Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for the influence of money in politics, your voice as a voter, and who actually governs.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares campaign finance approaches across parties — but there's much more to explore.
American democracy has a corruption problem — legal corruption. Total spending on federal elections exceeded $16 billion in 2024, more than the GDP of dozens of countries. The average winning Senate campaign costs $26 million. Members of Congress spend an estimated 30-70% of their time in office fundraising instead of governing. Super PACs, created by the Citizens United decision, allow unlimited spending by corporations, unions, and billionaires. Dark money groups spend hundreds of millions without ever disclosing who funds them. Meanwhile, 60% of former members of Congress become lobbyists, and members trade stocks based on non-public information. The result is a government that responds to donors, not voters.
The three major approaches to campaign finance reform reflect fundamentally different views of what the problem even is. Democrats generally support disclosure requirements, public financing, and overturning Citizens United, but both parties' candidates rely on the same big-money system to get elected. Republicans generally view political spending as protected speech, oppose contribution limits, and argue that disclosure and transparency are sufficient safeguards. The Common Good Party proposes structural reform: a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, public financing with small-dollar matching, elimination of Super PACs and dark money, a ban on congressional stock trading, and a five-year revolving door cooling-off period.
This page breaks down each approach honestly — what it gets right, what it misses, and what it would actually mean for whether your vote or your wallet determines who governs. No spin, no talking points, just the policy.
How the three approaches stack up on the issues that matter most to getting money out of politics.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citizens United | Support overturning (rhetoric) | Support the ruling | Constitutional amendment to overturn |
| Super PACs | Oppose but use them | Support as free speech | Eliminate via constitutional amendment |
| Dark money disclosure | DISCLOSE Act (stalled) | Oppose mandatory disclosure | Real-time disclosure above $1,000 |
| Public financing | Some support (NYC model) | Oppose taxpayer-funded campaigns | Full public financing with 6:1 small-dollar match |
| Corporate donations | Limit but accept PAC money | Support corporate political speech | Ban corporate PAC donations to candidates |
| Small-dollar matching | For the People Act (stalled) | Oppose | 6:1 match on donations under $200 |
| Revolving door | Two-year cooling period | Limited restrictions | Five-year ban, lifetime agency-specific ban |
| Congressional stock trading | Some members support ban | Some members support ban | Complete ban, blind trusts required |
| Campaign spending limits | Support in theory | Oppose — spending is speech | Strict limits enabled by constitutional amendment |
| Enforcement | Strengthen FEC (underfunded) | FEC is fine as-is | Reform FEC to odd-number commissioners, full funding |
Sources: OpenSecrets, Federal Election Commission, Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
Democrats have championed the For the People Act (HR 1/S 1), which would have established public financing for congressional elections through a 6:1 small-dollar matching system, required Super PACs and dark money groups to disclose their donors, and strengthened the Federal Election Commission. Democrats officially support a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and have introduced the DISCLOSE Act to require transparency in political spending. Several prominent Democrats have also called for banning congressional stock trading. New York City's public matching system — which matches small donations at 8:1 — is often cited as a model that Democrats want to bring to the federal level.
Democrats correctly identify that Citizens United fundamentally changed American politics by allowing unlimited corporate and billionaire spending. Their support for public financing and small-dollar matching addresses the root incentive problem: if candidates can run viable campaigns on small donations, they don't need to court big donors. The DISCLOSE Act, while modest, would at least let voters know who is funding the ads designed to influence their votes. New York City's matching system has demonstrably diversified the donor class and made it possible for candidates without wealthy connections to run competitive campaigns. The For the People Act was the most comprehensive democracy reform package in a generation.
The fundamental problem with the Democratic approach is hypocrisy. Democrats call for overturning Citizens United while raising billions through the same Super PACs and dark money groups they claim to oppose. In 2024, Democratic-aligned Super PACs outspent Republican ones. The party's largest donors include billionaires, Wall Street firms, and tech companies who expect policy access in return. The For the People Act died in the Senate. The DISCLOSE Act has been introduced in multiple Congresses and has never passed. A constitutional amendment has never come close to the two-thirds majority required. Democrats propose the right reforms but lack either the political will or the strategic ability to deliver them — and in the meantime, they play the same money game as Republicans.
For more on the money-politics cycle, see the full campaign finance explainer.
Republicans generally view political spending as protected free speech under the First Amendment. They support the Citizens United ruling, oppose contribution limits and spending caps, and argue that any restriction on political spending is a restriction on political expression. Their approach favors deregulation of campaign finance: higher or eliminated contribution limits to candidates (which they argue reduces the incentive for outside spending), opposition to public financing (which they frame as taxpayer-subsidized campaigns), and skepticism toward mandatory disclosure requirements, which they argue can expose donors to harassment. Some Republicans have supported increased transparency and a few have backed banning congressional stock trading.
The Republican concern about donor harassment is not entirely without basis — there have been documented cases of individuals facing retaliation for political donations. Their argument that higher contribution limits to candidates could reduce outside spending has some theoretical support, since donors might prefer giving directly to candidates rather than through less accountable third-party groups. The Republican skepticism toward creating new government bureaucracies to regulate political speech reflects legitimate First Amendment concerns. And their criticism that Democrats' reform proposals would benefit incumbent parties at the expense of challengers and smaller parties deserves consideration.
The argument that money is speech ignores a fundamental reality: if money is speech, then the rich have more speech than everyone else, and democracy becomes plutocracy. The top 100 donors in 2024 gave more to federal elections than the bottom 5 million donors combined. That is not free expression — it is a system where wealth determines political influence. Opposing all regulation of campaign finance because it's "speech" is like opposing all environmental regulation because it affects "property" — it elevates an abstract principle over demonstrable harm.
The Republican position also ignores the outcomes. Legislators who receive large donations from pharmaceutical companies vote against drug price negotiation. Legislators who receive large donations from fossil fuel companies vote against climate legislation. Legislators who receive large donations from Wall Street vote against financial regulation. The correlation between donations and votes is extensively documented. Calling this "free speech" doesn't change the fact that it functions as legalized bribery.
For a deeper analysis of money's influence on policy outcomes, see our campaign finance explainer.
The Common Good Party proposes comprehensive campaign finance reform built on the principle that democracy should be funded by the people, not the powerful. First, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and establish that political spending is not constitutionally protected speech and that Congress and states may regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. Second, public financing of federal elections through a 6:1 small-dollar matching system — every $1 donated by an individual giving $200 or less is matched with $6 in public funds. Third, real-time disclosure of all political spending above $1,000, closing the nonprofit loopholes that enable dark money. Fourth, a complete ban on congressional stock trading, with mandatory blind trusts for all members. Fifth, a five-year revolving door ban and lifetime ban on lobbying the specific agencies officials oversaw. Sixth, reforming the FEC from six commissioners (which guarantees partisan deadlock) to five, with real enforcement authority and adequate funding.
Unlike the Democratic approach, the CGP plan doesn't propose reform while simultaneously playing the big-money game. The Common Good Party does not accept corporate PAC money — period. Unlike the Republican approach, it doesn't pretend that unlimited spending by billionaires and corporations is "free speech" that benefits democracy. The CGP plan recognizes that you cannot fix a corrupt system from within the corrupt system — you need structural change. A constitutional amendment is difficult, but it is the only way to definitively address Citizens United. Public financing with small-dollar matching has been proven to work at the municipal level and can be scaled to federal elections. And unlike both parties, the CGP plan includes the ethics reforms — stock trading bans, revolving door restrictions — that address the personal financial incentives that keep legislators loyal to donors rather than voters.
Public financing works. New York City's matching program has increased the proportion of small donors, diversified who runs for office, and made elected officials more responsive to average constituents. Arizona and Maine have run public financing systems for state elections for decades with positive results. Internationally, every major democracy except the United States has meaningful limits on campaign spending: Canada caps spending for federal elections, the UK limits campaign periods to weeks rather than years, and Germany provides public funding to parties based on votes received. These countries have lower corruption, higher voter turnout, and elected officials who spend their time governing rather than fundraising.
Polling consistently shows that campaign finance reform is one of the most popular issues in American politics: 85%+ of Americans believe money has too much influence in politics. The obstacle is not public opinion — it's that the people who benefit from the current system are the ones who would need to change it. That's why structural reform from outside the two-party system is essential.
Campaign finance reform isn't about arcane election law — it's about whether your voice counts as much as a billionaire's. Here's what the Common Good plan would look like for real people.
Campaign finance reform is the foundation for every other issue. Explore how money in politics affects all 50 of our issue positions.
Explore the Full PlatformCommon questions about how the three approaches compare on campaign finance.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full campaign finance explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into campaign finance policy with these pages.
Every other major democracy limits money in politics. America can too. Read the full plan and see which approach actually puts voters back in charge.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.