Ballot measure would fund immunotherapy research, but critics say eligibility appears tailored to one UCLA-affiliated nonprofit
LOS ANGELES, Calif. (Our Los Angeles) — California voters will decide this November whether to approve Proposition 38, an $8.4 billion general obligation bond intended to accelerate research into immunology and immunotherapy treatments for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s disease and other serious illnesses. While supporters say the measure could position California as a global leader in next-generation medical research, critics argue the proposal directs roughly half of the funding toward a single, unnamed nonprofit research institute through eligibility requirements they say effectively limit the award to one Los Angeles-based organization.
Top Areas Covered
-
What Proposition 38 would fund
-
Why critics say one institute is favored
-
Supporters’ arguments for the funding structure
-
Financial impact on California taxpayers
-
Background on California’s history of targeted ballot measures
Measure aims to expand immunotherapy research
Proposition 38 would authorize $8.4 billion in state bonds to support research into immunology and immunotherapy, fields that have become increasingly important in developing treatments that harness the body’s immune system to fight disease. The measure highlights research involving cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, heart disease and numerous other illnesses that may benefit from advances in immune-based therapies.
Supporters contend California’s biomedical research sector has faced growing uncertainty as federal research funding has fluctuated in recent years. They argue state investment would help protect scientific research, encourage innovation and potentially lead to new medical breakthroughs while creating high-paying research jobs throughout California.
Critics question eligibility language
The most controversial portion of Proposition 38 involves approximately $4.2 billion designated for one nonprofit research institute that is never identified by name in the ballot language.
Instead of naming an organization, the proposition establishes a detailed list of eligibility requirements. According to an analysis cited by CalMatters, those requirements include being a nonprofit founded before 2025, specializing specifically in immunology and immunotherapy research, being affiliated with a University of California campus meeting certain patient volume thresholds, occupying a minimum amount of research space and having received substantial philanthropic support.
A UCLA spokesperson confirmed that among UCLA-affiliated nonprofit organizations, only the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy currently satisfies those qualifications.
The institute, established as a nonprofit in 2022, is housed on UCLA-owned property. Billionaire inventor and philanthropist Gary K. Michelson serves as its board chair and has donated at least $120 million toward its development.
Additional criteria narrow eligibility
Further provisions within Proposition 38 have intensified debate over whether the measure was designed around a single institution.
The proposal requires the recipient to be affiliated with a UC medical center serving more than 3.5 million outpatient visits annually. According to University of California data, UCLA is currently the only campus meeting that benchmark. Additional requirements include at least 200,000 square feet of research facilities, a minimum of $250 million in philanthropic donations and specific funding histories tied to vaccine development and microbiome research.
The remaining $4.2 billion would be distributed through a competitive grant process among qualifying nonprofit organizations and public university researchers focused on immunology and immunotherapy. However, the selected institute would play a role in advising on grant decisions and collaborating on funded clinical trials.
Supporters defend the proposal
Backers of Proposition 38 dispute claims that the measure was crafted for a single organization.
Campaign representatives have said the eligibility requirements were intentionally designed to ensure any qualifying institute possesses the scientific expertise, infrastructure, financial resources and university partnerships necessary to begin large-scale research immediately. They also note that drugs developed through the program would be offered to California residents at discounted prices, while a portion of future revenues would return to the state’s general fund to help offset taxpayer costs.
Supporters also argue California is well positioned to become a worldwide leader in immunotherapy research because of its concentration of universities, biotechnology companies and medical centers.
Financial impact
According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 38’s $8.4 billion bond would ultimately cost taxpayers more than $12 billion after interest payments over approximately 25 years, averaging about $500 million annually. The analyst’s office noted that costs could be partially offset if successful medical discoveries generate revenues that are returned to the state under provisions contained in the measure.
Ballot measure follows previous targeted propositions
California has a long history of using ballot initiatives to fund public programs and establish statewide policy. However, measures perceived as benefiting specific organizations have drawn increased scrutiny in recent election cycles.
Political observers have pointed to Proposition 34 in 2024, which voters narrowly approved with just over 50% support. Although the measure did not identify any organization by name, opponents argued its provisions primarily affected a single healthcare nonprofit. Proposition 38 now faces similar questions over whether its detailed eligibility language effectively limits billions of dollars in funding to one institution.
As Californians prepare to vote in November, Proposition 38 is expected to generate continued debate over the balance between investing in cutting-edge medical research and ensuring public bond funding is distributed through an open and broadly competitive process.
