(The Center Square) – The California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) has reported a “troubling increase” in the number of cases where government officials spend taxpayer dollars to illegally campaign for or against local ballot measures. The issue is particularly timely since California voters across 32 counties will decide 113 local ballot measures on Tuesday.
The FPPC is a non-partisan commission of five members who enforce campaign laws on behalf of the state. Last year, the FPPC reported resolving 1,268 cases and issuing $543,539 in total fines.
But FPPC investigations are sometimes not completed until months or years after a local ballot initiative has already been decided at the polls. If fines are levied, they typically pale in comparison to the amount of money already raised by an initiative and do nothing to change the results of an election, a review by The Center Square found.
Local governments are allowed to provide “neutral” and “educational” materials to voters in advance of an election. Many agencies publish or mail out a list of “frequently asked questions” about a local ballot initiative before it is decided at the polls.
David Kline, a spokesperson for CalTax, has long felt that the “informational” materials are all-too-often campaign flyers in disguise, with the actual goal of prompting a “YES” vote that would raise taxes or allow the government to borrow millions of dollars that need to be paid back with interest.
He believes the most obvious offenders use positive, colorful images – often using a checkmark or the color green – to subliminally encourage voters to approve an initiative. He says school districts often try to persuade voters to increase taxes by displaying photos of smiling children or by emphasizing dangerous conditions if a proposed tax increase is not approved.
“I mean, if you’re truly going to be unbiased, the picture should also show a taxpayer struggling to pay his bills or something!” Kline said. “What’s it going to cost me? That is clearly going to be the most ‘frequently asked question’ among voters… But that information is usually deemphasized or missing.”
The backlog
In some cases, the FPPC has agreed the educational materials are deceptive. Upon receiving a complaint, the commission will evaluate whether the “style, tenor, and timing” of supposedly informational materials cross the line between education and advocacy. But enforcement is often a long process and the governments usually just pay a taxpayer-funded fine that is dwarfed by the amount of revenue they can collect with the tax increase.
“It’s the cost of doing business,” Kline said. “(The tactic) is low risk, high reward.”
The commission’s latest batch of enforcement decisions from May 14, 2026 featured cases dating back to 2019. One of the recently-resolved cases resulted in discipline for John Valdivia, a former mayor of San Bernardino who had already been censured by his own city council in 2021 for alleged misuse of public funds.
Five years later, the FPPC ordered a $3,500 fine.
Last year in its annual newsletter, the FPPC touted its ability to work through an influx of complaints “efficiently and expeditiously” despite high caseloads.
“By the end of 2025, the Enforcement Division had significantly reduced its oldest caseload and continued to maintain the number of open cases under 900. Of the Enforcement Division’s open cases, almost half were opened in 2025.”
The Center Square asked the FPPC for the average length of time it takes to investigate and resolve a case.
“It just depends on the case,” said FPPC Communications Director Sherry Yang. “There’s not a specific timeline in place.”
Some government agencies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on political consultants to figure out the best way to package its message before sending mailers about a local initiative, but the FPPC doesn’t always disclose which companies are receiving taxpayers dollars to create biased materials.
In 2012, the city of Rialto was fined $6,000 for campaign mailers related to Measure V, which proposed a tax on oil companies. FPPC records show the city spent $143,500 on the mailers which featured messages such as “It’s About Their Future” with pictures of children playing. Another mailer included the phrase “Measure V: It’s About Protecting You.” Neither of the mailers explicitly stated whether citizens should vote yes or no. Instead, the mailers featured “a box with a checkmark in it” next to each statement.
Los Angeles County agreed to pay $1.35 million in 2020 after being accused of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws. In that case, the county paid a political consulting firm approximately $1 million for a “communications plan” centered around Measure H, a sales tax increase. The ads featured the slogan: “Real help. Lasting change.”
Tomorrow’s election
CalTax believes government agencies and political consultants are continuing to use taxpayer dollars to influence tomorrow’s primary election.
On the vast majority of those initiatives, CalTax has not taken a position.
“We very rarely get involved in the local measures,” Kline said. “I think we have a stance on two.”
The Center Square reviewed some of the informational mailers to analyze whether voters received potentially biased information.
Pomona
The city of Pomona produced an informational flyer and frequently asked questions for Measure Z, which is branded as the Kids First Funding Amendment. The flyer is predominantly blue with bright green accents. It features a photo of a smiling child and includes text in both English and Spanish.
According to the city, Measure Z would allow Pomona to “continue providing youth services without having to make further severe cuts to public safety, public works and community services.” The city further states it would be required to enact “drastic cuts” to city services if voters do not adopt the new measure.
One of the questions asked and answered by the city is “Why is Measure Z needed?”
Kline referred to the educational material as “inappropriate.”
“If something is ‘needed,’ obviously you should vote yes,” he said. “That’s obviously biased.”
Palos Verdes Estates
The city of Palos Verdes Estates created a page titled “Just the facts” with “context and clarifying information” about Measure PF.
The website takes direct quotes from residents who oppose the measure, highlighting them in bright red font with a “FACT CHECK” rebuttal.
“That’s sketchy right there,” Kline said. “It’s intended to get you to vote yes. That’s the ultimate test. When a reasonable person looks at this, do you think this is intended to give you factual, down-the-middle, unbiased information? I don’t think you could read this and think that it’s intended to just provide you straight-down-the-middle information.”
Palo Alto Unified School District
On its website, the Palo Alto Unified School District posted informational material related to Measure B. It featured multiple photos of smiling kids doing science experiments, and it touted the district’s “world class education” provided to students funded by previous voter-approved parcel taxes that would expire in 2027 unless renewed.
“What happens if voters do not approve the Measure B? … Within three years, PAUSD’s currently healthy emergency reserves would be depleted, which would require the Board of Education to consider deep cuts including teacher layoffs, reduced academic programs, and larger class sizes.”
According to Kline, answers to the district’s frequently asked questions were intentionally slanted to encourage voters to approve the measure.
“It says their current healthy emergency reserves would be depleted (within three years),” Kline said. “Another way of phrasing that? The school district has three years worth of reserves that it could use to avoid any problems… If you present it with just a slightly different spin, it makes it sound like we don’t need this tax at all.”
Weed Union Elementary School District
On the front page of its website, the Weed Union Elementary School District posted a two-page flyer related to Measure E and Measure F.
The material includes bright green colors and a green mailbox with a checkmark. It also features photos of smiling children holding up certificates.
“The mailbox with the little checkmark is historically used to mean ‘YES’ for something,” Kline said. “It doesn’t have a big red X through anything. Everything’s green… Clearly they’re trying to tell you to vote ‘YES’ on this. I mean, I don’t think any reasonable person would come to any other conclusion.”
The flyer states bond money would be used to install “necessary” seismic reinforcements and that it would replace “inadequate” classrooms with “safe” classrooms.
“If a district hasn’t done any maintenance for long enough – just used their money for other things and not properly budgeted for maintenance – then it’s theoretically possible that they’re in for a major catastrophe now,” Kline said. “But chances are pretty high that they could have, or should have, prioritized spending (differently) so that they could keep basic student safety at the top of the list without borrowing millions of dollars.”
Antelope Elementary School District
On its website, the Antelope Elementary School District posted a three-page document with frequently asked questions related to Measure T.
Kline credited the district for neutral-looking material. The document is black and white with text only, no photos. But he was concerned with the tone of the language used to describe the district’s “need” for repairs that would be funded by a $5.9 million school improvement bond.
The district mentions “aging” schools with “leaky roofs” and “outdated student restrooms.”
According to the district, some classrooms have “exceeded their usable lifespans.”
“They use descriptions that make it sound like the entire school is falling apart, and you kind of wonder how they let it get to that level – if indeed it is that bad,” Kline said. “You would expect your school district to be on top of things.”
Kline said the material would have been more “informational” and “neutral” if it included financial details addressing the amount of interest that would need to be repaid to lenders – a detail that he believes is often intentionally withheld by districts who use taxpayer dollars to influence voters to approve similar bond measures.
