CA Proposition 45: How Environmental Review Laws Turned Into Spending War

CALIFORNIA — A hot-button proposal on California's Nov. 3 ballot has turned into a who's who spending war between celebrities, wealthy advocates, and very rich tech execs and ex-husbands.

Proposition 45 aims to restrict the California Environmental Quality Act, the tool used by environmentalists and slow growth proponents to ensure development projects by are subjected them to environmental impact reviews.

The bill aims to expedite housing, transportation and water projects by placing time limits on legal and environmental reviews.

Actress Jane Fonda stepped into California’s latest environmental war beside philanthropist Wendy Schmidt, whose $5 million opposition check placed her against a Proposition 45 organization reportedly backed by her former husband, Eric Schmidt.

Across the divide, Google co-founder Sergey Brin poured $102 million into Building a Better California, which sent $10 million to the CalChamber-sponsored campaign supporting the measure.

Together, contributions to defeat or pass the proposition total more than $50 million.

The amount breaks down into more than $15 million raised by opponents to defeat the measure and $35 million from supporters.

Scorched Earth Spending

The players, the fortunes, and the scorched-earth politics have turned Proposition 45 into a fight over the future of California’s landmark environmental law.

A yes vote would make eligible projects subject to the new review and court-challenge procedures when applicants choose them.

A no vote would keep existing review and court-challenge procedures in place.

Supporters promise faster housing and construction approvals.

Opponents warn that the measure would gut environmental protections and hand developers new power to outrun public scrutiny.

Behind that seemingly simple description is one of the most contested propositions on the Nov. 3 ballot and one that has prompted massive spending on both sides from celebrities and tech moguls alike.

Schmidt and Fonda joined the campaign against Proposition 45, arguing the measure would weaken California’s environmental protections and reduce developers’ accountability.

“It claims to solve the housing crisis, but instead it guts California’s most important environmental law,” Fonda said in a statement released through the campaign.

Fonda, 88, also argued that clean air without deadly pollutants constitutes a human right.

The opposition campaign has drawn most of its money from environmental donors and construction-labor organizations.

Clean and Healthy California, sponsored by environmental organizations, contributed $7 million.

Members’ Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California contributed $1.18 million. Earthjustice added $203,537, and the Center for Biological Diversity contributed $100,000.

Opponents raised $14.97 million, while supporters raised $32.67 million, including $4 million in loans.

Technology, construction, housing, utility, hospital, and business interests supplied money to the campaign supporting Proposition 45.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin poured $102 million into Building a Better California in 2026. The organization sent $10 million to the CalChamber-sponsored Committee to Build an Affordable California, making it Proposition 45’s largest disclosed supporting contributor.

State campaign records identify Brin and venture capitalist John Doerr as Building a Better California’s top Proposition 45 donors.

Other reported backers include Eric Schmidt, Stripe CEO Patrick Collison, and venture capitalist Michael Moritz.

The California Building Industry Association, regional trade organizations, developers, homebuilders, utilities, hospitals, and other business interests also contributed to the campaign.

California Resources Corporation and its subsidiaries gave $500,000 to the CalChamber-sponsored committee.

The publicly traded oil, natural-gas, electricity, and carbon-management company develops projects that give it a business interest in environmental-review and permitting rules, although individual projects would have to meet Proposition 45’s eligibility requirements.

Bipartisan Spending War

The campaign has now placed two prominent figures with ties to major technology fortunes on opposite sides of the environmental fight.

A host of stakeholders that stand to benefit from more construction and hoped for housing — and jobs — include the California Hospital Association, California Children’s Hospital Association, California Hydrogen Coalition, Agricultural Council of California, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California Council for Affordable Housing, and California Building Industry Association.

Opponents argue that the measure would accelerate environmentally damaging projects, weaken public oversight, and transfer pollution costs to communities and taxpayers.

Fonda and Schmidt formally joined that effort through the No on 45 campaign. Fonda said developers should not receive a free pass to build without accountability.

Mabel Tsang, political director for the California Environmental Justice Alliance, wrote that the measure would weaken environmental reviews, reduce community input, and allow corporations to shift costs to taxpayers and families.

Tsang cited massive warehouse facilities in Fresno and dairy biogas facilities in Tulare County as projects that generate corporate profits while nearby communities absorb damage to their air, water, and health.

The Greenbelt Alliance also opposes Proposition 45.

Eric Biber, a Greenbelt analyst, called Proposition 45 sweeping and said it would cover more projects than its description suggests, including freeways, wildfire projects, and potentially data centers. He said the measure would fundamentally transform CEQA and the issues agencies consider during reviews.

The organization argues that previously enacted reforms already accelerate infill housing.

In addition, Proposition 45 would make construction easier, Biber said, but voters must weigh that benefit against the trade-offs.

A July Public Policy Institute of California survey found that 73 percent of likely voters supported the initiative before the state released its ballot title and label. Support included 80 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of Republicans, and 73 percent of independents.

The political split crosses party lines and reflects competing concerns about housing, jobs, economic activity, environmental protection, and data-center construction.

Data Centers

Proposition 45 does not explicitly prevent data centers.

The records nevertheless show substantial support for the measure from executives Brin and Schmidt and industries that provide electricity, water, construction, materials, land development, and regulatory advocacy for large projects.

Google, for example, operates massive data centers that rely on physical infrastructure to power AI.

Contributors also include Edison International, a PG&E-funded PAC, California Water Service Company, statewide and regional building-industry organizations, Lennar, KB Home, Five Point, Brookfield-branded residential companies, the California Association of Realtors, CalChamber, CA Business PAC, and the California Construction & Industrial Materials Association.

Major construction-labor organizations took the opposite position and contributed approximately $2.5 million through Members’ Voice, the State Building and Construction Trades Council’s independent-expenditure PAC, and the Iron Workers PAC.

Election & Voter Resources

For official information regarding ballot measures, voter registration, and polling logistics, consult the following resources:

• California Secretary of State Official Voter Information Guide: Provides complete initiative texts, fiscal analyses, and official arguments.
• California Secretary of State General Election Portal: Offers key dates, registration tools, and official ballot tracking.