Real Anti-Corruption Requires Public Financing of Campaigns, Not Just Overturning Citizens United and Other Modest Reforms
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/david-sirota. "Democrats promised to end corruption. Here’s how they can do that | David Sirota | The Guardian." November 5, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author says Democrats won by promising to fight corruption, but their proposals are too small. Even striking down Citizens United wouldn't fix the basic problem that candidates need money from donors who want favors. The real fix is to use public money to fund campaigns, as some cities and states already do, and pay for it by taxing those who benefit from the current system.
Conclusion
If Democrats want to deliver on their anti-corruption mandate, they must go beyond modest reforms (overturning Citizens United, stock trading bans, banning corporate PACs) and enact public financing of campaigns, funded by those who exploit the current system, at the state and federal levels.
Premises
- Democrats' current anti-corruption proposals (overturning Citizens United, congressional stock trading bans, banning traditional corporate PACs, blind trusts, foreign gift bans) are small-scale reforms that leave the broader system of graft intact.
- Even if Citizens United were repealed and election spending restricted, candidates would still need resources to campaign, and the need to raise money from donors who expect legislative favors would remain the central problem.
- Small-dollar fundraising is not a viable general solution, because most candidates for lower-profile offices cannot tap national grassroots donor networks, and elections should not depend on candidates going viral.
- Public financing (clean-election systems matching small-dollar donations with public money) lets candidates run competitive campaigns without depending on donors seeking favors, and it already works in several states and cities (e.g., Maine, Denver, Evanston, New York City, where Mamdani credits it).
- The anti-corruption wave of the 2026 midterms, and a growing number of incoming Democratic officials endorsing public financing, create a political opening to adopt it in blue states and in Congress.
- Public financing can be paid for by levies on those who exploit the current system, such as taxing Super PACs and dark money groups, corruption fees on federal contractors, lobbying levies, or a billionaire surtax.
Assumptions
- Campaign donations from wealthy donors and corporations function as quid-pro-quo corruption, so removing the need for them reduces corruption.
- Public financing as implemented in existing jurisdictions would scale effectively to federal elections.
- Voters' stated concern about corruption translates into political will and support for public financing.
- Public financing will not simply be circumvented by independent expenditures or other private money channels.
- Democratic leaders have the incentive and ability to pass such a system despite internal opposition from donors and consultants.
- The proposed funding mechanisms are legally and politically feasible.