Loading issue research
Reverse Citizens United through a constitutional amendment, expand public financing of campaigns, and require real-time disclosure of political contributions.
Verification Status
AI-researched, unverifiedLast Reviewed
Jul 12, 2026
Cited Sources
5
What is failing, what we would change, and the conclusion we are willing to defend.
The party's position, migrated faithfully from the 2024 platform: money's influence on political outcomes needs structural reform that reaches beyond disclosure rules bolted onto the current system. The document's diagnosis centers on one Supreme Court decision: Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which allowed corporations and labor unions to spend unlimited amounts on political communication and, in the document's account, undermined the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's (McCain-Feingold's) soft-money restrictions, leading to the proliferation of super PACs and independent-expenditure committees. The doctrine hasn't stood still since. On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down coordinated-spending limits too, 6-3, tearing out a rule that had held for twenty-five years. A spending limit passed by ordinary legislation didn't survive that ruling, and the next spending-limit statute won't either. Only a change to the doctrine itself holds for that specific fight — disclosure requirements, like Proposal 3, rest on different constitutional footing and aren't at stake here.
A constitutional amendment reversing Citizens United, clarifying the legal distinction between corporate spending and individual spending in political campaigns.
Expanded public financing systems for political campaigns at both the federal and state levels, reducing candidates' dependence on wealthy donors.
Real-time disclosure requirements for all political contributions, so voters know who is financing a campaign as it happens rather than months later.
Editorial note: this issue is reclassified stance_type: normative in this pass. The
original migration marked it procedural, but a position that sides explicitly with one
side of a live, contested constitutional debate, as the Party Comparison section below
makes clear this one does, isn't a neutral process recommendation, and the schema
shouldn't pretend otherwise just because the 2024 source document didn't name the tension.
Turn frustration into useful pressure.
If this position misses evidence or a lived consequence, challenge it. If it holds up, help test it locally and connect it to the issues around it.