Staff Reports
Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Film Commission just handed out another round of film and TV tax credits — 35 projects, including big studio films and a sequel to this year’s Michael Jackson biopic. The administration calls it a win for jobs and California stories. Critics call it a giveaway. Both sides are right about parts of it, but taxpayers deserve the straight truth: this program is growing fast, and the bill lands on everyday Californians whether they watch the movies or not.
What Newsom announced — big numbers, familiar franchises
The latest awards are billed as a boost for California production. The CFC says the slate will bring roughly $1.08 billion in production spending to the state, create thousands of cast and crew jobs, and add more than a thousand shooting days in California. Titles named in the awards range from a working title Michael sequel to studio projects like Last Friday, an untitled Paramount thriller, and other mixed studio and indie productions. The governor touted the move as keeping work and stories “right here in California.”
But what does it cost — and who really benefits?
Here’s the wrench: the program’s cap was more than doubled from $330 million to $750 million last year, and lawmakers just added a new post‑production credit and other tweaks via AB 2319 and SB 186. That means more credits, more forgone revenue, and more pressure on the state budget. The Legislative Analyst’s Office warned that expanding these credits likely shifts market share back to California but offers weak evidence of net economic benefits for taxpayers. Independent analysts note many tax‑credit programs return less than a dollar in state revenue for each dollar given away. In short: California is spending public money to subsidize private film projects — a polite word for moving money from taxpayers’ pockets to studio bank accounts.
Studio winners, taxpayer losers?
Critics are blunt. Wayne Winegarden of the Pacific Research Institute calls the program “an admission that California’s environment is uncompetitive” — in other words, we’re buying back business we once had. Entertainment lawyer Schuyler Moore says the credits “help the studios” and amount to “a giveaway from California that increases the tax rate to everybody else.” Even when independent films are included, the design and scale of the program tend to favor big studios that would often film here anyway. If that’s true, then taxpayers are subsidizing choices that already made economic sense for the studios.
What should happen next — accountability, not applause
Conservatives and taxpayers aren’t against a film industry — we want it to thrive without turning Sacramento into a permanent grant office for Hollywood. The state should adopt strict benchmarks, independent audits, and clear measures of net fiscal impact before expanding credits further. If keeping productions in California is the goal, the smarter move is to fix the business climate: cut red tape, lower costs, and make the state attractive on its own merits. Until Sacramento shows independent proof that these credits pay for themselves, every new round of awards should come with a healthy dose of skepticism — and a demand that those handing out the money prove it wasn’t just another photo op.
