The RCJ votes Yes, but there are some fishy things going on with the way this money is allocated. The need for this research is so critical that perhaps the politics behind the funding distribution can be managed.
Proposition 38 would authorize California to borrow $8.4 billion through state general-obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research. At least half of the money would go toward research involving cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer’s disease. Half would be distributed through research grants, while the other half would go to a qualifying University of California-affiliated nonprofit research institute.
The Pro Argument
Supporters argue that immunotherapy is producing important advances in treating serious diseases and that California should make a major investment in research that could lead to new treatments and cures. They also point to uncertainty and reductions in federal research funding as a reason for creating a stable California source of support.
The measure contains several provisions intended to provide public benefits. Treatments developed through the funded research generally would have to be offered to California patients at 20% below the national average price, and 10% of revenue generated from funded discoveries would go to the state until the bond costs are repaid.
The Con Argument
Opponents question whether borrowing billions for speculative scientific research is an appropriate use of state debt. The Legislative Analyst estimates that Proposition 38 would require roughly $500 million to $600 million annually for about 20 years from the General Fund. Although successful discoveries could eventually generate revenue, there is no guarantee that research will produce commercially successful treatments or that revenues would arrive soon enough to offset the debt.
A second controversy concerns how the money would be distributed. Critics argue that the measure’s eligibility requirements are unusually specific and could effectively steer more than $4 billion toward a particular research institute rather than allocating all the money through a broadly competitive process. CalMatters reported that the institute appears to be the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, which was co-founded by proposition backer Gary Michelson.
In Brief
The debate is therefore about both medical research and how government should finance and select it. Supporters see Proposition 38 as a potentially transformative investment in treatments for major diseases; opponents question the long-term debt, the uncertainty of financial returns, and the measure’s highly targeted funding structure. The Legislative Analyst describes the potential state revenue from successful discoveries as uncertain and potentially decades away.
Supporters
The official California voter guide identifies prominent supporters including:
- The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research
- Alzheimer’s Association / Alzheimer’s Los Angeles
- American Nurses Association–California
- ALS Association
- National Multiple Sclerosis Society
- Kidney Cancer Association
- Prostate Cancer Foundation
- California Democratic Party
- American Association of Immunologists
- City of Hope
The campaign is also substantially financed by the Michelson Center for Public Policy. The Secretary of State reported $13.2 million in contributions to the principal Yes on 38 committee through August 2, 2026.
Supporters argue that California should invest aggressively in immunology and immunotherapy research at a time when federal medical-research funding has become less certain. They point particularly to cancer, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, Parkinson’s, ALS and other diseases in which immune-system research could potentially produce new treatments.
Opponents
The official voter guide identifies Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., a senior scholar at Stanford and former NIH research administrator, as the principal opponent.
Other opposition has come from:
- No on 38, led by California Health Policy Strategies
- League of Women Voters
- Orange County Register editorial board
- Other scientists and public-policy critics concerned about the structure of the bond program.
The opposition is not arguing against medical research itself. Its principal objection is how Proposition 38 would finance and allocate the research.
Critics question why California should borrow roughly $8.4 billion and commit taxpayers to decades of debt for one particular scientific field. They also object to the provision directing roughly half of the money—about $4.2 billion—to a single UC-affiliated nonprofit institute.
The controversy over the research institute
This is probably the most distinctive feature of the Proposition 38 debate.
The measure does not simply establish a broad competitive medical-research fund. Half of the $8.4 billion is designated for a particular type of UC-affiliated nonprofit institute, while the other half would be distributed through research grants. Critics contend that the eligibility requirements are sufficiently specific that the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy (CIII) appears positioned to receive the large allocation.
That has generated criticism because Gary Michelson, a billionaire physician and philanthropist, is a co-founder of CIII and a major financial backer of Proposition 38. Supporters respond that the institute is affiliated with UCLA and that the measure’s requirements are intended to ensure that the money goes to an institution capable of quickly conducting large-scale immunology research.
The basic divide
Supporters see Prop. 38 primarily as a major investment in potentially life-saving medical research at a moment when federal funding is uncertain. They emphasize patient advocacy, scientific opportunity and the possibility of future treatments and cures.
Opponents accept the goal of advancing medical research but question whether California should borrow billions through a ballot initiative, earmark so much money for immunology specifically, and potentially direct roughly half the proceeds to one relatively new research institute.
There is also an important distinction concerning campaign organization: the Secretary of State’s campaign-finance records showed a major committee supporting Prop. 38 but no opposition committee as of August 2, 2026. Thus, the opposition is considerably less financially organized than the campaign supporting the measure.