Source: http://cagreens.org/platform/campaign-finance-reform
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 12:28:27+00:00

Document:
-Through a series of decisions including Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court has dramatically expanded the ability of wealthy individuals, corporations and groups to spend as much as they like to influence elections.
Greens reject these rulings and seek to overturn them. Greens support amending the U.S. Constitution to unequivocally define that (a) money is not speech, (b) human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights, and (c) full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending be allowed.
- By their nature, elections and campaigns are expensive in order to reach large numbers of voters. In the absence of public-financing of elections, candidates must seek funding somewhere.
It is in the public interest for voters to be well-informed. The question is how do we fund our campaigns and elections, and how do we ensure all voters have the information they need to make informed decisions.
Greens support public financing via equal free time for candidates on the public broadcast spectrum, by governmental voter guides, and with other media. This would provide all voters with a baseline of information about all candidates running.
Combined with this, Greens support public financing of campaigns and elections via a system where small donations are matched with public funds at a multiple ratio where small donations are matched with public funds at greater than one-to-one ratio. This would increase the importance of small donations and increase the incentive for a broader base of voters to participate in funding elections. It would also enable grassroots candidates with strong community ties to run competitive campaigns even if they do not have personal wealth or access to major donors.
- Large, single-seat legislative districts require large expenditures to be competitive. Top Two elections make this even worse by making the primary election as expensive as the general one.
Greens support legislative elections by multi-seat districts with proportional representation, which lowers the cost of campaigns, by lowering the threshold to receive representation, and enabling candidates to be elected by their natural constituencies in proportion to their numbers.
- Amend the U.S. Constitution to unequivocally define that money is not speech; that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights; and full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending be allowed. Such an amendment would overturn Citizens United v. FEC (2010), McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) and Buckley v. Vallejo (1976).
- Enact campaign contribution and spending limits where constitutionally possible. Where not, combine voluntary contribution and spending limits with public financing.
- Establish various forms of public financing, including matching funds programs where small donations are matched with public funds at greater than one-to-one multiple ratio.
- Allow candidates to earn additional matching funds to respond to late-campaign political action committees and independent expenditures.
- Provide a $25 tax credit for small contributions to candidates.
- Create small donor committees that aggregate the voices of small donors.
- Require that free television and radio time be dedicated to candidates, elections debates and forums, and ballot qualified political parties as part of all commercial public broadcast licenses.
- Provide free media vouchers and a discount below the lowest unit-cost on broadcast advertising for candidates that accept voluntary spending limits.
- Eliminate all 'dark money' in elections - i.e. legal donations that are not publicly disclosed, including by amending Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code which defines social welfare organizations for tax-exempt purposes to unequivocally define that such organizations must be operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, and that no Federal agency, including the IRS, may interpret this to mean otherwise (including by redefining 'exclusively' as 'primarily'), and that any such past interpretations be rendered “invalid and void" going forward.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.