Side-by-side analysis of what each approach would mean for critical infrastructure protection, election security, data breach response, and keeping America safe online.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page compares cybersecurity approaches — but there's much more to explore.
Cybersecurity is no longer an IT issue — it's a national security crisis. In the past five years, foreign adversaries and criminal organizations have attacked America's fuel pipelines, water treatment plants, hospitals, power grids, election systems, and telecommunications networks. The annual cost of cybercrime to the US economy exceeds $300 billion. Over 800 million individual records were exposed in data breaches in 2023 alone. And the threats are accelerating.
Despite this, the United States has no comprehensive federal cybersecurity law. Critical infrastructure protection is largely voluntary. There is no federal data breach notification standard. The cybersecurity workforce gap stands at 750,000 unfilled positions. And the government agencies responsible for defense — CISA, NSA, Cyber Command — face chronic funding and staffing shortfalls.
The three major approaches differ on regulation, workforce investment, and the balance between security and privacy. Democrats favor more regulation and government coordination. Republicans prefer market-driven solutions and public-private partnerships. The Common Good Party proposes mandatory standards for critical infrastructure, a national cybersecurity workforce program, comprehensive breach notification, and a framework that treats cybersecurity as essential national defense — not an optional expense.
How the three approaches stack up on cybersecurity.
| Issue | Democrats | Republicans | Common Good |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infrastructure standards | Mandatory for critical sectors | Voluntary, industry-led | Mandatory with federal compliance funding |
| Workforce | Expand CyberCorps, education funding | Private sector training, reduce regulations | Cyber ROTC, competitive federal pay, 750K gap plan |
| Breach notification | Support federal standard | State-by-state, minimize burden | 72-hour federal standard, penalties for concealment |
| Election security | Federal funding, paper backups required | State responsibility, oppose federal mandates | $2B fund, paper ballots, mandatory audits, air-gapped |
| Supply chain | SBOM requirements, vendor risk | Voluntary standards, reduce foreign dependency | Mandatory SBOM, critical vendor audits, domestic capacity |
| Bug bounties | Expand federal programs | Support private sector programs | Federal bug bounty for all agencies, safe harbor law |
| Small business | SBA cyber assistance, grants | Reduce compliance burden | Cyber Shield program: free assessments, subsidized tools |
| International cooperation | Multilateral frameworks, alliance-based | Bilateral, deterrence-focused | International norms treaty, civilian infrastructure protected |
| Military cyber | Strong Cyber Command, oversight | Expand offensive capability, executive authority | Robust capability, congressional notification, clear ROE |
| Privacy balance | Strong privacy protections alongside security | Security-first, privacy secondary | Security and privacy as complementary, not competing |
Sources: CISA, GAO, CyberSeek, IBM Security, party platform documents. See the compact comparison view for a quick side-by-side summary.
Democrats favor a regulatory approach to cybersecurity: mandatory minimum standards for critical infrastructure operators, federal breach notification requirements, expanded CISA authority and funding, and robust government coordination of cyber defense. The party has pushed for increased election security funding, SBOM (Software Bill of Materials) requirements, and workforce development programs through expanded CyberCorps scholarships and NSF grants. Democrats also emphasize protecting privacy alongside security.
The voluntary approach to critical infrastructure protection has demonstrably failed. Colonial Pipeline, SolarWinds, the Office of Personnel Management breach — these represent systemic failures of a system that asks but does not require companies to protect critical systems. Mandatory standards, properly implemented, are the baseline of any serious cybersecurity strategy. Democrats are also right to push for a federal breach notification standard — the current patchwork of 50 state laws protects no one effectively.
Mandating standards without providing funding for compliance is a recipe for paper compliance rather than actual security. Many critical infrastructure operators — especially small utilities, rural hospitals, and municipal water systems — lack the resources to meet sophisticated cybersecurity requirements. Democrats have not adequately addressed the funding gap between mandates and implementation. The party's emphasis on privacy, while important, can also slow threat intelligence sharing between government and the private sector, creating delays that sophisticated adversaries exploit.
For more on infrastructure vulnerabilities, see the full cybersecurity explainer.
Republicans favor a market-driven approach: voluntary industry standards, public-private partnerships, reduced regulatory burden, and strong offensive cyber capabilities. The party supports state-level breach notification laws rather than a federal standard, opposes unfunded mandates on businesses, and emphasizes deterrence through offensive cyber operations. Republicans also favor reducing dependency on foreign technology supply chains and strengthening Cyber Command's authority.
The emphasis on offensive capabilities and deterrence is strategically sound — adversaries need to face consequences for attacks. Reducing foreign supply chain dependency is critical after the SolarWinds and Huawei revelations. And the concern about unfunded mandates is legitimate — regulation without resources just creates compliance theater. Public-private partnerships, when genuine, can leverage the private sector's superior talent and technology for national defense.
Voluntary standards have failed. Period. Every major infrastructure cyberattack in the past decade succeeded because operators were not required to implement basic security measures. The market does not adequately incentivize cybersecurity because the costs of breaches are often externalized — when Colonial Pipeline was hacked, consumers paid higher gas prices, not the company's shareholders. State-level breach notification creates a patchwork that protects no one effectively and burdens businesses operating in multiple states.
The emphasis on offensive capabilities without adequate defensive investment is like building a military with bombers but no air defense. And broad executive authority for cyber operations without congressional oversight creates risks of escalation — a cyber operation against a foreign power's infrastructure could trigger a military response if not properly governed.
For more on the voluntary standards debate, see our cybersecurity explainer.
The Common Good Party treats cybersecurity as essential national defense — with the funding, standards, and workforce to match. Our plan: mandatory minimum cybersecurity standards for all 16 critical infrastructure sectors with federal funding for compliance; a 72-hour federal breach notification standard; a Cyber ROTC program and competitive federal pay to close the 750,000-person workforce gap; $2 billion in election security funding; a Small Business Cyber Shield program; mandatory SBOM for government contractors; an international norms treaty protecting civilian infrastructure; and robust military cyber capabilities with clear legal frameworks and congressional oversight.
Unlike the Democratic approach, we pair mandates with funding — you can't require a rural water utility to implement enterprise-grade security without helping them pay for it. Unlike the Republican approach, we don't pretend that voluntary standards work when every major breach proves they don't. We treat security and privacy as complementary rather than competing — strong encryption protects both national security and individual privacy; weakening encryption for surveillance weakens it for everyone, including critical infrastructure.
Countries with mandatory cybersecurity standards consistently outperform voluntary frameworks. The EU's NIS2 Directive, while imperfect, has raised baseline security across European critical infrastructure. Israel, which faces constant cyber threats, treats cybersecurity as a national priority with mandatory standards, government-funded compliance assistance, and a nationally coordinated workforce pipeline. The US has the talent, the technology, and the resources to lead the world in cybersecurity — what it lacks is the political will to move from voluntary recommendations to binding requirements.
Cybersecurity isn't abstract — it affects your bank account, your vote, your medical records. Here's what the CGP plan means in practice.
Want to explore how the full Common Good platform addresses technology and security? See our policies on AI, internet privacy, and defense.
Explore the Full PlatformCommon questions about cybersecurity policy.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full cybersecurity explainer or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Dive deeper into cybersecurity policy.
Voluntary standards have failed. Every major cyberattack proves it. Read the full plan and see which approach actually secures America's critical infrastructure.
Paid for by The Common Good Party (thecommongoodparty.com) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.