More than $351 million in political donations has been poured into a high-stakes contest about a proposed wealth tax on the November ballot, making it one of the most costly campaigns in California history. About 90% of that staggering sum is being spent to defeat a statewide initiative aimed at imposing a new levy on the assets of billionaires. Supporters frame the measure as a long-overdue economic reckoning, while a multifaceted opposition effort bankrolled primarily by the ultra-rich targets pushes back with unprecedented financial force.
A Financial Disparity on the Ballot
The cash imbalance between the two sides of the campaign is vast. Opponents of the wealth tax have raised $316.7 million, while proponents have brought in nearly $34.3 million. Republican strategist Rob Stutzman offered a stark appraisal of the imbalance, noting that the pro-Proposition 40 campaign “picked a fight and then came to that fight with a butter knife against a nuclear arsenal.” Because the opposition is so well-funded in today’s multifaceted media environment, they appear everywhere from network television to inside video games, securing an advantage few campaigns ever experience.
Despite the immense capital deployed against it, Stutzman warned that money does not guarantee a victory at the ballot box. Similar dynamics played out during the most expensive ballot measure fight in California history in 2022, when $463 million was spent on two competing sports gaming proposals. Those initiatives, which pitted successful Native American tribes against major gambling corporations like DraftKings and FanDuel, ultimately saw both sides fail.
Origins of Proposition 40 and Counter-Measures
The tax measure itself was crafted by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West. Suzanne Jimenez, the union’s chief of staff, explained that Proposition 40 serves as an emergency response to federal healthcare funding cuts signed by President Trump last year, which are projected to reduce California’s healthcare budget by $100 billion. Jimenez warned that more than 3 million Californians could lose their health insurance, hospitals and emergency rooms face closure, and patients could die unnecessarily once the cuts hit after the midterms. Proponents spent nearly all of their $34.3 million war chest gathering signatures to place the measure on the ballot, leaving them with just $1.6 million on hand as of Oct. 17.
To counter Proposition 40, opponents introduced two intertwined ballot initiatives: Propositions 41 and 42. Proposition 41 backers argue the measure aims to cut wasteful government spending by requiring audits for new state special taxes, while Proposition 42 supporters contend it would prohibit new taxes on retirement holdings and personal savings. Advocates for the billionaire tax dismiss both initiatives as well-financed smokescreens designed to neuter Proposition 40.
Billionaire Donors and Corporate Maneuvers
The opposition campaign, led primarily by the coalition Building a Better California, includes prominent contributions from several state billionaires. Google co-founder Sergey Brin has donated more than $100 million to anti-wealth-tax efforts, while former Google leader Eric Schmidt and venture capitalist L. John Doerr each contributed $40 million. Brin, Schmidt, and Doerr did not respond to requests for comment.
The debate has also exposed deep divisions among Democrats and traditional labor allies. Jodi Hicks, chief executive and president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, stated that while her organization supports the concept of a wealth tax, they oppose Proposition 40 specifically because its design threatens the state’s volatile budget and healthcare stability.
Meanwhile, the campaign has drawn high-profile national figures. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) recently rallied in downtown Los Angeles to support Proposition 40, explicitly calling out Meta chief Mark Zuckerberg among the oligarchs. Following reports that Zuckerberg considered leaving California to avoid selling substantial stock under the levy, Meta announced the creation of a new, non-voting stock class. This arrangement allows Zuckerberg to pay the proposed tax while retaining voting power, provided he agrees to remain in the state for eight years.
Unresolved Legal Pressures and Voter Confusion
As voters cast ballots under a blizzard of television ads, mailers, and digital messaging, election law experts point to significant looming hurdles. Jessica Levinson, an election law professor at Loyola Law School, noted that beyond widespread voter confusion regarding the competing propositions, the measure faces certain legal challenges—particularly concerning its retroactive nature, which would apply to any billionaire who lived in California as of Jan. 1.
