# Prop 38: $8.4B bond for immunology research (half to one institute)

URL: https://www.californiapeople.org/props/prop-38

- number: 38
- title: $8.4B bond for immunology research (half to one institute)
- type: Initiative bond act
- sponsor: Billionaire Gary K. Michelson (Michelson Center for Public Policy)

**Our read: Lean no.** $8.4B bond. About $4.2B is written for one institute with three employees, chaired by the measure’s funder.

## Key findings
- About **$4.2B** is written for one unnamed nonprofit. UCLA confirms the only group that meets the criteria is CIII, which **Michelson chairs and has given at least $120M** since 2022. [^1]
- As of Sept 2026, CIII had **3 employees** (about 51 hires planned). Its building isn't due until at least late 2028 and is ~$100M short. [^2]
- California's last research bonds (stem cells, $8.5B over Props 71 and 14) have funded **116 clinical trials in 20 years**. CIRM's 2025 report names **no FDA-approved therapy** it funded. [^3][^4]
- A National Academy of Medicine review (2011) found the stem-cell board **"cannot exert independent oversight"** because members' own institutions got the grants. The top 5 recipients took $1.8B. [^5]
- Repaying it would cost **$500M to $600M a year for about 20 years**. [^6]

## Track record
| Measure | $ | Outcome so far | Oversight issues |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prop 71 (2004) | $3B | Created CIRM. Funded basic research, labs, and early trials | NAM (2011): board members' institutions were also grantees |
| Prop 14 (2020) | $5.5B | $4.6B awarded overall by June 2025; 116 trials; no approvals named | Same governance model; $3.8B left to spend as of 2024 |
| **Prop 38 (2026)** | **$8.4B** | Half to one institute, half to grants picked by a council of the institutions that will receive them | Institute is exempt from public records, open meetings and political reform laws [^1] |

**Single-target measures** have passed before. Prop 34 (2024), written to hit one AIDS nonprofit, passed with 50.9%. [^1]

## What it does
- $8.4B general-obligation bond for immunology research (cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's). Administration capped at 2%. [^6]
- The state gets 10% of revenue from funded discoveries. Treatments sold in California must be discounted 20%. [^6]

## Money and conflicts
- **Yes $71.3M** (one committee funded by Michelson; co-founder Meyer Luskin gave at least $5M). **No: just over $9,900**, from small donors (as of Oct 26). [^7][^8][^1]
- The measure's criteria (a UC medical center with 3.5M+ outpatient visits, 200,000+ sq ft, $250M+ in donations, UC officials on the board) fit UCLA and CIII. UCSF is second at 3.4M visits, just under the bar. [^1]
- Two $50M Michelson gifts to CIII programs (vaccines, microbiome) are described in near-identical terms in the measure. [^1]

## Does it solve a lasting problem?
- Federal research cuts are real, and immunotherapy is promising. But this sends ~$4.2B of public debt to a three-employee institute chaired by the measure's funder, with transparency exemptions. The stem-cell precedent shows decades-long payback, if any.

## If you vote yes: accountability
**Bottom line:** About $4.2B would go to a private institute that the measure **exempts from the Public Records Act, open-meetings laws and the Political Reform Act**. [^2] The institute must publish an annual report and get an independent audit [^6], but unlike the stem-cell agency it has no citizen oversight committee led by the Controller. [^9]

### Who decides, and who answers for it
- **The Department of Public Health (CDPH)** picks the institute and makes the final award decision. [^6][^2] Its director is Dr. Erica Pan (since Feb 2025). [^10]
- **The California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy (CIII)**, the only institute that qualifies, had 3 employees in Sept 2026. Four senior UCLA officials sit on its board, including UCLA Health CEO John Mazziotta. [^2]
- **The grant council**, made up of 7 UC campuses and 10–15 other research institutions, picks grant winners **from among its own members**. [^6] The National Academy of Medicine criticized the same setup at the stem-cell agency. [^5]
- **The UC Regents.** Even they aren't sure which institute records are public, because UCLA officials sit on its board. Regent Michael Cohen asked for an answer at the November meeting. [^2]

### Who to press, and what to ask for
1. **Your Assemblymember and state Senator:** put the institute under the Public Records Act and open-meetings laws for any state money it gets, and give the State Controller the same role it plays at the stem-cell agency, where it chairs a six-member financial oversight committee. [^9]
2. **CDPH:** publish the institute's annual reports and audits, and each funding release. Senior state officials must approve each release. [^2]
3. **UC Regents** (each meeting takes public comment): publish UCLA's agreements with the institute.
4. **Ask for results, not activity:** trials started, therapies approved, and revenue returned to the state. The state gets 10% of revenue, and treatments sold in California must be discounted 20%. [^6]

### Public records to request (CPRA)
Anyone can file a California Public Records Act request (the state's version of FOIA), with no reason required. Agencies must respond within 10 days, or 24 in unusual cases. [^11] The institute is exempt, but UC and CDPH aren't.

> **To the University of California (UCLA):** Under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 7920.000 et seq.), I request UCLA's August 2024 affiliation agreement with the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy and any amendments, the institute's budgets and progress reports provided to UCLA or the UC Regents since 2024, and any lease for its space at the UCLA research park.

> **To CDPH:** All communications since Jan 1, 2025 between CDPH and the institute, its funder, or the Prop 38 campaign about the institute's eligibility or the measure's award criteria.

## Both sides
- **For:** Gov. Newsom, both major parties, American Association of Immunologists, City of Hope, patient groups. They argue it replaces lost federal money and brings drug discounts.
- **Against:** League of Women Voters, Stanford's Robert Kaplan, and the editorial boards of the Sacramento Bee, SF Chronicle, OC Register and SD Union-Tribune. They call it a giveaway with no accountability.

## Official voter guide (condensed) with annotations
- Official title: Authorizes Bonds for Immunology Medical Research. Initiative Statute.
- Summary: "Authorizes $8.4 billion in general obligation bonds for immunology and immunotherapy research." Half goes to one University of California-affiliated nonprofit institute, half to research grants.
- Fiscal impact: $500 million to $600 million a year for about 20 years to repay the bonds, possibly offset if the research generates revenue.
- A YES vote means: The state could borrow $8.4 billion to support medical research in immunology and immunotherapy.
- A NO vote means: The state could not borrow $8.4 billion for that research.
- Argument for: Funds research to cure and prevent cancer, heart disease and Alzheimer's. "Strong accountability including independent audits" and a mandated 20% prescription discount; designed to cost taxpayers nothing.
- Argument against: Supports research but this is the wrong approach: decades of bond debt and less flexibility. "Research funding should be guided through the normal budget process."
- Supporters: Michael J. Fox Foundation, Alzheimer's Los Angeles, Kidney Cancer Association, American Nurses Association/CA
- Opponents: Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., Stanford School of Medicine

Annotations (what the booklet leaves out):
- (pro) "Cost taxpayers nothing" contradicts the official fiscal estimate on the same page: $500–600M a year for about 20 years from the General Fund. [^6]
- (summary) "One UC-affiliated institute": only one qualifies, the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, principally funded by the measure's author, Gary Michelson. As of Sept 2026 it had three employees. [^2]
- (pro) "Independent audits" sits next to an exemption: the institute would be exempt from public records, open meetings and political reform laws. [^1]
- (general) Michelson funded the $71.2M Yes campaign. Every major newspaper editorial board opposes it. [^8][^1]

## Sources
[^1]: CalMatters via KPBS (July 31, 2026). https://www.kpbs.org/news/politics/2026/07/31/is-this-proposition-a-4-billion-giveaway-to-a-billionaire-backed-la-research-center
[^2]: CalMatters (Oct 20, 2026). https://calmatters.org/politics/elections/2026/10/prop-38-california/
[^3]: CIRM 2024 annual report. https://www.cirm.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/CIRM24_Annual-Report_110524_low-res_Pages.pdf
[^4]: CIRM 2025 annual report. https://www.cirm.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/remediated_CIRM24_Annual-Report25_100125.pdf
[^5]: Capitol Weekly, CIRM at 20 (Dec 5, 2024). https://capitolweekly.net/kudos-criticism-mark-california-stem-cell-agency-as-it-turns-20/
[^6]: LAO. https://lao.ca.gov/ballot/2026/prop38-110326.pdf
[^7]: Ballotpedia News, 2026 ballot measure fundraising (Oct 26, 2026). https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/10/26/with-798-9-million-in-contributions-and-counting-2026-is-the-most-expensive-ballot-measure-election-cycle-in-california/
[^8]: CA SoS contributions. https://www.sos.ca.gov/campaign-lobbying/helpful-resources/measure-contributions/2026-ballot-measure-contribution-totals/proposition-38-authorizes-bonds-immunology-research-initiative-statut
[^9]: State Controller, CFAOC (CIRM oversight committee). https://sco.ca.gov/eo_about_cfaoc.html
[^10]: CDPH director page. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/meet-the-director
[^11]: First Amendment Coalition, CPRA deadlines. https://firstamendmentcoalition.org/resources/explainers/explainer-cpra-delays