What does voting YES or NO actually change? Who benefits, who pays and what’s the catch?
SOURCES
California Secretary of State — Official Voter Information Guide and California Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), nonpartisan analyses:
Prop 38 — Medical Research Funding
https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/38/analysis.htm
Prop 39 — Voter Identification Requirements
https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/39
Prop 40 — One-Time Tax on Billionaires
https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/40/analysis.htm
Prop 41 — Government Audits and Tax Spending Rules
https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/41/analysis.htm
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are my own and do not reflect those of my employer or any affiliated organization. This content is for educational and informational purposes only and does not endorse or oppose any candidate, political party or ballot measure.
#CaliforniaPropositions #Midterms2026 #votereducation
+++++
Proposiciones 38, 39, 40 y 41 de California. Cuatro medidas más en la boleta electoral del 3 de noviembre que abordan la investigación médica, la identificación de votantes, los impuestos a los multimillonarios y la supervisión del gasto público.
¿Qué cambia realmente si votas SÍ o NO? ¿Quién se beneficia, quién paga y cuál es la letra pequeña?
Te lo explico todo de manera sencilla, porque no deberías necesitar un título en Derecho para entender tu boleta electoral.
a day agoevepanush
Prop. 38 would give half of the bond proceeds to a private institute - the California Institute for Immunology & Immunotherapy. Gary Michelson, who is the director of this institute, has donated $66.2 million of the $72 million raised for the Prop 38 campaign. This private institute has only 3 employees and no research labs or staff and Prop. 38 exempts this institute from requirements to report conflicts of interest and to have open meetings. The other half of the bond proceeds would go to a limited number of research institutions and excludes UC Santa Cruz, Merced, and Santa Barbara from receiving any funding. If you want your taxpayer dollars to be spent on medical research by the top institutions in the state, shouldn’t the grants be distributed based on scientific criteria and not to some entity that has no track record of any success in researching cancer, heart disease, or any other chronic illness?
More posts
