Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
California Proposition 226, Ban on Political Contributions from Payroll Deductions Initiative (June 1998)
| California Proposition 226 | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
| Election date |
|
| Topic Labor union deductions |
|
| Status |
|
| Type Initiated state statute |
Origin |
California Proposition 226 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on June 2, 1998. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported prohibiting deductions from paychecks and labor dues to fund political contributions without the consent of the worker or member and prohibiting any state and local candidate from receiving political contributions from foreign entities. |
A "no" vote opposed prohibiting deductions from paychecks and labor dues to fund political contributions without the consent of the worker or member and prohibiting any state and local candidate from receiving political contributions from foreign entities. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 226 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,723,268 | 46.77% | ||
|
|
3,099,794 | 53.23% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 226 would have made two changes to California's Political Reform Act of 1974. It would have prohibited deductions from paychecks and labor dues to fund political contributions without the consent of the worker or member. It also would have established a provision similar to federal law prohibiting campaign contributions from foreign entities to state and local candidates.[1]
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 226 was as follows:
| “ | Political Contributions by Employees, Union Members, Foreign Entities. Initiative Statute. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
| ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided the following estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 226:[1]
| “ | Unknown, but probably not major, net state enforcement costs.
Annual costs of up to about $2 million and one-time costs of $2 million to $5 million to the state for administration of employee payroll deductions for political activities; costs offset by fees. Unknown, but probably not major, costs to local governments for administration of employee payroll deductions for political activities; probably offset by fees.[2] |
” |
Support
Supporters
- Governor Pete Wilson (R)[1]
- Elizabeth Lee, member of California Teachers' Association[1]
- Robert Eisenbeisz, member of United Electrical Workers[1]
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 226 can be found here.
Opposition
Opponents
- Lois Tinson, president of California Teachers' Association[1]
- Howard Owens, executive director of Consumer Federation of California[1]
- Dan Terry, president of California Professional Firefighters[1]
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 226 can be found here.
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 1998, at least 433,269 valid signatures were required.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
