This article was originally published by LAist on Aug. 27, 2025.

It’s been less than a week since the California Legislature triggered a special statewide election this November over redistricting, and already the political mail is flooding in.

The ballot measure headed to voters for a decision, Proposition 50, would allow California politicians to redraw congressional maps to benefit Democrats for elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030. It’s an effort to counter a similar move that President Donald Trump promoted successfully in Texas to benefit Republicans.

This is a high-stakes moment — your yes or no vote will affect who represents our communities and which political party will drive the nationwide agenda.

Millions of dollars are pouring in to sway your decision. As of Wednesday, more than $7 million had been raised by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ballot measure committee to support the proposition, while opponents had raised more than $10 million to fight it. This fundraising will likely continue to ramp up all the way to November.

Mailbox already stacked with campaign mailers? We’ll help you sort out who’s funding these campaigns and what information is available about them. Here’s how to follow the trail.

Step one: Examine what the mailer says

As a first step, take a look at the mailers themselves. By law, every political ad is required to include information about who paid for it.

My newsroom colleagues have already received several anti-redistricting campaign ads from a group called Protect Voters First, so let’s start there.

At the bottom of the mailer, the text reads:

Ad paid for by Protect Voters First, sponsored by Hold Politicians Accountable

Ad Committee’s Top Funder

Charles T. Munger, Jr.

Seems straightforward enough: Charles T. Munger, Jr. is the main contributor to the group that paid for the ad in your mailbox. A quick Google search will tell you he’s a physicist and the son of the late billionaire Charles Munger, former vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. The ad wants voters to vote “no” and describes the redistricting effort as a “threat to California’s landmark election reform.”

But perhaps you’d like to know more. Who are these affiliated groups, Protect Voters First and Hold Politicians Accountable? How much money have they raised? What else have they supported in the past? And who else is funding them?

Before we dig into those details, here’s a quick recap of the basics.

Step two: Understanding political committees

  • What’s a political committee? In an election, all political ad spending has to come from a committee. A political committee is any group of people (it can even be just one individual) who wants to raise or spend money to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure.
  • How they work: Some committees stick around for a long time, putting money behind various measures year after year. One example is the Protect Prop. 13 committee — a project from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, an anti-tax group that has been around for decades. For the most part, committees are ephemeral: They come together for one specific purpose in an election, then disappear.
  • Who’s behind it? All committees have to file a form that outlines their purpose, names of officers and some basic contact details. This information alone may not be enough to reveal the source. You can find a fair amount of information about who contributed money to a committee — and that’s where you’ll find the really juicy details.

Step three: Where to find campaign spending information

For state ballot measures, all the campaign finance information you want to dig through can be found on the California Secretary of State’s website. Its campaign finance database is called Cal-Access.

You can look up any committee’s name from this website to find out what they’re all about — who’s listed on file as treasurer, previous names the committee has used, who’s contributed money to them and where they’ve spent that money. You can also look up any committee that is for or against any ballot measure.

As of Wednesday, there are two committees that have filed to support the measure (including Newsom’s ballot measure committee) and two that have filed to oppose it. The committee from the ad is listed here on the “oppose” side: No on Prop 50 — Protect Voters First, Sponsored by Hold Politicians Accountable.

What we found on the Protect Voters First committee

Here’s what came up:

  • Who started the committee? Besides Munger, the names of the other officers listed (on a filing called Form 410) are Christopher E. Skinnell and James W. Carson — they’re attorneys based in San Rafael. The committee was formed in 2015.
  • Previous names used: This committee has been around for a while under slightly different names, all of which have included “Hold Politicians Accountable.” Previously, they were “Voters First, Not Special Interests – Sponsored by Hold Politicians Accountable,” they’ve also had “Yes on 54” in their name, and before that, they were just “Hold Politicians Accountable.” (Prop. 54 was a measure from 2016 that required state bills and legislative meetings to be posted publicly to provide transparency on lawmaking.)
  • How much money they’ve raised: Munger contributed a whopping $10 million on Aug. 21, the day the redistricting measure was approved in the California state Legislature, and followed that up with $90,000 more on Aug. 22. Before that, the committee had raised just $4,960.50 between January and the end of June.
  • Who contributed money to them: Almost every contribution made to this committee over the past 10 years came from Munger, except for one $5,000 contribution from the New Majority PAC in 2016.
  • What’s the takeaway? This committee is funded entirely by Munger. He’s not the only one spending money against the redistricting measure, but so far he’s got a $10 million head start.

What we’re watching next

You can use this process to check out any of the groups supporting or opposing Prop. 50. Remember, read the fine print on your mailer and look out for the “ad paid for by” section.

Things are moving fast with this short election cycle, so the bigger campaign fundraising landscape is still emerging into view. But here are a few details we’re keeping our eyes on:

  • How much are other opponents spending? Other mailers pushing a “no” vote have been circulating, paid for by “Right Path California.” A visit to the organization’s website shows it’s headed by Jessica Millan Patterson, a former chair of the California Republican Party. Right Path California’s campaign finance forms haven’t yet been posted on the Secretary of State’s website, so it’s unclear how much they’ve raised or spent at this stage. (We reached out to Patterson and didn’t hear back by deadline.)
  • Who are the supporters? Meanwhile, Newsom’s ballot measure committee is springing into fundraising action to encourage a “yes” vote with a slew of new donations over the past few weeks. The largest so far come from the House Majority PAC ($3 million), the labor union affiliate SEIU California State Council ($1 million) and business person Bill Bloomfield ($1 million). Another committee supporting the measure, the Progressive Era Issues Committee, hasn’t yet reported any contributions this past month.

We’re sure to be inundated with more campaign ads in the coming weeks — TV and internet spots, texts and robocalls — so if something catches your eye, let us know. You can reach me at [email protected].