June 22, 2026, marks the 50th anniversary of an important decision by the Supreme Court of California regarding the use of tax dollars for campaign materials and ads. In the case of Stanson v. Mott, a unanimous Court decided that “a public agency may not expend public funds to promote a partisan position in an election campaign.” The Court said public agencies may disseminate “information” to the public, but only in a “fair presentation of the relevant facts.”
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation’s Public Integrity Project (PIP) was established to take action against the state or local governments if they improperly use public dollars to try to persuade citizens to vote for higher taxes. We watch closely to make sure advertising and promotional materials that are created at public expense do not cross the line into illegal advocacy.
Stanson v. Mott involved an expenditure by the California Department of Parks and Recreation of $5,000 of public funds to promote a $250 million bond measure that the Legislature had placed on the ballot. A taxpayer by the name of Sam Stanson filed a lawsuit against William Penn Mott Jr., the director of the state Parks Department. Stanson sought to have Mott forced to repay the funds personally.
The Supreme Court held that the expenditure of public funds to promote the bond measure was unlawful, but the justices declined to order Mott to pay back the money himself unless he “failed to exercise due care in authorizing the expenditure of the funds.” The Court cited legislation that had “narrowed the circumstances” in which public employees could be held personally liable for losses.
Stanson v. Mott set the ground rules that allowed members of the public to file a complaint when government officials used the public’s money to advocate for raising the public’s taxes. But later developments made it much more difficult for these lawsuits to succeed.
In 1992, California enacted the Anti-SLAPP Law to protect against “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” The idea was to deter meritless lawsuits that were aimed at scaring people out of speaking freely or petitioning the government about issues of public concern. Lawsuits are costly to defend, and it was easy to see how the threat of being sued over “public participation” in civic affairs would chill that First Amendment–protected activity.
So the Anti-SLAPP law allowed people who are sued for “public participation” to file a special motion to have the lawsuit dismissed at an early stage. Then the burden shifts to the person who filed the lawsuit to demonstrate a likelihood of succeeding on the merits. If the lawsuit-filer can’t make that case and the court grants the defendant’s motion, the defendant is entitled to attorney fees. That potential expense is a deterrent to frivolous lawsuits over First Amendment–protected activity.
Unfortunately for taxpayers, a 2009 California Supreme Court ruling in the case known as Vargas v. City of Salinasflipped this upside-down.
In that case, citizens sued the City of Salinas and its city manager, alleging that the city misused public funds by producing and distributing campaign-like materials to oppose a ballot measure that aimed to repeal the city’s utility users tax. The citizens said the use of public funds violated Stanson. But the city responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, arguing that the city’s First Amendment rights to communicate its message on a public issue were being attacked with a “strategic lawsuit against public participation.”
The California Supreme Court agreed with the city. The lawsuit filed by the citizens was dismissed and they were ordered to pay the city’s legal fees.
Vargas v. City of Salinas created real obstacles for citizens who wish to challenge publicly funded campaign communications. The standard for when public spending is allowable has become more difficult to discern and violations more difficult to prove.
That’s why the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation’s Public Integrity Project is so important. Our legal team has the knowledge and experience to handle these tough cases. Your support makes it possible.
HJTF is a 501(c)(3) that funds all our legal and educational work. Donations may be tax deductible. For information about planned giving or for answers to other questions, please contact Foundation President Craig Mordoh. He can be reached by email at Craig@HJTA.org or by phone at 213-384-9656.