On Elections and Campaigns
Elections shall be contests of ideas, not wealth.
"No private campaign advertising, fundraising, or expenditure shall be permitted for federal elections. No candidate shall accept any contribution of money or thing of value. The influence of wealth over elections is incompatible with equal sovereignty of citizens. Violation of this section shall be a felony punishable by permanent disqualification from office and imprisonment."
— Constitution of the United States, Version 2.0, Article VI, Section 3
The Problem
American elections have become auctions. The candidate who raises the most money almost always wins. In 2020, over $14 billion was spent on federal elections — more than the GDP of many countries.
This creates predictable corruption:
- Donor expectations: No one gives millions without expecting something in return
- Access inequality: Wealthy donors get meetings; ordinary citizens get form letters
- Time corruption: Congressmembers spend 30-70% of their time fundraising instead of governing
- Barrier to entry: Good candidates without rich friends can't compete
- Policy capture: Legislation reflects donor interests, not voter interests
The Current System
| Actor | What They Can Do | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Billionaire | Spend unlimited via Super PACs | Buys influence |
| Corporation | Spend unlimited on "issue ads" | Shapes policy |
| Candidate | Dial for dollars 6 hours/day | Owes favors |
| Ordinary Citizen | Donate $50, get ignored | Vote doesn't matter |
When money equals speech, those with more money have more speech. This is incompatible with equal sovereignty.
The Autonomist Solution
Public platform. No private money. Period.
How It Works
- All qualified candidates receive equal access to a government-provided platform
- The platform includes: website space, video hosting, debate participation, voter guide entries
- Every citizen can access every candidate's positions equally, for free
- No TV ads. No billboards. No mailers. No Super PACs.
- Candidates compete on ideas, qualifications, and character — not fundraising ability
Common Objections
"But isn't money speech?"
Money is property. Speech is expression. The Supreme Court's conflation of the two in Citizens United was a category error. You have the right to speak; you don't have the right to amplify your speech a million times louder than everyone else's because you're richer.
"Won't this favor incumbents?"
The current system favors incumbents far more — they have existing donor networks, name recognition from previous spending, and the ability to do favors that attract future donations. A level playing field actually helps challengers.
"How do candidates get known?"
Through the public platform. Debates, voter guides, campaign websites, social media (organic, not paid). The same way candidates got known before the era of billion-dollar campaigns — by making their case to voters.
"What about issue advocacy?"
Organizations can still discuss issues. They cannot spend money advocating for or against specific candidates. The line is clear: "Vote for Smith" = prohibited. "We support lower taxes" = permitted.
Enforcement
The Constitution 2.0 makes violation a felony with serious consequences:
- For candidates: Permanent disqualification from any public office + imprisonment
- For donors: Criminal prosecution + forfeiture of funds
- For organizations: Dissolution + prosecution of leadership
When the penalty is real, compliance follows.
The Vision
Imagine an election where:
- A teacher with good ideas can run against a billionaire's chosen candidate — and win
- Voters choose based on policy, not advertising saturation
- Elected officials spend their time governing, not fundraising
- No one can buy access to power
- Every citizen's voice counts equally
This is what democracy was supposed to be. The Autonomist framework makes it possible.