38

Why Thrive LA supports 38

Proposition 38 authorizes $8.4 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund immunology and immunotherapy research. Half the money goes to a single UC-affiliated nonprofit research institute. The other half funds competitive research grants to public and nonprofit universities, with grant decisions influenced by the institute receiving the first half. The total cost to taxpayers, including interest, exceeds $12 billion over 25 years. Thrive LA supports Proposition 38 because immunology research represents one of the rare areas where large-scale public investment can catalyze breakthroughs that the private sector alone has underinvested in relative to the disease burden. Autoimmune disorders, cancer immunotherapy, and infectious disease preparedness affect millions of Californians, and the state's existing research infrastructure, particularly at UCLA, City of Hope, and UC-system hospitals, positions California to lead globally. The American Association of Immunologists, California's leading cancer and chronic disease coalitions, and major research institutions support this measure because the science is promising and the funding gap is real. That said, voters should understand exactly what they are approving. The eligibility criteria for the lead institute were written so narrowly that only one entity, the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, co-founded by the measure's chief financial backer, billionaire Gary K. Michelson, can qualify. The measure never names this institute, which obscures from voters where $4.2 billion will go. The $500 million annual General Fund obligation competes with every other state priority, including public safety, infrastructure, and education. The campaign's claim that royalties from discoveries will eventually repay the bonds is speculative; the Legislative Analyst's Office explicitly calls that revenue "uncertain." And the measure includes price controls (a mandatory 20% discount for California patients) and protectionist purchasing mandates (50% or more from in-state suppliers) that distort markets and increase costs. We weighed these concerns seriously. On balance, the scale of the immunology research opportunity, the quality of California's existing research ecosystem, and the potential for generational medical breakthroughs tip the analysis toward support. But this is not a blank check. Voters should demand rigorous accountability from the oversight structure, and legislators should treat the 2% administrative cost cap as a floor for scrutiny, not a ceiling. Proposition 38 is a significant fiscal commitment with real structural flaws, but the potential to accelerate cures for cancer, autoimmune disease, and future pandemics justifies the investment.