appear on the March 2028 ballot. - Reference: Yes on 38: Get the facts - Reference: Michael J. Fox LA Times op-ed on SB 895 ### Proposition 38: Research bond (CalMatters 2026 Voter Guide) - CalMatters · voter guide · published 2026-10-01 · stance: neutral - CalMatters' 2026 voter guide entry for Proposition 38. It summarizes the main arguments of supporters and critics, lists endorsements on each side, notes that no media outlets support it while four newspaper editorial boards oppose it, and reprints the official ballot text and fiscal impact. - Supporters say most diseases involve the immune system and that funding is needed because the Trump administration has tried to cut federal health research funding. - Critics fault the focus on one subset of biomedical research, question whether funded research can produce commercial drugs, question why one nonprofit gets half the money, and note $500 million to $600 million a year in debt payments for 20 years. - Listed support: American Association of Immunologists, California Democratic Party, City of Hope, Michelson Center for Public Policy. - Listed opposition: Robert Kaplan (Stanford), No on 38 led by California Health Policy Strategies, League of Women Voters, Orange County Register Editorial Board. - Media opposition listed: The Orange County Register, The San Diego Union-Tribune, The Sacramento Bee, San Francisco Chronicle; no media supporters listed. - Reference: No on 38 campaign site - Reference: Orange County Register endorsement: No on Prop. 38 - Reference: San Diego Union-Tribune editorial: No on Prop. 38 - Reference: Sacramento Bee endorsement - Reference: San Francisco Chronicle editorial - Reference: California Democratic Party endorsements - Reference: League of Women Voters of California recommendations ### Prop. 38: The controversial billion-dollar bond measure for immunology research - LAist · voter guide · published 2026-09-29 · stance: neutral - LAist's voter guide to Prop. 38 (Robert Garrova), updated October 14, 2026. It explains the measure, the official ballot language and fiscal impact, the controversy over the apparent single beneficiary institute, and lists notable supporters and opponents. - Explains that about half the bond funds go to a UC-affiliated institute meeting specific criteria and half to competitive grants. - Opponents say the measure would seemingly steer $4.2 billion to one research group; CalMatters found only CIII would probably qualify, and backers say the criteria do not solely apply to it. - Notable supporters: Alzheimer's Los Angeles, Michael J. Fox Foundation, California Black Health Network. - Notable opposition: League of Women Voters of California, Orange County Register Editorial Board, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. - Requires a simple majority to pass. - Reference: Yes on 38 supporters list - Reference: Vote No on Prop. 38 - Reference: No on 38 endorsements - Reference: Initiative text (Attorney General) - Reference: LAO analysis ### Proposition 38: Text of Proposed Laws - California Secretary of State · official text · published 2026-08-26 · stance: not_applicable - The complete Text of Proposed Laws for Proposition 38, the 'California Immunology Research and Cures Initiative,' from the Official Voter Information Guide (pages 123-133). It adds Division 110.5 (Sections 130350-130385) to the Health and Safety Code: Chapter 1 creates the research program (a single selected nonprofit institute receiving 50% of bond funds, a council-run grant program for the other 50%, revenue sharing, a California price discount, reporting, audits and oversight), and Chapter 2 is the $8.4 billion bond act. Sections 5-7 cover severability, liberal construction, and amendment limits. - Section 130352: 50% of fund moneys go to 'a single nonprofit medical research institute' and 50% to universities and nonprofit research institutions represented on the Advisory and Accountability Research Council, as individualized project grants. - Section 130353: the State Department of Public Health selects the institute using fixed criteria: a 501(c)(3) in existence by January 1, 2025, founded to specialize in immunology and immunotherapy; a UC campus affiliation agreement signed by January 1, 2025 with a campus whose health system exceeds 35,000 inpatient admissions and 3,500,000 outpatient visits a year; senior UC campus representatives on its board; a site of at least 200,000 square feet as of January 1, 2026; $250 million in identified philanthropic funding; and $50 million commitments each for a rapid vaccine program and a microbiome program. If no institute qualifies, the department must modify the criteria minimally. - Section 130353(e) appropriates $100 million from the General Fund as start-up loans to the institute, to be repaid from bond proceeds. - At least $2.1 billion from each half must go to research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's; state administrative costs are capped at 2%. - Section 130355: the council's seven-member executive committee is appointed by the chancellors of UC Berkeley, Davis, Irvine, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego and San Francisco; the UCLA representative is the first chair; the executive committee appoints 10 to 15 more members from non-UC institutions. - Section 130357: grantees must offer the selected institute the opportunity to collaborate on funded research and must offer UCLA by name the opportunity to collaborate on clinical trials; indirect costs are capped at 20%; grantees must aim for over 50% California suppliers. - Section 130358: recipients pay the state 10% of revenues from commercializing funded intellectual property until bond costs are repaid, then into the research fund; licensed products must be sold in California at least 20% below the national average price; the institute runs the licensing program and acts as a clearinghouse for all commercialization agreements. - Section 130363: the institute 'shall not be deemed a public agency for any purpose under state law,' including the Public Records Act, the Bagley-Keene open meeting act, and the Political Reform Act; the council is covered by the Political Reform Act with stated exceptions. - Section 130376: bonds are issued upon written request by the selected institute, through the department, to the Finance Committee (Treasurer, Controller, Director of Finance). - Section 7: the Legislature may amend only by two-thirds vote to further the act's purposes, and may not amend the allocation and disbursement of bond proceeds or their permitted purposes. ### Vote with the League: Quick Reference Guide, November 2026 - League of Women Voters of California · third party analysis · published 2026-08-25 · stance: oppose - The League of Women Voters of California's November 2026 quick reference guide. It recommends a No vote on Prop. 38 in one paragraph. - LWVC position on Prop. 38: OPPOSE. - Reasoning: medical research saves lives but bonds are a poor way to fund it; repayment of $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years, about 10 percent more after inflation than paying up front. - Also says it would lock billions into one field as other research needs emerge and that the stem-cell bond experience shows royalties may do little to offset debt. - Reference: LWVC full ballot recommendations ### Medical research nonprofit would be sole beneficiary of Prop 38 - KALW · news · published 2026-08-10 · stance: neutral - A short KALW radio item based on CalMatters reporting (Mikhail Zinshteyn) that Prop. 38 would designate half its funds to one unnamed institute whose criteria appear to fit only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, co-founded by the measure's primary backer Gary K. Michelson. - About $4 billion would go to one unnamed institute meeting very specific criteria, including UC affiliation with a high-volume medical center. - Only CIII, based in a UCLA research park, appears to meet the criteria. - Cal State Fullerton political scientist Sarah Hill says it is 'very clearly designed to support a specific nonprofit.' ### This CA proposition will send $4 billion to a single nonprofit. Who's behind it? - CalMatters · news · published 2026-07-31 · stance: neutral - CalMatters analysis (Mikhail Zinshteyn) concluding that Prop. 38's institute criteria very likely exclude every institute except the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy (CIII), whose co-founder and board chair Gary K. Michelson is the measure's chief backer. It walks through each criterion against public records, quotes a political scientist and opponent Robert Kaplan, and gives the Yes campaign's response that the criteria are not tailored to one institute. - Only UCLA's health system exceeds 3.5 million outpatient visits a year (4.1 million in 2025; UCSF 3.4 million), so only a UCLA-affiliated institute currently meets that criterion, per UC's fiscal audit. - A UCLA spokesperson, Phil Hampton, confirmed only CIII among UCLA-affiliated nonprofits could satisfy the criteria. - Michelson and his wife donated $50 million to two research programs whose descriptions nearly match the measure's rapid vaccine and microbiome criteria; CIII reportedly received $250 million in philanthropy, matching the $250 million criterion. - Four senior UCLA administrators, including Chancellor Julio Frenk, sit on CIII's board, matching the board-composition criterion. - Michelson has given CIII at least $120 million since 2022; Michelson and his Michelson Center for Public Policy gave at least $8.2 million to the Yes campaign, and co-founder Meyer Luskin at least $5 million (as of this report). - The grant council is chosen by chancellors of seven UC campuses (excluding Merced, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz); grant applicants must come from council-represented employers, and the council must confer with the institute on final decisions. - Yes on 38 spokesperson Claudia Briggs said the language isn't uniquely tailored to CIII and the criteria ensure a well-prepared, UC-connected institute. - Reference: Initiative text 25-0026A1 (Attorney General) - Reference: LAO fiscal estimate of the initiative - Reference: UC medical center financial report 2025 - Reference: UCLA-CIII 2023 term sheet (UC Regents) - Reference: CIII Form 990 (ProPublica) - Reference: Yes on 38 committee filings (Cal-Access) - Reference: Michelson $120 million gift release ### Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research (LAO analysis) - Legislative Analyst's Office · official analysis · published 2026-07-16 · stance: neutral - The Legislative Analyst's Office's official ballot analysis of Proposition 38. It explains medical research funding, describes the measure's institute, grant council, revenue-sharing and discount provisions, and estimates fiscal effects: a General Fund cost of $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years, uncertain but potentially significant offsetting revenue that could take decades, and uncertain indirect effects on state health program costs. - Prop. 38 allows an $8.4 billion general obligation bond for immunology and immunotherapy research, repaid from the General Fund. - At least $4.2 billion must be used for immunology research on cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's; no more than 2% for state administration. - About half the funds go to a research institute selected by the California Department of Public Health that meets criteria on size, funding and collaboration with a UC campus. - A council of representatives from 7 UC campuses and 10 to 15 other institutions would award the other half as competitive grants among its member organizations. - Ten percent of revenue from discoveries goes first to the General Fund until bond costs are repaid, then to further research. - The annual cost is about 0.25% of the General Fund budget; total cost is about 10% more after inflation than paying cash. - Earlier voter-approved stem cell bonds (Prop. 71 of 2004 and Prop. 14 of 2020) together authorized $8.5 billion. ### AAI-Endorsed California Immunology Research Initiative Qualifies for Ballot - American Association of Immunologists · third party analysis · published 2026-07-14 · stance: support - ### KCA-Supported Immunology Research Initiative Advances to California's November Ballot - Kidney Cancer Association · third party analysis · published 2026-06-29 · stance: support - A Kidney Cancer Association blog post announcing that the immunology initiative qualified for the November 2026 ballot and that KCA supports it. It lists the initiative's key provisions as described by the campaign coalition and quotes KCA leaders. - KCA signed on in support of the initiative. - Describes provisions: $8.4 billion for California public and nonprofit institutions, half for cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's, 10% licensing revenue returned to the state, a 2% admin cap, and a minimum 20% discount for Californians. - KCA board member Dr. Brian Shuch, a UCLA kidney cancer program director, says federal funding cuts have slowed promising cancer trials. - Notes the defense-backed Kidney Cancer Research Program was cut from $50 million to $0 and partially restored to $15 million for fiscal 2026. - Reference: Coalition press release on qualification ### State ballot proposal would approve $8.4 billion in bonds to fund medical research - Daily Bruin · news · published 2026-04-05 · stance: neutral - Daily Bruin (UCLA student newspaper) report from the signature-gathering stage of the immunology initiative. It summarizes the proposal, notes supporting nonprofits, and quotes UCLA researchers, including Robert Kaplan, who at the time said he would vote for it while raising concerns about repayment and the price discount. - Describes the initiative as $8.4 billion in bonds, half for Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease, split between a UC-affiliated institute and a grant program. - Cites the LAO's estimate of about $500 million a year over 25 years. - Lists Blood Cancer United, the Parkinson Association of Northern California and the California Black Health Network among groups leading the effort. - Robert Kaplan said he would vote for the initiative but called the assumption of rapid repayment 'completely unrealistic' and worried the discount could deter companies from selling in California. - Notes a separate UC-sponsored bill for a $23 billion research bond (SB 895 as then proposed). - Reference: Daily Bruin: UC sponsors $23 billion research bond bill ### Proposition 38: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute. (Official Voter Information Guide) - California Secretary of State · voter guide · published undated · stance: neutral - The Secretary of State's Official Voter Information Guide summary page for Proposition 38. It gives the official summary (an $8.4 billion general obligation bond for immunology and immunotherapy research, half to a single University of California-affiliated nonprofit research institute and half to research grants), the fiscal impact line, the listed supporters and opponent, what yes and no votes mean, and short pro and con statements from the campaigns. - Put on the ballot by petition signatures as an initiative statute. - Official summary: $8.4 billion in bonds, half to a single UC-affiliated nonprofit medical research institute, half to research grants. - Fiscal impact: increased state cost of $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years, with some or all of the cost offset if funded research generates revenue. - Listed supporters: Michael J. Fox Foundation; Alzheimer's Los Angeles; Kidney Cancer Association; American Nurses Association\California. Listed opponent: Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D. - Contact for the yes side is the committee 'YES on 38: Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures'; the no side contact is Kaplan at Stanford's Clinical Excellence Research Center. - Reference: Yes on 38 campaign website ### CA Decides: Prop 38, Immunology and Immunotherapy Research Bond - Hoover Institution · third party analysis · published undated · stance: neutral - The Hoover Institution's 'California Decides' explainer on Prop. 38. It lays out what the measure does, quotes key legal language, identifies Gary K. Michelson as the proponent, and weighs the cost of borrowing against uncertain returns, drawing on the stem cell bond precedent. It lists potential benefits and risks and open questions, without a recommendation. - Identifies Dr. Gary K. Michelson as the filer and financier of the initiative (AG No. 25-0026A1); it entered circulation January 2, 2026 and qualified in July 2026. - States the LAO estimates about $500 million a year for roughly 25 years, about $12.5 billion total. - Says the stem cell program produced real scientific value but minimal direct financial return to the state, with only a few hundred thousand dollars received from funded inventions by the early 2020s under Prop. 71. - Notes the seven UC chancellors are at the center of the grant council, raising the same grant-maker/grant-seeker closeness questions that dogged the stem cell agency. - Presents the counterargument that basic research is a public good underfunded by markets and that the 20% discount and 2% admin cap respond to stem cell program criticisms. - Open questions include which institute would be selected and whether the criteria effectively pre-decide it, and how enforceable the price discount would be. - Reference: Initiative 25-0026A1 full text (Attorney General) - Reference: LAO analysis of Initiative 25-0026 - Reference: Hoover Prop. 38 PDF ### Text of Proposed Law: Proposition 38 (Official Voter Information Guide, Text of Proposed Laws, PDF pages 24–34) - California Secretary of State · official text · published undated · stance: not_applicable - ### Proposition 38: Arguments and Rebuttals - California Secretary of State · voter guide · published undated · stance: mixed - The official ballot arguments and rebuttals for Proposition 38 from the Secretary of State's voter guide. The argument in favor, signed by representatives of Alzheimer's Los Angeles, the ALS Association and the Kidney Cancer Association, stresses life-saving research, federal funding cuts, a 20% patient discount, and a claim of no net cost. The argument against, by Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., objects to ballot-box research priorities, bond financing of research, and the revenue assumptions, and points to a proposed state research agency as an alternative. - Supporters list the Alzheimer's Association, Michael J. Fox Foundation, American Nurses Association\California, ALS Association, National Multiple Sclerosis Society and Prostate Cancer Foundation, among others. - Supporters say at least half of funds go to cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's research and that the measure offsets federal research funding cuts. - Supporters say Prop. 38 is designed to pay for itself 'WITH NO NET COST TO THE STATE OR TAXPAYERS' through the 10% licensing revenue return. - Kaplan argues research priorities should be set by scientific review and public health planning, not election campaigns, and that 'ballot-box science' favors the most visible topics. - Kaplan argues bonds suit long-lived infrastructure, not research, and that universities rarely commercialize therapies themselves, so returns seldom flow to the state treasury. - Kaplan argues the California price discount could lead companies to prioritize sales in other states. - Kaplan cites a proposal by Senator Scott Wiener for a state research agency modeled on NIH and NSF as an alternative. ### Proposition 38 contribution totals - California Secretary of State · campaign finance · published undated · stance: not_applicable - The Secretary of State's ballot measure contribution totals for Prop. 38, through October 22, 2026. Support committees reported $71,229,216; the one opposition committee reported $11,990. - Support total: $71,229,216 through 10/22/2026. - Michelson Center for Public Policy, Inc. - Yes on 38 (a 501(c)(4)): $13,000,000. - Yes on 38: Californians for Life-Saving Immunology Research and Cures, Sponsored by the Michelson Center for Public Policy: $58,229,216. - Opposition: No on Proposition 38, $11,990. - Reference: Yes on 38 committee detail (Cal-Access) - Reference: Michelson Center Yes on 38 committee (Cal-Access) - Reference: No on Proposition 38 committee (Cal-Access) - Reference: FPPC top contributors ## Suggested use Ask me neutral questions about this subject using the material above. Distinguish what the sources say from your own background knowledge, cite the source titles you rely on, and say when information may be out of date given the dates shown.