Studies, polls, focus groups, and bipartisan town halls all point to the same conclusion: money and corruption are undermining our political system. Voters across the political spectrum share concerns about large donors having outsized influence over regular citizens, and how little it takes for wealthy interests to pressure elected officials.

Beyond the corruption itself, our broken campaign finance system creates a vicious cycle. Candidates must become increasingly outlandish to generate attention and donations. This forces politicians to adopt extreme positions that most voters don't support, simply to stay competitive in fundraising. The result is a political culture that rewards divisive rhetoric over substantive solutions.

The amount of money needed to run a competitive campaign creates a major roadblock for qualified candidates. Many potential public servants (teachers, small business owners, community organizers) never run because they can't compete with wealthy or well connected opponents. This deprives voters of real choice and keeps new voices out of our government.

Public financing programs in other states have proven that there's a better way. Evidence from Connecticut, Maine, and Arizona shows that public financing leads to more competitive races, more first time candidates, and fewer unopposed elections. When candidates don't have to spend every waking moment fundraising, they can focus on talking to voters about the issues that matter.

I frequently mention that we need to look to other states for solutions to the challenges we face. States like Washington, Connecticut, and Maine have implemented comprehensive campaign finance reforms that have created fairer, more transparent systems.

This is where putting Pennsylvanians over Profits really begins by examining what works elsewhere and building a Pennsylvania framework that tackles corruption head on.

Below, I've outlined a comprehensive campaign finance reform framework based on proven models from states that have successfully reduced the influence of money in politics. This framework addresses contribution limits, public financing, dark money disclosure, conflicts of interest, and lobbying restrictions.

"AI" Disclaimer: The following policy framework was developed using research and AI analysis of successful state programs, then edited and reviewed and lightly edited by me. This represents a framework of policy ideas, not final legislative language. I will not let perfect be the enemy of good. I will fight for comprehensive campaign finance reform in any form that reduces corruption and returns government to the people.

Note: I also support redistricting reform through an independent citizens commission, open primaries for all voters, and ranked-choice voting to break the two-party stranglehold on our democracy. I will be adding a more detailed section in the future.

Five pillars modeled on successful state reforms:

1. Contribution Limits (Model: Connecticut)

Individual Limits:

• $5,000 per election to State House/Senate candidates

• $10,000 per election to statewide candidates (Governor, Attorney General, etc.)

• $50,000 per year aggregate to all candidates and committees

PAC/Corporate Limits:

• $5,000 per election to State House/Senate candidates

• $10,000 per election to statewide candidates

• Ban direct contributions from government contractors and lobbyists

Why these numbers: Based on Connecticut model adjusted for PA's larger population. High enough to be constitutionally defensible, low enough to reduce influence of wealthy donors.

2. Public Financing Program (Model: Connecticut + Maine hybrid)

"Pennsylvania Clean Elections Fund"

How it works:

• Candidates qualify by collecting 150-300 small donations ($5-$100) from district residents

• Once qualified, receive public grant equal to spending limit for office

• Voluntary participation - can still use traditional fundraising if preferred

• Funded through abandoned property sales + small fee on lobbyist registrations

Spending limits and grants:

• State House: $75,000 for general election

• State Senate: $150,000 for general election

• Statewide offices: Scaled based on competitive market analysis

Supplemental grants available if:

• Opponent opts out and spends over limit

• Independent expenditure groups spend heavily against participant

Why this works (Connecticut evidence):

• 85% participation rate (vs 30-50% in other states)

• Passed previously "untouchable" reforms in first decade

• Cost: <0.2% of state budget

• Freed legislators to vote conscience instead of donor interests

• Increased first-time candidate participation by 40%

3. Dark Money Disclosure (Model: California)

Comprehensive transparency requirements:

501(c)(4) "social welfare" organizations:

• Must disclose all donors giving $5,000+ if spending on PA elections

• Must file reports 30 days before election showing funding sources

• Applies to ANY spending that mentions candidates or ballot issues

LLC and shell company disclosure:

• Must report beneficial owners (actual humans behind the money)

• Prohibit donations through multiple LLCs to evade limits

• Severe penalties for creating shell entities to hide donors

Real-time reporting:

• All contributions $1,000+ reported within 48 hours

• All expenditures $5,000+ reported within 48 hours

• Public database searchable by donor, recipient, date, amount

4. Stock Trading Ban (Model: Federal STOCK Act + state enhancements)

Prohibit legislators from:

• Trading individual stocks while in office

• Trading stocks in industries under their committee jurisdiction for 2 years after leaving office

• Holding stock in companies with state contracts

Allowed investments:

• Diversified mutual funds

• Index funds

• Bonds

• Real estate (with disclosure)

Enforcement:

• Automatic penalties: $1,000 per violation

• Trading profits forfeited to state general fund

• Violations publicized on state ethics website

Why necessary: PA legislators have access to non-public information about regulations, contracts, budgets. Current system allows legal insider trading.

5. Lobbying Reforms (Model: Connecticut + DC)

Strengthen cooling-off period:

• Extend from 1 year to 3 years for legislators becoming lobbyists

• Apply to ALL state officials (currently has exceptions)

• Include family members (spouse can't immediately lobby)

Contractor ban (from Connecticut):

• Government contractors cannot donate to campaigns

• Contractors cannot hire lobbyists on state matters

• Contractors must disclose all political spending

Enhanced disclosure:

• Lobbyists report ALL expenditures on officials (not just over $100)

• Report all meetings with officials (subject, attendees, outcome)

• Report all campaign work done for candidates

• Public searchable database updated weekly

Ban lobbyist fundraising:

• Lobbyists cannot host fundraisers for officials

• Lobbyists cannot bundle contributions

• Lobbyists cannot solicit donations for officials

How It All Fits Together

The Pennsylvania system is broken because:

1. Unlimited money from corporations and wealthy donors

2. Hidden dark money from out-of-state groups

3. Legislators profiting from insider stock trades

4. Revolving door between lobbying and office

5. No enforcement mechanism with real teeth

This framework fixes the system by:

1. Contribution limits reduce power of mega-donors

2. Public financing gives candidates alternative to corporate money

3. Dark money disclosure exposes who's really trying to influence elections

4. Stock trading ban ends legalized insider trading

5. Lobbying reforms close the revolving door

6. Independent enforcement (new PA Ethics Commission) ensures violations have consequences