California groups intensify campaign against proposed billionaire wealth tax
California's proposed tax on billionaires is drawing a late surge of campaign spending as opposition groups expand one of the most expensive election fights in the country. The effort centers on Proposition 40, a ballot measure that would impose a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires.
Highlights
- Groups funded by Sergey Brin and other billionaires have raised $318 million, with $21 million disclosed Saturday, to oppose California's Proposition 40.
- Proposition 40 proposes a one-time 5% tax targeting California billionaires, drawing intense late-cycle political spending to defeat it.
- The high-cost campaign against Proposition 40 exemplifies escalating financial and political stakes over tax policy for wealthy residents and state revenue.
Funding surge in final campaign stretch
As reported by Bloomberg, groups backed by some of the world's richest people are pouring money into a final push against the California measure. A political influence operation funded by Sergey Brin and other billionaires has raised about $318 million since it was created earlier this year, including $21 million in donations disclosed on Saturday.Most of that funding is going toward efforts to defeat Proposition 40. The ballot initiative proposes a one-time 5% tax on California billionaires, making it a focal point for high-value political spending late in the election cycle.
High-cost battle over tax policy
The campaign is escalating what is already one of the country's most expensive contests tied to this election cycle. The scale of fundraising underscores how strongly wealthy donors are mobilizing against a measure that directly targets the state's richest residents.The fight also highlights the broader financial and political stakes around tax policy in California. For campaign groups, donors and voters, the outcome could shape how far the state is willing to go in seeking one-time revenue from extreme wealth.
Our earlier coverage of Sime Darby’s tax dispute detailed how its subsidiary received a RM150.18 million assessment (including penalties) for 2017–2023 and planned to appeal and pursue legal action. We also noted that the case emerged as the group reported weaker FY2026 earnings, adding to investor focus on how large tax claims can affect corporate finances and market sentiment.
-
Afghanistan
-
Albania
-
Algeria
-
Angola
-
Argentina
-
Armenia
-
Australia
-
Austria
-
Azerbaijan
-
Bahamas
-
Bahrain
-
Bangladesh
-
Belarus
-
Belgium
-
Bolivia
-
Botswana
-
Brazil
-
Brunei
-
Bulgaria
-
Cambodia
-
Cameroon
-
Canada
-
Chile
-
China
-
Colombia
-
Congo
-
Costa Rica
-
Cote d'Ivoire
-
Croatia
-
Cuba
-
Cyprus
-
Czechia
-
DR Congo
-
Denmark
-
Dominican Republic
-
Ecuador
-
Egypt
-
El Salvador
-
Estonia
-
Eswatini
-
Ethiopia
-
Finland
-
France
-
Georgia
-
Germany
-
Ghana
-
Greece
-
Haiti
-
Hong Kong
-
Hungary
-
India
-
Indonesia
-
Iran, Islamic republic
-
Iraq
-
Ireland
-
Israel
-
Italy
-
Jamaica
-
Japan
-
Jordan
-
Kazakhstan
-
Kenya
-
Korea
-
Kuwait
-
Kyrgyzstan
-
Laos
-
Latvia
-
Lebanon
-
Lesotho
-
Libya
-
Lithuania
-
Luxembourg
-
Madagascar
-
Malaysia
-
Malta
-
Mauritius
-
Mexico
-
Moldova
-
Mongolia
-
Montenegro
-
Morocco
-
Mozambique
-
Myanmar
-
Namibia
-
Nepal
-
Netherlands
-
New Zealand
-
Nigeria
-
North Macedonia
-
Norway
-
Oman
-
Pakistan
-
Palestine
-
Panama
-
Papua New Guinea
-
Paraguay
-
Peru
-
Philippines
-
Poland
-
Portugal
-
Puerto Rico
-
Qatar
-
Reunion
-
Romania
-
Rwanda
-
Saudi Arabia
-
Serbia
-
Singapore
-
Slovakia
-
Slovenia
-
Somalia
-
South Africa
-
Spain
-
Sri Lanka
-
Sweden
-
Switzerland
-
Syria
-
Taiwan
-
Tajikistan
-
Tanzania
-
Thailand
-
Trinidad and Tobago
-
Tunisia
-
Turkey
-
UAE
-
Uganda
-
Ukraine
-
United Kingdom
-
United States
-
Uruguay
-
Uzbekistan
-
Venezuela
-
Vietnam
-
Yemen
-
Zambia
-
Zimbabwe
- Forex
- Crypto
