The outsized role of money in American politics is not a campaign “talking point” or side issue—it is the central structural problem distorting our democracy and creating an existential crisis for this nation. When campaigns depend on large donors, when lobbyists fund the politicians they seek to influence, and when elected leaders can personally benefit from the policies they shape, the system stops working for the people and only works for those who can afford access.  This is today’s unfortunate reality. Restoring democratic accountability requires confronting this reality directly and reforming the system at every level where money exerts influence.

The most effective starting point is reducing candidates’ dependence on wealthy donors. Public financing of elections offers a reasonable and achievable path forward. Programs that match small-dollar contributions—such as “Freedom from Influence Funds” that multiply small donations—shift power away from concentrated wealth and toward ordinary voters. When a $25 contribution is matched several times over, it matters. It changes who candidates listen to, how they campaign, and ultimately who they represent. Public financing does not eliminate private money entirely, but it fundamentally changes the incentives that drive political behavior and decision-making.

Transparency is equally critical, but it must be real and immediate. Voters should not have to guess who is funding campaigns or political advocacy. Every donation—to candidates, parties, or outside groups—should be reported quickly and made easily accessible to the public and media. That includes meaningful information about donors, such as where they work and where they live, as well as non-monetary contributions that often escape scrutiny. Transparency does not solve everything, but secrecy guarantees abuse. Sunlight raises the political cost of influence in ways that quiet, hidden systems never will.

At the same time, it is impossible to talk about money in politics without addressing lobbying and the revolving door. The current system allows lobbyists to donate to the very officials they are paid to influence, and it allows those officials to leave office and quickly cash in on their government experience. That is not a gray area—it is a built-in conflict of interest. Lobbyists should be barred from donating, bundling, or fundraising for candidates whose decisions they seek to shape. Cooling-off periods for former officials should be at least five years, and in some cases longer. If public service is treated as a stepping stone to a lobbying career, policy decisions will inevitably be shaped by what comes next rather than what is right.

Reform also has to close the loopholes that make existing rules ineffective. “Shadow lobbying” allows individuals to advise and influence policy without ever registering as lobbyists, avoiding disclosure and accountability requirements. Expanding the legal definition of lobbying to include these activities is not a technical fix—it is a necessary correction to ensure that influence is not simply rebranded to evade the law. Similarly, corporations should not be allowed to immediately hire former officials who oversaw matters directly affecting their business. Without stronger guardrails, the line between public service and private gain remains too thin to matter.  This will continue to erode public trust and lead to decisions made out of self-interest by politicians rather than the public good.

Another area where conflicts of interest are too often tolerated is the personal finances of lawmakers themselves. Members of Congress should not be trading individual stocks while in office, nor should their spouses or dependent children. The appearance of insider advantage alone is enough to erode public trust, and the reality of it is even more damaging. Proposals like the TRUST in Congress Act and the NO STOCK Resolution recognize a basic principle: public office should not be an opportunity for personal financial gain. Requiring lawmakers to place their assets in qualified blind trusts would reinforce that principle by ensuring they cannot act on privileged information. In the same vein, members should not be accepting campaign contributions from companies that fall directly under the jurisdiction of the committees they serve on. Oversight loses credibility when it is intertwined with fundraising.

Many of these reforms run into the same obstacle: a legal framework that treats unlimited political spending as a protected right and extends that protection to corporations and other entities. If meaningful reform is going to last, it will most likely require a constitutional amendment that clarifies the government’s authority to regulate campaign spending and distinguishes between natural persons and artificial entities in the political process.  Let me be clear what I mean: CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE AND SHOULD NOT BE AFFORDED THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF PEOPLE!  Corporations should not be afforded the constitutional right of free speech that enables them to spend inordinate amounts of money to buy political influence.  This is a high bar, but it reflects the scale of the problem. Without addressing the legal foundation, reform efforts will continue to be chipped away in the courts.  This is also why, after the recent ruling on the Voting Rights Act, I am now in support of raising the number of SCOTUS justices from nine to thirteen once we regain control over the legislative and executive branches.   While this solution comes with risks and concerns, the number of available solutions is rapidly dwindling.

Even within the current framework, there is more that can be done to close the channels through which large-scale money flows. PACs and Super PACs have become vehicles for massive spending that operates parallel to campaigns while maintaining the fiction of independence. Strengthening anti-coordination rules and limiting the scope of these committees would reduce the ability of wealthy donors to dominate elections indirectly. If the rules allow for workarounds, those workarounds will be used.

Ending “dark money” is one of the most straightforward reforms and one of the most necessary. Voters deserve to know who is trying to influence their votes. Legislation like the DISCLOSE Act would require organizations engaged in political spending to reveal their donors, bringing transparency to a system that currently allows large sums to be spent with no public accountability. There is no defensible reason for political spending to remain secret in a functioning democracy.  This will also bring to light foreign influence in the political and electoral system.

None of these reforms, on their own, will solve the problem. But taken together, they change the system’s incentives in a meaningful way. Public financing reduces reliance on large donors. Transparency exposes influence. Lobbying reforms limit conflicts of interest. Ethical rules address personal gain. Stronger regulations close loopholes. And disclosure requirements eliminate secrecy. The goal is not to remove money from politics entirely—that is neither realistic nor necessary—but to ensure that money does not override representation.

The current system reflects choices that have been made over time. Different choices can produce a different outcome. A political system that is responsive to voters rather than donors is not an abstract ideal—it is a practical objective. Achieving it requires sustained effort and structural reform, but the path forward is clear, though not easy.