Fleischman & Maviglio: Two cancer survivors agree: Prop 38 is the wrong way to fund medical research

Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! Usually, our afternoon content is behind a paywall… If you are not yet a paid subscriber, consider upgrading — you are missing a significant portion of what we produce each week, and your support makes it possible. If you want it all and want to support my efforts, please consider a paid subscription!

⏱️ 5-minute read

This column, co-authored by Jon Fleischman (a conservative) and Steve Maviglio (a liberal) - both cancer survivors, ran here in the Opinion Section of the San Francisco Chronicle last Sunday!

As cancer survivors, we both know the fear that follows a diagnosis, the hope invested in every treatment and the gratitude you feel toward the scientists and physicians whose work gives patients more time.

To us and the millions of patients who have had to face the uncertainty of living with cancer, medical research is not an abstract policy question. It is personal.

As a result, Proposition 38, which would authorize California to borrow $8.4 billion for immunology and immunotherapy research, might seem like something that the two of us would readily support. But because of how the proposition is crafted, and with research dollars in short supply, we’ll both be voting “no,” even though we represent opposing sides of the political spectrum.

Taxpayers would make payments of $500 million annually for roughly 25 years on Prop 38’s borrowing, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office. That money comes from the same California budget General Fund that pays for schools, healthcare, wildfire response and other essential services.

Proponents suggest that discoveries resulting from the research could generate enough revenue to offset the state’s costs. As cancer survivors — one of whom underwent experimental treatments and invasive surgery — no one will cheer more loudly than we will if research produces breakthroughs.

But hope is not a repayment plan — and California voters have heard this promise before.

In 2004, voters authorized $3 billion in borrowing for stem-cell research, with an estimated taxpayer cost of $6 billion, including interest. After nearly two decades, the state’s stem-cell agency reported that its royalty fund held just $15.6 million — less than 0.03% of the estimated cost.

The lesson is not that the research lacked value. It is that scientific value and fiscal repayment are two different things.

The debt is guaranteed. The discoveries and royalties are not.

Prop 38 also directs about half its money — roughly $4.2 billion — to a single research institute selected under unusually specific eligibility requirements without an open statewide competition.

Gary Michelson, a billionaire and chief financial backer of Prop 38, co-founded the California Institute for Immunology and Immunotherapy, chairs its board and, with his wife, committed $120 million to support its work. UCLA has confirmed that it is the only nonprofit affiliated with the university that satisfies Prop 38’s requirements.

Imagine either major political party proposing to borrow billions of dollars and writing the qualifications so narrowly that an organization founded and chaired by a principal campaign benefactor appears positioned to collect half the money. The other party would rightly howl.

So should voters.

California is already home to a broad immunology and immunotherapy research network. Scientists at Stanford, UCSF, UCLA, the Gladstone Institutes, UC San Diego and independent research centers are pursuing cancer vaccines, engineered immune cells and other approaches with support from the National Institutes of Health and other sponsors. Intellectual property revenues from the substantial research portfolio outside Prop 38’s funded programs will not generate any revenue to offset taxpayer responsibility for the bond debt. Even for research funded by the proposition, only 10% of the intellectual property revenue can be used to offset the $500 million to $600 million yearly taxpayer debt service.

The remaining funds from the bond would be awarded as grants, but representatives of participating institutions would help set priorities and distribute money among organizations represented on a governing council. That is not how California should design an independent, competitive scientific process.

There is a legitimate debate over how much California’s government should spend to fight cancer and other diseases. But whether you are a conservative, a progressive or a moderate, we should all agree on a few basics: Public money should be distributed through fair competition. Enormous borrowing proposals should be designed around taxpayer interests, not prospective recipients. And ballot measures should not use the emotional power of curing disease to rush voters past the fine print.

Cancer has already taken enough from both of us. We want better treatments, genuine breakthroughs and cures. But that deeply personal hope does not require us to support an unfair financing scheme.

We have spent much of our careers on opposite sides of California’s political battlefield. We disagree frequently, publicly and sometimes enthusiastically.

But Prop 38 has accomplished something increasingly rare in California politics: It has brought us together.

We support scientific research, but we reject Proposition 38.

Jon Fleischman is a longtime conservative political strategist, former executive director of the California Republican Party, publisher of “So, Does It Matter?” on Substack and a cancer survivor. Steve Maviglio is a Democratic political strategist, press secretary to former Gov. Gray Davis, principal of Forza Communications, and a cancer survivor.

Check out the official voter guide….

Our Official CA 2026 General Election Ballot Measure Voting Guide

Jon Fleischman · Sep 3

Our morning content is free for all subscribers and guests! Usually, our afternoon content is behind a paywall… If you are not yet a paid subscriber, consider upgrading — you are missing a significant portion of what we produce each week, and your support makes it possible. If you want to get it all and support my efforts, please consider a paid subscri…

Read full story