What They're Saying About Prop 40:

"[Prop 40]’s uncertain impacts on the state budget and lack of specificity on health care allocations will do more harm than good in the long term. In order to protect access to care for the millions of patients that safety net providers like Planned Parenthood serve, we have opposed this measure and urge our health care partners to do the same."

"It’s unfathomable that proponents of [Prop 40] are claiming their efforts are intended to help Medi-Cal, while at the very same time they are advocating for policies that will decimate the very safety-net and workforce that Medi-Cal patients rely on. Proponents have a long history of promoting flawed and deceptive proposals that actually harm patients. This measure is no different."

"[Prop 40] is the wrong way to address the state's health care funding challenges and was developed without input from the physicians, hospitals, clinics, and other providers who care for Medi-Cal patients every day. [Prop 40] relies on an unstable revenue source, provides no clear accountability for how the money would be spent, and does not offer the long-term funding solution that patients and health care professionals need."

"[Prop 40] raises serious questions about revenue reliability, economic impacts and the long-term consequences for California's tax base. CSBA believes students are best served through durable funding solutions that strengthen educational opportunity while preserving the state's economic competitiveness."

"After thorough review and democratic debate about [Prop 40], our State Council of Delegates – 800 educator representatives from throughout the state – determined that this policy will not provide the sustainable and long-lasting funding that our schools and communities deserve."

"California’s children deserve a stable, sustainable health care system. The one-time tax proposed by Prop 40 doesn’t provide that stability. Worse, the measure jeopardizes existing revenue that children on Medi-Cal, including those with the most medically complex conditions, rely upon for their care."

"California needs sustainable, predictable funding to address the challenges facing LGBTQ+ people. We need ongoing solutions to fund health care, education, and other critical services that LGBTQ+ Californians rely on, not one-time fixes."

"Proposition 40 is the wrong way to address the challenges facing our state. In fact, it will make many of our problems worse, diverting billions of dollars from public schools and putting additional pressure on the budget that could squeeze funding for other essential public services. That’s why we urge Californians to vote No on Proposition 40."

"California’s students and schools have too much to lose under Proposition 40. The measure guarantees schools none of its revenue, places those dollars outside California’s longstanding constitutional protections for education and threatens the ongoing funding classrooms depend on. ACSA opposes Proposition 40 because students deserve resources they can count on, not a measure that will leave them with less."

"[We] stand firmly against Proposition 40 because when you gamble with the finances of our state and local governments, you gamble with public safety. Given California’s mounting fire danger and ongoing fiscal challenges, we need smart, durable solutions, not unproven risks. That’s why our 38,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical service personnel are proud to stand with teachers, the building trades, health care providers, and other sworn public safety professionals to say NO on 40."

"[Prop 40] will drive away capital when we need it the most, threatening construction jobs, our infrastructure, and California's future. When investment leaves California, critical housing, transportation, school, and water projects leave with it. We can't let that happen."

"We should be doing everything we can to encourage new investment and job creation across California, not driving it away. The California State Council of Laborers and our 80,000 union construction workers are proud to join the state’s union teachers, firefighters, carpenters, home care and family child care providers, and so many others all saying NO on 40."

"UDW does not support this measure for several reasons: Most importantly, the proposed measure does not fund the IHSS or child care programs specifically, which provides vital care services to almost one million seniors and people living with disabilities across the state and child care to over one million qualified families. Secondly, a one-time wealth tax does not create the sustainable funding stream that is required to fully fund vital care programs like IHSS and child care programs. For these reasons, we’re urging our members to vote no on Prop 40, because we know it’s possible to deliver a better funding plan for our communities."

"While access to health care in California is more precarious than ever, [Prop 40] is simply the wrong answer. This measure would only temporarily generate funding and threaten the overall health of California’s finances over the long term, further jeopardizing resources for life-saving health care services. California can’t afford this poorly designed tax measure."

"Our members build the infrastructure that powers California’s world-leading economy – from bridges, dams, and roads to rail lines, airports, and other critical projects. Our future and these union jobs depend on sustaining and growing this work, not sabotaging it with this deeply flawed wealth tax experiment. Together, our union brothers and sisters urge Californians to vote NO on 40."

"California’s working people need more jobs, more investment, and more opportunities — not policies that make it harder to build and grow. This initiative will discourage investment, slow economic activity, and threaten the jobs, wages, and benefits that support union families. We believe in a fair tax structure, but this proposal misses the mark."

"[Prop 40] puts at risk the very programs California depends on to build housing. From affordable housing funding and financial incentives for builders, to the state agency staffing that reviews entitlements and holds local governments accountable to their housing goals, these are the building blocks of housing production. Stable, sustained investment in these programs is how California closes the housing gap. A measure that undermines the state budget undermines housing."

"At a time when the state faces a severe housing shortage, policymakers should focus on attracting the resources needed to build affordable homes—not discouraging them. If our goal is to create and preserve affordable homes for working families, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities, we should be encouraging investment in housing and community development—not creating new barriers that make it harder to finance the affordable housing Californians desperately need."

"[Prop 40] is poorly-designed: It will likely harm housing production by discouraging investment in California. It will likely harm overall tax revenues by driving out the taxpayers who already pay the most taxes. It earmarks most of the funds for a very narrow set of pre-defined uses. It is a one-time windfall tax that will not solve longer-term revenue problems, and would exacerbate them by creating future shortfalls."

"California policymakers have struggled for decades with the state’s volatile revenue system, [Prop 40] only compounds the volatility, adding uncertainty to both the economy and state budget, while narrowly dictating how these resources can be spent. Affordable housing providers believe there are better, more effective ways to fund the wide range of public services Californians depend on."

"To truly address our affordability crisis, California needs permanent, scaled investments that deliver stable, lasting impact. This measure simply doesn’t achieve that. That’s why Housing California and our partners remain focused on meaningful solutions that advance both health and prosperity: safe and affordable housing, strong schools, quality healthcare, and essential services. The foundation that will make everyday life more affordable and ensure our communities thrive."

"We all want a California that is more affordable, more equitable, and more prosperous. But we cannot tax our way to those goals by discouraging the investment and innovation that fuel economic growth. The path forward is creating more housing, improving education, and expanding economic opportunity—not imposing a wealth tax that risks shrinking the resources available to support those priorities. [Prop 40] would move California in the wrong direction."

"The effort to impose an unprecedented wealth tax is not only misguided but creates a dangerous precedent that will cause more problems than it would ever solve. The risky nature of taxing unrealized gains on shares held by founders of Silicon Valley simply to obtain a one-time infusion of tax revenue that ignores the state’s systemic budget problems. One recent analysis found the exodus of wealthy Californians, along with the resulting trickle-down of those decisions to leave, could shrink government tax revenues by as much as $4.5 billion."

"CalCPA opposes the measure because it creates a fundamentally new and difficult-to-administer tax framework that raises significant administrative feasibility concerns."

"As the state’s largest law enforcement organization, our members know that safer streets require sustained investment. By further destabilizing California’s finances, this scheme is not just reckless — it’s dangerous."

"California should not address today’s issues by risking tomorrow’s safety and security. Proposition 40 threatens the long-term funding that supports public safety and other essential services. California’s police chiefs urge voters to reject Proposition 40."

"All of our communities in California deserve to thrive, but instead, Prop. 40 leaves too many behind. It’s missing key safeguards to ensure funds are spent as promised and it does nothing to address our growing housing, higher education, environmental, and infrastructure needs. We urge Californians to vote No on 40."