It should be against the law for elected officials to knowingly lie to the people they serve. 3-month campaign windows. Congressional housing so members can focus on governing.
We're a policy platform with 50 researched positions on every major issue. This page breaks down our ethics and accountability plan — but there's much more to explore.
The American political system has produced a professional class of elected officials whose primary activity is not governing but perpetuating their own power. The permanent campaign, the fundraising treadmill, insider stock trading, the revolving door to lobbying, and the complete absence of consequences for lying have created a system that serves its operators, not its citizens.
The permanent campaign: American political campaigns now begin 18 months or more before Election Day. From the moment a member of Congress is sworn in, they begin running for reelection. This is not an exaggeration — it is the explicit advice given to new members by party leadership. A leaked DCCC orientation document advised freshmen to spend four hours per day on "call time" — dialing donors from a call center near the Capitol. Four hours. Every day. Governing is what happens in the gaps between fundraising.
The fundraising treadmill: Members of Congress spend an estimated 30-70% of their time raising money. The average cost to win a House seat is $2.8 million. A Senate seat costs $14.4 million. This money comes overwhelmingly from wealthy donors, PACs, and industries that expect returns on their investment. The campaign finance system does not just influence policy — it determines what members of Congress spend their days doing.
Stock trading: Members of Congress trade an estimated $600 million in individual stocks per year. Multiple academic studies have shown that congressional stock portfolios outperform the market at rates consistent with insider knowledge. Members sit on committees that regulate industries in which they hold stock. They receive classified briefings and then trade on the information. The STOCK Act of 2012 was supposed to require disclosure and deter insider trading. It has been widely ignored, with penalties as low as $200 for late disclosure.
The revolving door: Sixty-three percent of former members of Congress who leave office become lobbyists — often representing the same industries they oversaw as legislators. The current "cooling- off period" of 1-2 years is trivially circumvented through "strategic advisory" roles. Congress is no longer a destination for public service. It is a credential for lobbying.
No consequences for lying: Elected officials in the United States face zero formal penalties for knowingly lying to the public. A doctor who lies to a patient loses their license. A lawyer who lies to a court is disbarred. An accountant who lies on a filing faces prison. An elected official who lies about their votes, their policy positions, or verifiable facts faces... nothing. The Common Good plan changes that.
Yes. The Common Good position is that elected officials who knowingly lie to their constituents about their policy positions, their votes, or verifiable facts should face formal consequences. This is not a radical position. It is the standard that every other profession in America already meets.
Consider how other professions handle truth and accountability. Doctors who lie to patients face malpractice liability and license revocation. Lawyers who lie to courts face disbarment. Accountants who falsify financial statements face criminal prosecution. Financial advisors who misrepresent investments face SEC penalties. Witnesses in court who lie face perjury charges. In every professional context, knowingly making false statements carries consequences — because the people relying on those statements cannot make informed decisions if the information is false.
Elected officials are the single most consequential information source in a democracy. Their statements shape public opinion, drive policy debates, and determine how 330 million people understand what their government is doing. If every other profession is held accountable for truthfulness, the profession with the greatest power over the public good should meet at least the same standard.
The Common Good truth-in-governance framework does not criminalize opinions, predictions, or good-faith disagreements. It uses the same legal standard as defamation and perjury law: did the official make a factual statement they knew to be false, or that they made with reckless disregard for the truth? Penalties include censure, fines, and removal from committee assignments — graduated consequences that match the severity of the offense. For the complete legal framework, see the full ethics issue page.
The Common Good ethics plan is a comprehensive framework to restore accountability, end the permanent campaign, and ensure that elected officials serve the public — not themselves. It addresses truth, time, money, and power.
The plan is built on seven core provisions, each targeting a specific ethical failure in the current system.
For the complete plan with legislative detail and sourcing, see the full ethics issue page.
The United States ranks poorly among wealthy democracies on political ethics, campaign regulation, and corruption perception. Countries with shorter campaigns, stricter financial disclosure, and real enforcement consistently outperform the US on public trust and governance quality.
| Country | Campaign Length | Lying Penalties | Stock Trading | Housing Provided | Lobbying Rules |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States | 18+ months | None | Allowed (STOCK Act) | No | 1-2 yr ban |
| United Kingdom | 6 weeks | Election offense | Register required | Subsidized | 2 yr ban |
| Germany | ~6 weeks | Defamation law | Disclosure required | Subsidized flat | 12-18 mo ban |
| Canada | 36-50 days | Election offense | Blind trust required | Subsidized | 5 yr ban |
| Sweden | ~3 weeks | Accountability norms | Full disclosure | Provided | Strong norms |
| Japan | 12 days | Election law | Restricted | Subsidized | Moderate |
The United States is the only country on this list with no penalties for elected officials who lie, no limits on campaign length, effectively no limits on stock trading, no housing provision for legislators, and the weakest lobbying restrictions. Japan's official campaign period is 12 days. America's lasts 18 months. The difference is not cultural — it is a policy choice that benefits the political industry at the expense of governance.
Sources: International IDEA, OECD, Transparency International, national election commissions. See the full issue page for complete sourcing.
American political campaigns last 18 months or more. They cost billions of dollars. They exhaust voters and candidates alike. And they serve no democratic purpose that other democracies don't achieve in weeks. The Common Good plan limits active campaigning to 90 days before each election.
What the extra time is spent on: The vast majority of a modern American campaign's 18-month timeline is not spent debating policy, meeting voters, or earning support. It is spent raising money. A congressional candidate who starts campaigning 18 months before Election Day spends the first 12 months almost exclusively on fundraising — calling donors, attending events, courting PAC support. The actual public-facing campaign — debates, advertising, voter contact — occupies the final weeks. The other 15 months exist solely to finance those weeks.
Other democracies do it in weeks: The United Kingdom limits campaign spending to a six-week period before elections. Canada's campaigns last 36-50 days. France restricts campaign advertising to two weeks before the final round. Japan's official campaign period is 12 days. In every case, voters receive adequate information to make informed choices. In every case, candidates spend the vast majority of their terms governing, not campaigning. In every case, election costs are a fraction of what Americans spend.
The permanent campaign costs billions: The 2024 US election cycle cost an estimated $15.9 billion — more than the GDP of many countries. This money comes overwhelmingly from wealthy donors and corporate interests who expect returns. A 90-day campaign window would dramatically reduce campaign costs, reduce the influence of money in politics, and free elected officials to spend the other 21 months of every two-year cycle actually doing the job they were elected to do.
Voter exhaustion is real: Eighteen months of ads, debates, scandals, polls, and fundraising emails does not produce a more informed electorate. It produces a more exhausted one. Voter turnout in the United States lags behind most peer democracies — not because Americans don't care, but because the permanent campaign has made political engagement feel like an endurance test rather than a civic responsibility.
Ethics reform faces opposition not because it is unpopular — it consistently polls at 70-80% support — but because the people who would be regulated by it are the same people who would have to pass it. Here are the four myths they use to stall reform.
Myth: "Politicians have always been this way."
Reality: The scale of the current problem is historically unprecedented. Campaign spending has increased over 10,000% in real dollars since the 1970s. The revolving door between Congress and lobbying firms barely existed before the 1980s. Congressional stock trading at current levels is a post-internet phenomenon. The permanent campaign is a product of the cable news era and social media. These are not ancient traditions. They are modern failures that can be fixed with modern policy.
Myth: "Ethics rules constrain free speech."
Reality: The First Amendment protects political speech. It does not create a right to commit fraud on the public. Every profession in America has truth-related accountability standards — doctors, lawyers, accountants, financial advisors, witnesses under oath. None of these standards have been struck down as free speech violations. The distinction between protected opinion and knowingly false factual statements is well-established in American law and has been for centuries.
Myth: "Voters don't really care about ethics."
Reality: Government ethics reform consistently polls at 70-80% support across party lines. Congressional stock trading bans poll at over 80%. Term limits poll at 82%. Campaign finance reform polls at 77%. Voters care deeply about political ethics — the problem is that the people who benefit from the current system are the ones who would have to change it. That is not voter apathy. It is institutional capture.
Myth: "Term limits alone would fix corruption."
Reality: Term limits are essential but not sufficient. A member who serves 12 years can still trade stocks, take lobbyist meetings, spend 70% of their time fundraising, and lie to constituents without consequence. Term limits address entrenchment. Ethics reform addresses behavior. The Common Good plan pairs both — because the problem is not just how long politicians stay. It is what they do while they're there.
Click any question to expand the answer.
Have a question not answered here? Read the full ethics in politics issue page or visit our site-wide FAQ.
Check back soon for policy analysis of political ethics news.
Elected officials should not be allowed to lie, trade stocks on insider knowledge, or spend most of their time raising money. Every other democracy has figured this out. America can too.