Politics news and discussion on TalkFuse.
California just voted to give two billionaires $4 billion in taxpayer money so they can do obscure research
California voters have approved Proposition 38, authorising $8.4 billion in bonds for medical research. More than 54% supported it, with 83% of votes counted, according to the article. The measure matters because half the funding is earmarked for one immunology institute co-founded by two billionaires, prompting criticism over public accountability and whether taxpayers are effectively backing a private project.
The California Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy at UCLA is due to receive half the money; the rest will be awarded competitively to public and non-profit research organisations. Gary Michelson, a co-founder and the measure’s main backer, contributed more than $65 million to its campaign. Legislative analysis estimates bond repayments of $500 million to $600 million a year for 20 years. Medicines developed with the funding must be sold to Californians at a 20% discount, and 10% of revenue must go to the state.
In short
- California approved $8.4 billion in medical research bonds.
- Half the funding is earmarked for one UCLA-affiliated institute.
- The state is expected to repay the bonds over 20 years.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters can argue that the bonds would fund medical research with potential long-term public benefits, while giving a new immunology institute the scale and stability to pursue work that might otherwise struggle to attract funding. The competitive grants, discounted medicines for Californians and state share of revenue offer ways for the public to benefit from the investment.
The case against
Critics can argue that dedicating half the bond funding to one institute gives a private project an unusually large share of public money, especially when a co-founder who stands to benefit helped finance the campaign. The state would take on substantial repayments over 20 years, and the discount and revenue provisions may not provide enough accountability or public return to justify that commitment.