Proposition 38 — The California Immunology Research and Cures Initiative

No on Proposition 38

The California Immunology Research and Cures Initiative

What is it?

Prop 38 is an $8.4B state bond for research in immunology and immunotherapy. Half of the funds will go to a single nonprofit research institute picked by the state Department of Public Health, and the other half will be distributed as grants for specific projects at California public and nonprofit universities and nonprofit research institutions.

At least $2.1B out of each half, or $4.2B of the $8.4B, must go to cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimer's.

Strings attached

Taking this money carries two obligations, no matter how small the grant:

A recipient owes the state 10% of all revenue from any patent that comes out of the funded research, until the state recovers the full bond cost plus interest
Any drug developed with the money must be sold in California at least 20% below the national average price.

Robert Kaplan, a UCLA health policy professor and former NIH associate director, argues these terms could push drug companies away from taking the money or selling the resulting products in California.

Past programs

Voters approved $3B in 2004 and $5.5B in 2020 for stem cell research through CIRM, the state's stem cell agency, for a total of $8.5B. The first therapy with CIRM funding to win FDA approval came in March 2026, about 21 years in: a gene therapy for an extremely rare, often fatal childhood immune disorder.

Read the full annotated legal text →

Click to show fiscal impacts and more detailsCollapse details

Full legal text (PDF)

Fiscal impacts

The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates the bonds would cost the state about $500M per year for 25 years, paid out of the General Fund. That is less than one-half of 1 percent of the state's total General Fund budget. Because of interest, the total cost works out to about 10% more than paying up front, after adjusting for inflation.

Why is this on the ballot?

Prop 38 is a citizen initiative. It got on the ballot by gathering voter signatures, not by a vote of the Legislature.

According to Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution, citizens may introduce statutes (laws) by collecting signatures (5% of the votes cast in the most recent Governor's race). The statute must then be approved by voters with a simple majority of 50% + 1.

Placed on ballot by: Voter signatures. Filed with the Attorney General as Initiative 25-0026, Amendment 1.
Proponent: Dr. Gary K. Michelson, a physician, inventor, and philanthropist. The campaign is run by the committee Californians for Immunology Research and Cures, sponsored by the Michelson Center for Public Policy.

Why vote No?

Prop 38 was written, and its signature drive almost entirely funded, by billionaire Gary Michelson, and half of its $8.4B goes to a single institute chosen by criteria that read like a description of the UCLA institute Michelson co-founded and chairs, down to the two programs his gift created: a nonprofit existing by January 1, 2025, at least 200,000 square feet, $250M in pledges, and $50M each for vaccine and microbiome programs.

Even if Washington cuts research funding, a bond is not the only way for California to respond. The Legislature can fund scientific research in any year's budget and award it competitively, instead of handing half of it to one institute chosen in advance. And California already ran this experiment with $8.5B for stem cell research in 2004 and 2020: the only FDA-approved treatment that arose arrived after 21 years, for an ultra-rare disease, while 92% of early awards went to institutions tied to the agency's own board.

The fields this would fund are not starved for research cash; they are starved for product-market fit. If you spend $4B making a drug nobody wants, was that a success?

Prop 38 would cost about $500M per year for 25 years from a General Fund already headed into structural deficit. Research is a good cause and it's great that the state and federal government fund it, and that is exactly why it deserves better than a bond one donor wrote around his own institute. Vote no.