Campaign Financing Reform: Leveling the Playing Field

Unlike most issues in this platform, this one is not a three-way (or more) synthesis. It's honest to say so plainly rather than manufacture a false middle path. As of 2025-2026, the active push to overturn Citizens United by constitutional amendment is an entirely Democratic-sponsored effort in Congress: both the House "Citizens Over Corporations Amendment" and the Senate "Democracy for All Amendment" carry zero identified Republican cosponsors. The DISCLOSE Act, the leading real-time-disclosure vehicle, has been repeatedly blocked by Senate Republicans and drew minimal GOP support even at its historical high point (two of 114 House cosponsors in 2010). This plank's position is substantively closer to the current Democratic position than a synthesis of both parties' views, which is exactly why it's now marked stance_type: normative rather than procedural. What makes the position more than a stale repeat of 2010s arguments is the June 2026 Supreme Court ruling described above: the doctrine keeps moving further in the deregulatory direction, which sharpens rather than dates the case for a constitutional-level response. The Green Party holds a similar but more expansive position: a constitutional amendment stating money isn't speech and corporations aren't constitutional persons, plus full public financing including free broadcast time. The party itself also refuses corporate, PAC, and soft money as an organizational practice. The Libertarian Party is the clean opposite pole: its platform calls for repealing all limits on voluntary campaign spending and ending public subsidies to candidates and parties, treating this plank's entire framework as a free-speech violation rather than a democracy-protecting reform.