Our efforts to qualify as an official political party in California have not succeeded. We still have until the start of next year, but we would have to launch a paid-signature campaign, and I’m hesitant to ask our donors to commit again without a reasonable assurance of our success.
We can still have an influence in our state, however, and to that end, I’m writing to ask to what cause we might devote the remaining (limited) finances we have.
One thought is to advance a common-sense kind of initiative for the ballot, one that would likely not be supported by the major parties on their own.
Here is one set of thoughts. Our country and our state are both deeply in need of limits on the role of money in political campaigns. The US Supreme Court has ruled that laws cannot limit how much individuals spend on behalf of campaigns, but that limits on contributions can be imposed. The federal government prohibits campaign contributions from companies and unions, but the State of California does not. We might urge that California at least emulate the federal government here. (This is certainly not a major reform, since companies and unions both solicit their employees and members to contribute to PAC’s; but that’s a little better than contributions directly from the company or union.)
We might also try to reform California’s campaign finance law that allows major parties to raise over nine times as much money for a candidate for the Legislature as an organization that is not yet a recognized party (like us) can.
I have no doubt both of these proposals would be upheld by the courts if they passed; and I’m sure we’d wait in vain for the parties that control the Legislature to support these changes on their own.
Going a bit further, we could approach the rule of “can’t vote, can’t contribute”—that is, restrict campaign contributions from anyone who is not a real human residing in the district for which the election is being held. To pass US Constitutional review, we’d probably have to allow contributions from others up to some amount, but we could put lower limits on those other contributions than we would on contributions from those who could vote in the relevant district. The effect of this change would keep out-of-state money to a minimum. One recent example of where that would have mattered concerns initiatives involving gambling. Nevada casinos have often been the largest contributors to campaigns in California to expand or restrict gambling here. The effect of this reform would be to focus a candidate and eventual office-holder on the concerns of her or his constituents, not her or his contributors. I recognize that there is some risk a court would strike down this initiative, however; but I’d put our chances at better than 50:50.
The biggest change I favor would require a US Constitutional amendment, to permit limitations not just on contributions but on campaign expenditures. Without that, our system that constrains contributions alone enhances the power of wealthy candidates who can run for office using their own money, while their less wealthy opponents have to fight for a shrinking pool of funds from others. California’s Legislature can call for a constitutional convention to consider such a limitation, but 33 other states would have to do the same, and the product of the convention would then have to be ratified by 38 states. This would, obviously, be a much bigger project; but it might catch fire across the country. A successful initiative in California might induce our Legislature, at least to start this process, rather than ignoring a majority of California voters’ expressed wish.
Return to and rebuild the California GOP as a viable alternative.
Let THEM rebuild themselves.
Hi Tom,
Thank you for the honest update and for all the work you’ve put into building the Common Sense Party’s foundation. Even without full party qualification, there’s still a lot of impact that can be made if we focus the remaining resources on something both achievable and meaningful to voters.
Your ideas around campaign-finance reform strike me as the most pragmatic next move. Specifically, I’d suggest concentrating on banning direct corporate and union contributions and equalizing contribution limits for emerging parties. Those two reforms are simple, popular, and winnable they also highlight the unfair structural barriers that independents face while keeping the message nonpartisan and values-driven.
If the Party positions itself as the voice for political fairness advocating that “rules should be the same for everyone” it could build long-term credibility and donor trust for a future signature drive or reform coalition. I also like the idea of launching a small “Ideas for Initiatives” series to crowdsource the next policy priority; that keeps members engaged even without ballot status.
If it would be useful, I’d be happy to help connect with Forward Party organizers and other post-partisan allies who share the clean-elections goal. A united, reform-focused effort could give this movement the visibility it deserves going into 2026.
Thanks again for leading with integrity and realism we need more of that in California politics.
Warm regards,
Myia Hall
Thanks for your thoughtful and gracious comments, Myia. Once we decide where we want to focus, coordinating with Forward and other “post-partisan” allies, as you suggest, is an excellent idea.
“Going a bit further, we could approach the rule of “can’t vote, can’t contribute”—that is, restrict campaign contributions from anyone who is not a real human residing in the district for which the election is being held.”
IMHO this is the only approach that clearly attacks the root of the problem.
Go for it!
Thanks, Peter. It’s also the most vulnerable proposal, without a Constitutional Amendment.
It does have the advantage of simplicity of explanation, however: “Can’t vote–can’t contribute!”
“can’t vote, can’t contribute” also struck me as the most reasonable solution to the problem. I’ve been on the phone with CoS people (Convention of States) who want to solve the problem of crime, corruption, unfairness, etc. in government by adding another amendment to the Constitution. And, Tom, as you point out, this is perhaps the most difficult task. But there is a huge hurdle with this “solution.” When I tell the CoS people, “The world’s largest crime syndicate/the U.S. legal system completely ignores the Constitution as it stands now. What makes you think adding another amendment will change that?”, I’m met with the deer-in-the-headlights look. So, I don’t think an amendment is the way to go. We will _never_ remove corruption from society. It’s part of human nature. Whatever we do, we have to navigate within that framework and realize that any legitimate solution will have to be immune–or nearly immune–from corruption. Thanks for all the work you do, Tom, trying to improve society! There are not enough of us out there.
Very Best Regards,
Tom Scott 🗽
Author ● Speaker ● World’s Leading Expert on the Corrupt U.S. Legal System
http://www.stloiyf.com
Take the resources we have, and try to coordinate with the centrist leaders of both parties to form one in the middle, focused on pragmatism and governing to benefit all equally. The majority of voters slightly lean right or left, and avoid MAGA far leftists, and really have no party. The extremes on both parties have an undue influence, and I see no change in either party to move to the middle.
So let’s take it from them, where most Americans reside. Like the Republican Party in Lincoln’s day: a party based on the center that arose and changed our country.
I don’t believe this is a good direction to go. Fundamentally, American’s have a right to spend their time and fortune on convincing their neighbors of their point of view. I don’t think Citizens United was decided wrongly: If someone wants to make an entire movie about how Hillary Clinton is the actual devil… well I’ll think they are stupid, but that is something they should be able to do.
These kind of initiatives either lead toward repression of important speech or strange and unnatural ‘magic words’ people have to avoid. You can say Trump is incompetent and should never be elected, but can’t say vote against him in 2024?
The smaller ideas I could see as common sense reforms, but there are much better areas to focus the amount of effort that would be needed for a constitutional amendment.
A major better area to focus here would be to structurally reduce the impact of money in politics. One of the ones California has been good at is accountability, where if you are going to put money into something the public has a right to know who is doing it. That can always improve.
But there are others. Electoral Reform is the holy grail (A proportional voting system is far less susceptible to money than First Past the Post), but you also have public funding of campaigns, public forums (every election having a government sponsored debate televised on local public TV, for instance, or more investment in election materials), education (we should be teaching all students in California about how elections work. A good improvement would be to have the state issue and collect student ballots to every high school student, substantially identical to real ballots, and then dispatch them to the high schools to demonstrate the election, counting, and recounting processes)
Thanks for the excellent suggestions. I particularly like the sample ballots to high school students as a learning device.
Tom, As a libertarian, I am lukewarm at best with campaign financing laws. The “solutions” are also very complicated for a typical voter, I would be more concerned with the over-regulation the state puts on modest amounts PACs contribute. I know firsthand how these reports are expensive and annoying. Do you think voters would respond to the shameful war both parties are doing with these overt, intentional gerrymandering acts? I was proud of CA with AS’s Independent Commission. Now I am ashamed at Prop 50 and of Gov. Newsom. I realize this would not be a proposition on its own, but rather a “No on Prop 50” issue,….