TAP Writing Fellow James Baratta reports:
...
The People’s Pledge tries to leverage public attention to neutralize the super PAC dominance. Short of banning super PAC influence, which would be a tough road in a post–*Citizens United* world, the pledge is one of the few alternatives to give candidates without a rich outside benefactor a chance.
But Lander didn’t come up with the idea. In fact, the People’s Pledge has been around for over a decade, and it’s been the favored tool of a union leader and longtime official of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) who has made it his crusade in life to blunt the impact of big money.
That crusader is Larry Cohen, the former president of the Communications Workers of America.
...
Read [the full story](https://prospect.org/2026/03/25/america-super-pac-problem-peoples-pledge-brad-lander/) for free on [prospect.org](http://prospect.org).
2
GiantRobot17xMar 25, 2026
+3
And a corruption problem, and a religion problem, and an economy problem, and a housing problem, and a climate problem, and a healthcare problem, and a billionaire problem, and an AI problem, and a war problem, and a homeless problem....
3
1cl3nstd4ytMar 25, 2026
+7
All are directly attributable to allowing unlimited cash to bribe officials.
7
elguntorMar 25, 2026
+2
Sound like your problem is not america but americans
2
1cl3nstd4ytMar 25, 2026
+7
Wouldn't be a problem if we'd elected Hillary. Citizen's United was her #1 target. She promised to have it overturned, and I believe her because the case was literally about her.
And she could have done it. It's considered one of the most corrupt rulings in US history, and was entirely opposed by the Dem-appointed justices. They all voted against it.
She would have had the Supreme Court picks to get it overturned.
7
blazesquallMar 25, 2026
+2
Having the theoretical SC pick and actually overturning precedent are two very different things. A GOP Senate likely would have blockaded her nominees indefinitely.. even assuming she got the 5-4 majority and a perfect test case survived years of appeals to reach the Court, and the court picked it up (Dems pretend to care about stare decisis) overturning Citizens United just puts us back to the 2009 campaign finance landscape. The system was already heavily tilted toward the wealthy before that ruling.. CU just opened a new loophole.
What's the plan for that?
2
1cl3nstd4ytMar 25, 2026
+1
If you're saying Citizens United doesn't matter, I disagree.
It opened up the floodgates of corruption.
1
blazesquallMar 25, 2026
+2
Floodgates implies that it wasn't already underwater.
I didn't say it doesn't matter. It absolutely poured gasoline on the fire (mixing analogies).. But the house was already burning. Reverting to the 2009 McCain-Feingold rules doesn't get money out of politics.. it just forces the wealthy to buy influence through slightly different legal loopholes. The donor class was already running the show long before Citizens United.
What was the plan for that?
2
1cl3nstd4ytMar 25, 2026
+2
I think Citizens United is the major problem, the #1 problem, the place to start, where our focus should be.
You disagree. I think you're wrong.
2
blazesquallMar 25, 2026
+2
I think I agree, I'm not just stuck on some Clinton alternate reality kayfabe.. what's the plan now?
2
MoccusMar 25, 2026
+1
> Under the agreement, candidates essentially offset that influence by agreeing to donate campaign funds to charity, equal to 50 percent of the cost of outside advertising from a registered political action committee (PAC) or 75 percent of the cost of dark-money super PAC advertising.
Seems like that could be easily abused. If I were rich and didn't like a candidate who took this pledge, I could start a Super PAC, run tons of ads in support of them, and bankrupt their campaign since they would have to donate all of their campaign funds away.
1
teamdiabetes11Mar 25, 2026
+1
🧑🚀🔫🧑🚀
Of f****** course we do. Thanks Captain Obvious/Prospect.org!
1
sugarlessdeathbearMar 25, 2026
+1
We could always get private spending out of elections and make them all be only publicly financed.
1
NOOBFUNKMar 25, 2026
+1
Every other primary and election has millions of dollars by these PACs and billionaires. The system definitely needs a change.
1
elguntorMar 25, 2026
+1
You have an americans problem.
1
CivicDutyCallsMar 25, 2026
+1
SuperPacs are a symptom. Not the cause
The cause of our problems is the our elected officials believe that their ability to hold office depends more on their support by these special interests than it does on our votes.
Based on how we organize elections, they’re right. This is how the system is designed.
Plurality single member districts always result in this type of polarization and capture.
Other election methods like multi member districts and ranked choice voting fix this. This fundamental solution makes industry capture less effective and therefore less valuable for industry to attempt. It makes it easier for voters to electorally punish corrupt officials and to select candidates they like vs ones they think strategically will beat the candidate they want to lose (which is what we have now).
Fix elections and you fix everything
18 Comments