Sergey Brin-backed measures seek to nullify California billionaire tax, poll shows
Coveragetap to expand ▾Spectrum: Mostly Center🌍US: 2
- The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) poll shows 52% of likely voters favor Proposition 40, which would take 5% of the wealth of billionaires in California.
- Propositions 41 and 42 are described in the article as “poison pills” funded by Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s group, Building a Better California.
- The text of Propositions 41 and 42 states that if either wins more votes than Proposition 40, the winning measure’s provisions prevail in their entirety and Proposition 40 would be null and void.
- The article argues Proposition 40 would raise short-term tax revenues but hurt long-term investment and economic growth in Silicon Valley.
- The piece is an opinion editorial credited to the CA Post Editorial Board and dated Sep. 16, 2026.
A new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California finds 52% of likely California voters favor Proposition 40, the ballot measure that would levy a 5% tax on billionaires’ wealth — even as competing measures backed by Google co-founder Sergey Brin’s group aim to sideline it.
The New York Post reports that Building a Better California funded Propositions 41 and 42 and describes those measures as “poison pills”: each text says that if it receives more votes than Proposition 40, the winner’s provisions would prevail in full and Proposition 40 would be null and void (per nypost.com).
The PPIC numbers cited by the Post also show 51% support for Proposition 41 and 54% support for Proposition 42, indicating voters may back multiple competing plans simultaneously (per nypost.com).
The Post’s editorial board frames the Brin-backed measures as tactical moves to defeat the billionaire tax even while acknowledging broad voter appetite for wealth taxation (per nypost.com). It warns that Proposition 40 could boost short-term revenues but, in the board’s view, would harm long-term investment and Silicon Valley growth if enacted (per nypost.com).
Those who support Proposition 40 argue the measure would extract revenue from the state’s richest residents; the Post recounts this voter support via the PPIC poll but focuses its reporting and opinion on the risk the ballot architecture poses to the tax’s passage (per nypost.com).
Building a Better California’s financing of two alternative measures creates a vote-splitting and legal-text pathway that could cancel Proposition 40 without voters explicitly rejecting the billionaire tax itself (per nypost.com).
The Post presents this as a deliberate strategy by a wealthy backer to preserve investment incentives while blocking a tax many voters favor (per nypost.com).
What is clear from the available reporting is procedural: the competing measures’ clauses would mechanically override Proposition 40 if they draw more votes, and the PPIC poll shows substantive voter support for all three propositions at the time of publication (per nypost.com).
Beyond the Post’s opinion framing, the public data cited — PPIC polling numbers and the ballot texts’ cross-implementation language — are the concrete elements that will shape how campaigns and voters navigate the ballot in the coming weeks (per nypost.com).
- California taxpayers outside the billionaire class: Proposition 40 would extract 5% of wealth from the state’s billionaires (per nypost.com), potentially generating short-term revenue that could fund state programs.
- Silicon Valley investors and tech companies: The New York Post argues Proposition 40’s enactment would reduce long-term investment incentives in the region (per nypost.com), a key concern cited by opponents.
- Building a Better California and Sergey Brin: By funding Propositions 41 and 42 (per nypost.com), Brin’s group stands to benefit if those measures nullify Proposition 40 and preserve current wealth and investment structures.
- Voters navigating ballot mechanics: The cross-implementation language in Propositions 41 and 42 could nullify voter preference for Proposition 40 even as PPIC finds majority support for the billionaire tax (per nypost.com).
- Whether Proposition 40, 41, or 42 receives the most votes in the November ballot count — the competing measures’ texts dictate that the highest‑vote getter prevails (per nypost.com).
- Whether Building a Better California continues major funding for Propositions 41 and 42 in the weeks before the election (per nypost.com).
- Whether campaign messaging shifts to highlight the cross-implementation clause in Propositions 41 and 42 to persuade voters to rank or concentrate support (per nypost.com).
Left- and right-leaning outlets are covering this story differently — in which facts to emphasize, which context to include, and how to frame causes and consequences.
7 specific areas where coverage diverges — see below.
- nypost.com frames Propositions 41 and 42 as deliberate “poison pills” funded by Sergey Brin’s Building a Better California designed to nullify Proposition 40 (per nypost.com).
- No source in this pack disputes the PPIC poll numbers or the ballot language; the single outlet interprets those facts through an opinion lens (per nypost.com).
- No source in this pack provides campaign finance totals for Building a Better California or other donors beyond naming Sergey Brin’s group (per nypost.com).
- No source in this pack includes independent analysis of how much revenue Proposition 40 would raise or specific budget allocations for that revenue (per nypost.com).
- No source in this pack cites legal analyses on potential litigation or ballot-title challenges related to the cross-implementation clauses (per nypost.com).
- PPIC poll support figures: Proposition 40 at 52%, Proposition 41 at 51%, Proposition 42 at 54% (per nypost.com).
- The Post asserts Propositions 41 and 42 were funded to defeat Proposition 40 (per nypost.com); no additional sources in this pack provide alternative explanations or corroboration.
- nypost.com attributes funding of Propositions 41 and 42 to Building a Better California and links that group to Sergey Brin (per nypost.com).