by Mike Solana
A few weeks back, I asked 21 California billionaires targeted by the Service Employees International Union’s proposed wealth tax if they planned to fight the ballot proposition, move, or some mysterious third thing. Sentiment was darker than I anticipated. Almost everyone I spoke with, including the California maximalists, was planning an exit. While the architects of the ballot prop insisted “wealth flight” would never happen — there was research, we were told; trust the experts!, the commies cried — it was clear by the end of January they were not only wrong about this, but about pretty much everything. To date, at least half the wealth targeted by the SEIU’s Dave Regan and his cabal of Marxist academics has moved from California, the SEIU has alienated the governor, the teacher’s union (from what I’ve repeatedly heard), and most center-left organizations in the state, and they’ve radicalized even center left billionaires against special interests to a degree I’ve never before seen. To put this in perspective, I know a billionaire tech founder who supported Chesa Boudin, San Francisco’s infamous pro-crime District Attorney, who is now prepared for war with every union in the state.
But will a few angry billionaires be enough to avert catastrophe?
Even last year, everyone agreed a “billionaire tax” would almost certainly pass if it landed on ballots, regardless of what that meant for the concept of private property (effectively abolished), or what would happen once the proposition was turned on the rest of us (dystopia). What was less clear as late as last month was what kind of chance the proposition had of gathering enough signatures and winding up on the ballot, and how the technology industry, which the political left is obviously targeting with a disproportionate focus on privately-held startups, would fight back — or if industry leaders would fight back at all.
Today, we have interesting updates on both fronts, and, incredibly, some reason for optimism. The counter measures these men cooked up are wild, designed not only to defeat the SEIU’s tech industry kill switch, but to rain down sulfur on the heads of Atlas Shrugged villains throughout the state. I have maybe never been this excited to vote, and we’re about to share a detailed first look at the billionaire counterstrike.
But before we turn to the new ballot measures, a quick update on the wealth tax:
Assuming the SEIU is still targeting the November 2026 ballot, signatures for the wealth tax need to be verified and certified by June 25th. Signature verification can take quite a while, so ballot prop campaigns (there are many, most are insane) are targeting end of April or early May to gather something like 1.4 million signatures for constitutional changes — a safe overshoot of the roughly 900,000 signatures required this year, which should make up for signatures tossed out during the verification process. Technically, the SEIU must submit a progress report when it gathers 25% of its target signatures, which it hasn’t yet done. This implies they’re either breaking the law, or they’re a bit behind. I’m assuming they’re just a bit behind, but, oddly, according to two groups I spoke with working on competitive ballot propositions, the SEIU was only paying signature-gatherers around $5 or $6 dollars per signature last week, about half the top rate. The union has the money to pay more. Why isn’t union leadership pumping the gas?
It’s possible Regan’s just enjoying all of the attention he’s receiving — likely, in fact, from what I hear about the man — and intends to milk this circus until 2028. I guess there’s also a thin chance he’s self-reflecting, having perhaps not anticipated the damage even just proposing the wealth tax would do to California, and he’s now planning to quietly let the ballot prop go. But these days there are enough professional Smart People pushing a wealth tax that anyone who wants to believe something wrong has plenty of cover to do so, and I sincerely doubt a man as authentically average as Dave Regan self-reflects at all.
Still, while the few signals we have in any direction kind of imply only lukewarm success for the prop, an even moderate risk of the wealth tax passing is potentially existential for the tech industry, which means it’s irrational to prepare for anything other than a union victory (not only at getting it on the ballot, but at getting the votes in November).
At least a few billionaires have arrived at the same conclusion.
“When there’s a direct threat against their bottom line, they engage,” one operative I spoke with said of California businessmen. “If there’s not? It’s difficult to get them to care.”
Now, they care. And billionaire fury with the wealth tax has translated into funding for a variety of counter measures.
Let’s take a look.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is spearheading the Local Taxpayer Protection Act (LTPA), for example, which would require any future local tax to secure a two-thirds majority vote. It would also repeal most real estate transfer taxes, including LA’s measure ULA (“United to House LA), a successful, citizen-initiated ballot proposition that ultimately served to exacerbate LA’s development paralysis, a problem its authors said they were trying to solve. There are a lot of counterproductive props like this.
While ULA was originally sold as a local “mansion tax,” it of course applied far more broadly, levying anywhere from an additional 4 to 5% tax on residential properties, large multifamily buildings, mixed-use buildings, commercial and industrial properties, and even redevelopment parcels, effectively freezing development. According to proponents, this was done to help the homeless. But in practice, ULA is just another funding channel for non-profits only nominally helping the poor, who somehow only ever preside over a city’s increase in homelessness.
Last week, I spoke with the California Business Roundtable, a team that’s been working on the other side of anti-business legislation for the last 50 years. They’re now working to get the LTPA on ballots, and explained concern over the wealth tax has led to a big funding increase across initiatives. For LTPA, they’ve gathered 1.1 million signatures of their 1.35 million signature goal. This is more than any other proposition on the street. At this point, it will almost certainly make it on the ballot.
In terms of other players on the board, there’s also Stop the Squeeze, Newsom’s camp. They have millions of dollars leftover from their battle for Prop 50, which allowed the state to gerrymander districts for the Democratic Party. Newsom has since vowed to fight against the SEIU’s ballot proposition, so if his negotiations with the union continue to fail, most people following the battle assume he’ll throw this money at whatever ballot prop has the greatest chance of neutralizing the asset seizure while preserving the legislature’s ability to raise taxes. That’s not nothing. It’s also not, you know, a lot.
But last Wednesday a string of new prospective ballot propositions spearheaded by Kurt Oneto, an attorney leading government law at Nielsen Merksamer, received their titles. Oneto’s group is rumored to have the support of several prominent billionaires, and appears to be the most well-funded and concentrated response to the wealth tax.
Oneto’s propositions include: the Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act of 2026 (25-0041A1); the Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act of 2026 (25-0040A1); the California Fair Taxation Act (25-0039A1); the Protect Schools and Taxpayers Act of 2026 (25-0038A1); and, finally, the Budget Stability Act of 2026 (25-0037A1).
Having started this process fairly late, Oneto’s group only has around 10 weeks to gather somewhere between 1.3 and 1.4 million signatures for each of these propositions. But it seems they have a lot of money, there are many other wealthy industry men waiting in the wings who’ve been looking for a strategy worth funding, and this is the most interesting — and funny? — counterattack on the map.
Behold, the battle for California’s future:
First, we have the Retirement and Personal Savings Protection Act, which prohibits new taxes on “the ownership or control of retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings, whether held directly or indirectly.” Critically, the proposition defines retirement savings as… pretty much everything targeted by the SEIU’s asset seizure. From Section 4 (“Definitions”):
“For purposes of this article, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings” means pensions; retirement accounts including but not limited to 401 (k) accounts, 403(b) accounts, and all other individual retirement accounts; mutual funds; and all personal property, whether tangible or intangible, including but not limited to financial assets, investment accounts, business interests, digital assets, intellectual property, personal belongings, and other assets used to produce or collect income or savings for retirement or financial planning.”
Still, what happens if both this measure and the SEIU’s asset seizure land on the same ballot? You’re in luck, friend. Here, from Section 5 (“Conflicting Measures”):
“( a)( 1) In the event that this initiative measure appears on the same statewide election ballot as another initiative measure that would establish, enact, create, impose, or authorize collection of a tax on the ownership or control of retirement holdings, individually-owned assets, and other forms of personal savings, or enact a tax that would result in tax liability based on [...] conduct, activities, or a status that occurred or was present prior to the effective date of the initiative measure, then that other initiative measure shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this initiative measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and all the provisions of the other measure shall be null and void.”
In other words, Oneto’s group wove in a counterspell. Almost explicitly, disregard prior instructions. This appears in each of his team’s prospective ballot propositions, which means if any one of them gathers enough signatures to appear on the ballot, and then secures more votes than the wealth tax, any language in the wealth tax in conflict with a victorious Oneto proposition will be void.
Next, we have the Improving Transparency, Effectiveness, and Efficiency in California Government Act — which frankly sounds amazing. Who doesn’t love transparency, effectiveness, and efficiency in California government? Three cheers for transparency, effectiveness, and efficiency in California government.
If this thing passes, every organization that receives funds from any special tax will be forced to undergo a meticulous audit of resources and spending habits, spanning everything from the organization’s cost of tech procurement and staffing to the organization’s stated goals, its history of actually achieving those goals (lol), and an analysis of underlying resources it uses to inform its goals — the Marxist academics spreading misinformation about wealth flight it relies on to sell its propaganda, for example. These audits will then continue for as long as the organization receives taxpayer dollars from any special tax. Henceforth, the unions will still be able to run their terroristic ballot propositions, but they will have to do so naked.
Third on the list, we have the California Fair Taxation Act. This would actually increase tax liability for high-income part-time residents by requiring anyone who spends more than 60 days in California to pay some amount of tax on income above $2 million generated even outside the state. But the proposition would also rigidly define residency, currently a huge grey area that generally works to the state’s advantage when pursuing “revenue” (people (cattle on the run)).
If this proposition passes, anyone in the state 183 days or less who is not registered to vote, and who does not have a California driver’s license, will no longer be considered a full-time resident. Relatedly, anyone who has a license and voter registration in another state, and who is not physically present in California for more than 183 days in a Calendar year, will not be considered a resident of California.
Until now, if a wealthy man left the state he would likely still be investigated by the tax board. He could truly live in Utah or Florida or something (but Nevada mostly likely) a full ten months out of the year and still be determined liable to pay the Sacramento tax man. Where is his dentist? Where does he keep old family photos? How much property does he own in the state, and how many people does he employ? Is his wife still in California? If not, how often does she travel to California? Where is her Botox man, goddamnit? Now, none of that will matter, which is a huge gift to taxpayers looking for cover from, for example, a historic, first-of-its-kind asset seizure designed to destroy young technology founders.
The Protect Schools and Taxpayers Act is a(n especially funny) gift for the teacher’s union. If it passes, it will force all propositions to adhere to Proposition 98, which guarantees a minimum level of annual funding for K–12 schools and community colleges in California, redirecting a set portion of all money raised in the state to public education, as well as Prop 4, which caps state spending levels to the year 1979, and only allows increases in government spending following population growth and inflation. The SEIU’s asset seizure attempted to circumvent both of these propositions — thus, we have heard, provoking the teacher’s union. So if Oneto’s ‘hooray for schools act’ passes, the wealth tax will vanish as quickly, and with about as much fanfare, as the beautiful young child of a morally complicated working mom on HBO’s The Leftovers (immediately, this is to say, and nobody will care).
It’s going to be a real Sophie’s choice for California lefties: do you love funding schools as much as you love torturing anyone who you perceive as even slightly wealthier than you? I, for one, am on the edge of my seat.
Finally, and perhaps most simply, we have the Budget Stability Act, which would require a two thirds majority vote for any ballot prop attempting to greenlight any one-time revenue source. To my eye, this is an echo of the Jarvis Local Taxpayer Protection Act, but for the state.
Altogether, California has been blessed by a beautiful range of measures here, which have undoubtedly infuriated the state’s union mob bosses. Kurt, I don’t know who you are, or why you won’t return my emails. But I love your work, baby. Call me.
Now, over the weeks to come, all of these ballot propositions will be tested in focus groups and surveys. Research results will inform which of the five ballot props are ultimately funded (my guess, only two or three will make it — and please God let it be the one that forces all these assholes into audits), and then what messaging will be used to sell these things.
It doesn’t seem any of the counter propositions are designed to simply reverse a wealth tax. From what I can tell, they’re designed to make ballot props in the wealth tax genre — which is to say relatively inexpensive state economy kill switches sold to braindead voters with feel-good “eat the rich” messaging — much more difficult, or even impossible to pass, and to expose the powerful men responsible for such attempts. Ironically, while the architects of the wealth tax are attempting to target men who they perceive to be a bunch of oligarchs with way too much control over politics, tech billionaires have until recently been pretty aloof and shit at politics. I’ve complained about this for years! But in 2026 they’re pissed, and they’re looking to drop a nuke or two. As of today, we have at least six to choose from.
Billionaires were always going to find an exit for themselves. But as the contours of this battle come more greatly into focus, it’s clear any California future that includes the tech industry will also now include a very small but very animated, and very radicalized class of wealthy donors who are not only interested in defending themselves, but in targeting the system that forced them to defend themselves. The billionaires are still not throwing punches nearly as hard as they could or should. But this is certainly a start.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.