California, home to the ultra-rich in Silicon Valley and Hollywood, is embroiled in a heated fight over whether to tax billionaires to fund healthcare.

This week, supporters of the proposed billionaire tax began submitting nearly 1.6 million signatures, nearly twice the number needed to qualify for the November ballot.

Election officials now need to verify that the signatures are valid for the initiative to land on the ballot.

The proposal would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets valued at more than $1 billion, with some exclusions, such as property.

Supporters of the tax, including the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, say it would raise $100 billion, offsetting federal funding cuts to healthcare. A small portion of the funds would also go toward education and state food assistance.

If the proposal makes it to the ballot, it sets the stage for an intense, costly battle over whether the state’s billionaires should pay for services that lower-income residents depend on. Some tech moguls have pushed back against the idea and threatened to move. Some have already moved.

Voters will probably be bombarded with political ads and arguments from opposing sides as the battle intensifies.

Here’s what could happen next:

What are supporters arguing?

Supporters of the billionaire tax are tapping into people’s frustrations about healthcare and wealth inequality. They’ve pushed back against the idea that billionaires can avoid the tax by moving, noting that it applies to billionaires residing in California as of Jan. 1, 2026.

“When funding is cut, it brings a world of pain,” said Mayra Castañeda, an ultrasound technologist and a member of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, in a statement. “It means longer ER waits, fewer healthcare workers, rural hospitals shutting down, delayed care and lives lost that could have been saved.”

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has backed the idea.

“At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, the richest people in our country must start paying their fair share of taxes,” he posted on social media site X on Monday.

What are opponents arguing?

Opponents say the tax could harm California’s economy and leadership in innovation without addressing the state’s financial woes.

“Because the state relies so heavily on high-income-earner tax revenue, this measure could lead to reduced budget revenue in the long term as highly mobile wealthy individuals leave the state to avoid this new tax,” said Rob Lapsley, president of the bipartisan California Business Roundtable.

The Legislative Analyst’s Office said last year that it is hard to predict the exact amount the state will collect because of factors such as fluctuating stock prices, which affect wealth. In a December letter, the office said the state would probably collect tens of billions of dollars from the wealth tax, but it could also lose other tax revenue.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes the wealth tax proposal. Earlier this year, he told Bloomberg he had concerns about how the proposal had been drafted. He also expressed fears that wealthy taxpayers will move out of the state.

“The impact of a one-time tax does not solve an ongoing structural challenge,” he told the news outlet.

How much are opponents spending to fight the billionaire tax proposal?

Billionaires are spending millions of dollars to fund groups that are fighting the proposal or promoting other solutions they say would address wealth inequality.

In late December, PayPal and Palantir co-founder Peter Thiel contributed $3 million to the California Business Roundtable, which is opposing the billionaire tax, according to spending data filed with the secretary of state.

In March, former Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt donated $1 million to that group. Other tech executives have contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars this year. It’s unclear how much of that money goes toward opposing the tax since the donation was made to the entire group.

Since January, tech executives, venture capitalists and business leaders have donated roughly $93 million to a nonprofit called Building a Better California, according to data on the secretary of state’s website. A large chunk of that funding came from Google co-founder Sergey Brin, who donated $57 million to the nonprofit. Executives from DoorDash, Ripple, Stripe and other companies have also contributed to the group.

Building a Better California’s website outlines policies it supports, such as expanding affordable housing and more transparency in state government. The group has told donors that it offers “near-term and longer-term protection against wasteful government spending and any and all new taxes on personal property and personal assets.”

Brin, who relocated to Nevada last year, told the New York Times that he fled “socialism” when his family left the Soviet Union in 1979, and he doesn’t “want California to end up in the same place.”

Are there other proposals that could kill the billionaire tax?

Yes. Another initiative, known as the “Improving Transparency, Effectiveness & Efficiency in California Government Act,” could nullify the billionaire tax act.

It would prevent new taxes from being exempt from a voter-approved state spending limit, in contrast to the billionaire tax measure.

Supporters of the transparency act, including Building a Better California and Inland Empire Economic Partnership, plan to submit about 1.5 million signatures to county election officials this week.

If voters approve conflicting ballot measures, the one with more yes votes would take effect.

How much have groups spent on a ballot measure in the past?

Hundreds of millions of dollars has been spent on ballot measures in the past. In 2020, a record $200 million was spent on Proposition 22.

The initiative, funded by Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and other businesses, allowed gig companies to classify their workers as contractors rather than employees.

With the battle over the billionaire tax expected to heat up, spending on both sides is likely to climb.

Times staff writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

Paramount Skydance has asked the Federal Communications Commission for permission to exceed foreign ownership rules for U.S. media companies to pave the way for its takeover of Warner Bros. Discovery.

David Ellison’s media company is expecting to receive $24 billion from three Middle Eastern royal families, who would become part owners of the combined Paramount-Warner Bros. Discovery. Paramount on Monday asked the FCC for authorization to include the royal families and other foreign investors to help finance the company’s proposed $81-billion transaction.

U.S. law restricts foreign investors from owning more than 25% of a company that holds an FCC broadcast license — unless the commission determines that such an ownership structure would “serve the public interest.”

The FCC disclosed that Paramount had asked for such a “public interest” ruling to allow the merged entity to exceed the 25% foreign ownership cap.

The FCC, which did not indicate whether it will go along with Paramount’s request, initiated a review.

Paramount, in a statement, described the move as a “customary petition,” one that was required because of “the recent equity syndication.”

The Larry Ellison family will retain control of the company through its voting interests, the company said.

“When the transaction and equity syndication close, the Ellison family and RedBird [Capital Partners] will collectively hold the largest equity stake in the combined company and continue to be the sole owners of Class A Common Stock, representing 100% of the voting shares,” Paramount said.

The Ellisons must come up with $47.2 billion in equity and more than $60 billion in debt financing to pull off the deal, which is valued at $111 billion, including Warner Bros. Discovery’s existing debt.

The $24 billion expected from the sovereign wealth funds — representing the royal families of Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi and Qatar — would together represent about 49% of the equity in the new company. As part of the investor group, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund has agreed to contribute $10 billion, according to regulatory filings.

The FCC is involved because of Paramount’s ownership of CBS and 28 television station licenses granted by the FCC. That gives FCC Chairman Brendan Carr influence over the ownership structure of the combined company.

Paramount, as it is currently constituted, has foreign investors — although not enough to approach the ownership cap. Some of those investors are expected to roll over to the larger Paramount-Warner Bros. when that merger is complete.

Several Democrats in Congress, including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have expressed alarm about the prospect of allowing foreign entities to hold such an enormous stake in a major U.S. media company, particularly one with two prominent news outlets: CBS News and CNN. The two senators previously cited national national security concerns.

Paramount has long maintained the foreign ownership issue was largely resolved because the Middle Eastern families would not have voting representatives on the company’s board.

However, the FCC on Monday noted that, under its rules to calculate foreign ownership levels, the agency considers “a voting interest equal to [an entity’s] equity interest for purposes of seeking specific approval.”

The FCC has allowed other media companies to have significant foreign investment. Years ago, the FCC agreed to allow Mexico City-based Grupo Televisa to own much of Univision, the U.S.-based Spanish-language company. More recently, struggling radio giant iHeartMedia Inc. gained FCC approval for foreign owners to buy up to 100% of the company’s stock.

To get the Warner Bros. Discovery deal over the finish line, billionaire Larry Ellison agreed to guarantee the entire $47.2 billion in equity needed. Warner Bros. Discovery board members had demanded that Ellison — one of the world’s richest men — backstop the deal’s financial structure due to initial concerns about it.

Despite the commitment, the Ellisons want the flexibility to include the Middle Eastern royal families and additional foreign investors.

Paramount wants “greater access to capital, including from foreign sources,” the FCC said in its notice.

The proposed Paramount-Warner Bros. would carry $79 billion in debt, making it one of the largest leveraged buyouts ever.

The Justice Department is separately reviewing whether the merger violates U.S. antitrust laws. State attorneys general, including California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, also are scrutinizing the transaction.

More than 4,000 filmmakers, actors and industry workers, including Ben Stiller, Jane Fonda, J.J. Abrams and Damon Lindelof, have signed an open letter calling for regulators to block the deal, saying it “would reduce the number of major U.S. film studios to just four.”

The Ellison family, which holds close ties to President Trump, has expressed confidence that the deal will be approved. Paramount also must garner the consent of regulators in markets where it conducts business, including Europe.

Paramount has said it expects to gather all of the regulatory approvals by this summer.