California is a "donor state" - pays in far more in Federal Taxes than they receive back in $ or services from the Federal Govt to begin with. They've been getting farked for years on that count, already.
Secondly, the notion that the Federal Govt can take punitive steps toward an individual state for asserting its right not to enforce Federal Law has been rejected by the Supreme Court before. In particular, by Justice Scalia in his majority opinion in Printz v US (1997) under the principle of "anti-commandeering."
Further to that point is that SCOTUS has already held that the Fed Govt cannot attempt to force a state to act against its will, by withholding funding in a coercive manner. That majority decision was written by Chief Justice Roberts in the case of Independent Business v Sebelius in 2012.
The principle underlying much of this is covered by Madison in Federalist #45. These decisions are based primarily on the underlying legal principles of the 10th Amendment. In short, California would have a right to challenge and under current Constitutional decisions in this area, would likely win if Congress attempted to use coercive funding measures to punish them (Commander State Resources) in this manner.
So, I'm not so certain that you guys have the idea that Congress could withhold funding or otherwise use the "power of the purse" to punish California as you are suggesting. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled just the opposite since 1842 in Prigg v Pennsylvania. "The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or instrusted to them by the Constitution."
