Billionaires fund $300 million campaign to block California's one-time asset tax

Voters in California face a high-stakes decision on November 3 regarding a proposed one-time tax on the assets of billionaires. The measure would impose a 5 percent levy on individuals with assets exceeding a specific threshold. A massive advertising effort has saturated the state, driven by over $300 million in donations from wealthy opponents seeking to block the tax.

The opposition includes prominent figures from the technology sector. Google co-founder Sergey Brin, DoorDash founder Tony Xu, and Stripe co-founder Patrick Collison are among those who have contributed to the war chest. Other donors include Ripple co-executive chairman Chris Larsen and venture capitalists John Doerr, Michael Moritz, and Vinod Khosla. This funding has made the ballot measure the most expensive in California history.

The disparity in spending is stark. Supporters of the tax have raised $32 million, a fraction of what opponents have collected. This financial imbalance has allowed opponents to dominate the airwaves and mailboxes. Brian Galle, a economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley, and co-author of the proposal, found flyers in his mailbox containing claims he did not write. One flyer suggested the tax could apply to anyone, including retirement savings, which Galle said was inaccurate.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Meta, has not donated directly to the opposition. However, Meta’s SEC filings revealed that he told the company’s board he intended to buy a home outside California to avoid the tax. The board, which includes Xu and Collison, subsequently created a new class of shares for Zuckerberg. This move raised questions about potential impacts on Meta’s stock price and corporate governance.

Ashley Craig, a volunteer for Patriotic Millionaires, a group supporting the tax, described the campaign environment as an "Alice in Wonderland alternate reality." She has spent months door knocking and making calls to voters. Craig noted that many voters believe the tax has secret provisions that would eventually tax them, a claim she says is not entirely true. Any change to the tax structure would require a two-thirds majority in the state assembly.

David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University, noted that the billionaire spending has created a unique dynamic in this midterm election. He described the situation as a proxy battle between progressive and moderate Democrats. The state Democratic Party has endorsed the tax proposal, but internal divisions have limited ground support. McCuan said that if the measure passes, it could encourage progressive candidates to propose similar ideas in the 2028 presidential elections.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has opposed the tax. He described the proposal as "poorly written" and warned it could harm the state if billionaires move away. Newsom, who is considering a 2028 presidential run, cited the estimated $2.3 trillion in wealth held by California’s billionaires. He pointed to Zuckerberg’s plan to leave the state as evidence of the tax’s potential impact.

Opponents have also backed two other ballot measures. One would prohibit new state taxes based on personal property or retroactive taxes. The other would require state auditors to review the financial impact of proposed taxes before they are voted on. If these measures pass and receive more votes than the billionaire tax, they could negate the tax even if it passes.

A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that voters support the tax by a small margin but also support the two opposing measures. Mark Baldassare, the institute’s statewide survey director, noted that only about a third of citizen initiatives pass. He said support could decline if voters remain unsure about the details. Suzane Jiminez, chief of staff at the SEIU health workers union, which sponsored the measure, said she is confident in the outcome. She noted that 3,000 volunteers have recently distributed flyers across the state to explain the tax to voters.

Francesco Trebbi, a professor at UC Berkeley’s Haas School of Business, said the spending highlights the influence of wealthy individuals in elections. He referenced the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which allows corporations and special groups to spend freely. Trebbi described the current situation as "Sergey Brin v millions of Californians," a dynamic that erodes trust in the system. McCuan added that the historic amount of money spent to defeat the measure is a win for backers, who can use the opposition’s tactics to criticize big tech in future political battles.