By Dean Maddox, Public Safety & Government Oversight Columnist

You ever wonder how far Sacramento will go to take your money and use it against you? Well, here comes another answer: they want to use your tax dollars to pay for their own political campaigns.

That’s not an exaggeration. In 2026, voters will decide on a new ballot measure—backed by Democrats in the Legislature and signed by Governor Newsom—to repeal California’s long-standing ban on public campaign financing. If it passes, it would let state and local governments set up “matching funds” or “vouchers” to help politicians run for office. Translation? You pay for the lawn signs. You pay for the radio ads. You pay for the hit pieces.

This is being sold to voters as a noble reform—something about “leveling the playing field” and getting “big money out of politics.” What they won’t tell you is that this is already legal in charter cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. It’s also legal in 15 other states—and you know what it looks like? More bureaucracy, more waste, and more excuses to hand out money to insiders under the banner of “equity.”

Here in California, we’ve got $68 billion in unpaid unemployment debt, a crumbling grid, and a cost-of-living crisis that’s pushing working people out of their own neighborhoods. And somehow, politicians think now is the time to start asking taxpayers to bankroll campaign slogans?

The California Taxpayers Association put it plainly: most people want their taxes to go toward schools, fire departments, and basic services—not toward political messaging they never asked for. Especially not from the same crowd that tells you inflation isn’t real and then turns around and spends public funds like it’s Monopoly money.

And here’s where it gets even uglier. The government decides who qualifies for these funds. Candidates have to meet so-called “strict criteria,” which supposedly includes small-dollar donations or support from voters—but make no mistake: those criteria are designed by the same folks in office now. Which means the same party machine that already controls the state could soon control who gets the taxpayer cash to run against them.

You don’t have to squint too hard to imagine what that looks like. Some bureaucrat decides whether you get a check based on whether you play ball with the establishment. You think that won’t happen? Ask the small business owners who got left out of COVID relief while big corporations got bailed out. Ask the parents who were told their concerns about school curriculum were “extremist.” Now imagine that same machine deciding if you get campaign money.

And let’s not forget the constitutional questions. We’ve already seen the Supreme Court rule that free speech means you can’t be forced to financially support political messages you disagree with. That’s not just common sense—it’s basic liberty. You shouldn’t have to subsidize a candidate who’s promising to raise your taxes, kill your job, or take away your parental rights. But under this proposal, you might.

This whole plan is being framed as empowering “the people.” Don’t buy it. This isn’t about making elections fair. It’s about using your money to help keep the ruling class in power, all while pretending it’s for your own good.

When politicians ask voters for money, it’s called a donation. When they skip that step and take it anyway, it’s called a shakedown. And no matter how they dress it up, this thing looks like a shakedown to me.