Arabic version: ضريبة المليارديرات في كاليفورنيا تهيمن على معركة اقتراع انتخابات منتصف الولاية
According to The Guardian, California voters will decide whether to approve Proposition 40, a ballot measure imposing a one-time 5% tax on billionaires living in the state on 1 January 2026. The proceeds would fund healthcare programs as well as some education and food assistance, following federal healthcare cuts that could leave more than 3.4 million Californians without coverage when they take effect in January.
The measure was developed by Dave Regan, president of the healthcare union SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, after Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on 4 July. Regan’s team assembled policy experts, economists, lawyers, researchers and political consultants to devise the proposal, which they said was intended to keep hospitals open and protect healthcare workers’ jobs.
Opposition to Proposition 40 has drawn major spending from technology billionaires and venture capitalists. The Guardian reported that tech billionaires had put upwards of $356m into independent expenditure-only political action committees opposing the measure. In the first two weeks of October, the opposition campaign spent more than $42.8m, according to the most recent campaign filings.
Google co-founder Sergey Brin has contributed at least $102m through the Super Pac Building a Better California, more than any other donor, the report said. Other reported donors include Chris Larsen, former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt and Peter Thiel. Governor Gavin Newsom has opposed the tax, saying it would drive a race to the bottom and stifle innovation as wealthy residents leave the state.
Supporters, with less funding, have used social-media campaigns, rallies and backing from figures including Bernie Sanders, Shepard Fairey and Mark Ruffalo. Political science professor David McCuan of Sonoma State University said the contest could become the most expensive ballot measure in history worldwide. Supporters see the proposal as a possible model for future votes on wealth inequality, while opponents argue it would damage California’s budget, tax base and economic advantage.
