Policy Platform

Policy Platform

There’s much work to be done to build a democracy that works for us, not lobbyists and big-money donors.

Click here to download the full platform as a PDF.

MONEY OUT

  • Since 1974, there have been federal laws to set limits on campaign contributions by individuals, political parties and PACs. Additionally, a pool of public funding for presidential candidates was established, which subsequently helped save Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan’s elections when they were being outspent. 1974 also marked the year the first state - Minnesota - implemented a public campaign financing system on a regional level. Without public funds for their campaigns, candidates for elected office must develop two constituencies: the people of the district that they are elected to represent and their "cash constituents" - those who fund their campaigns, whose interests do not match those of voters.

    "Democracy Dollars" are vouchers that residents receive and can then give to qualified candidates, who then exchange them for public funding to finance their campaign. When elected officials are dependent on their constituents for BOTH the votes to get them elected and the campaign money necessary to run a competitive campaign. They are incentivized and rewarded for serving those constituents. The use of Democracy Dollars would create an equitable system of publicly funded elections and would increase the diversity of candidates and donors by allowing individuals other than the wealthy and ‘well-connected’ to launch a competitive campaign. This sort of voucher system has been used in Seattle since 2017.

    A good bill to establish publicly funded elections through Democracy Dollars includes:

    • Democracy Dollars vouchers for residents to distribute to the candidates of their choice in elections in which the individual is eligible to vote.

    • An agreement among participating candidates regarding contribution limits, spending limits, disclosure requirements, public debates, a ban on PAC money, and penalties for violating the rules.

    • Efforts to increase public awareness of the program to ensure adequate participation.

    • Steps to empower local governments to implement their own democracy voucher systems for municipal elections.

    • Mitigating measures to lessen the impact of spending by political action committees and outside actors.

    • A stable source of funding that cannot easily be eliminated by incumbent office holders.

  • When one person is able to give a candidate unlimited campaign cash or threatens to give a candidate’s opponent unlimited campaign money, the power and voice of that individual is magnified and the power of the majority of the people is diminished. Legislators can become ingratiated to and/or fearful of the wishes of their large campaign funders - leading them to put their funders’ interests ahead of the peoples’ interests. By limiting the ability of a single person or group to give a candidate unlimited campaign cash, we can strengthen our democracy by democratizing political power from a small number of large political donors to all of the people of Pennsylvania.

    A good bill to place limits on contributions to candidates includes:

    • Limitations on campaign contributions to $500 or less.

  • Unlimited sums of untraceable money currently flow through our political system. We need to make all political expenditures transparent. No contributors should have the right to hide their identity because it would otherwise be illegal for them to spend money to influence our elections. Limitless and anonymous contributions enable influence without the associated responsibility for misinformation, lies and smears

    A good bill to bring money into the light with transparency and accountability includes reasonable accommodations to streamline the disclosure process and make it easy, accessible and desirable for donors. Specifically, a good bill would require disclosure of:

    • All groups that spend a substantial amount of money on politics, including 501(c)(4) organizations.

    • Both express advocacy ads and issue ads that mention candidates.

    • Donors to political spending even if they don’t “earmark” their contributions.

    • Organizations that donate to spender organizations.

    • The people in charge of opaque spending entities.

    • All relevant information listed above before Election Day.

  • The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that foreigners have no right to spend money to influence the outcomes of American elections. Several states have passed legislation forbidding any corporation from spending money on our elections if there is foreign ownership of 5% of corporate stock or if a single foreign entity owns more than 1%. By excluding money from “Foreign Influenced Corporations” in our elections, we can roll back the oversize power that Fortune 500 Companies have over our elections.
    A good bill prohibiting Foreign Influenced Corporations from spending money in our elections:

    • Applies when foreign entities are significant shareholders of the corporate stock.

    • Requires that the true and original source of all money spent in elections be disclosed in order to affirm that no Foreign Influenced Corporations are spending money in American elections.

  • Currently, there are no limits on gifts to public officials in Pennsylvania. General gifts do not even need to be reported unless they are over $250 and travel, lodging and hospitality gifts do not need to be reported unless they exceed $650 per giver, per legislator, per year. Current law on reporting of gifts is so full of loopholes and exceptions that at least 97% of gifts from lobbyists are never reported by legislators. (See Pennsylvania House Government Oversight Committee, “Finding 3”, pg. 27.)

    After years of tireless advocacy, MarchOnHarrisburg helped to pass a Gift Ban bill out of the House State Government Committee in 2021 and again in 2023, but the legislation was never called to a vote on the floor of the House. We are again advocating for a Gift Ban bill in 2025 and expect full passage through the Legislature. Banning bribery will restore trust between the government and the governed, and return a voice to the people of Pennsylvania, who are silenced by unlimited gift giving lobbyists.

    A good Gift Ban bill includes:

    • Banning anything of a value over $10 annually (and no cash) to public officials and employees and their close family members from anyone who is not a relative or friend, and requiring that every gift of any value (except from family and friends) must be reported.

    • Commonsense exemptions from reporting, such as light refreshments during a meeting, greeting cards, small commemorative items, plaques, and other gifts of under $100 annually between co-workers.

    • Other exceptions that allow for trainings, meetings, educational missions and other events where food and beverages are served and a requirement that public officials and employees who participate in these events must publicly post online a form provided by the Ethics Commission describing the purpose of their participation in the event and the benefit of their participation to the public office or the employee’s governmental unit within 10 days of participation.

  • “Per diem” payments of about $185 per day to public officials are tax-free lump sum payments for each day their duties call them away from home. They are not required to provide receipts or any proof of their actual expenses. If they eat meals paid for by a lobbyist, they get to keep their entire per diem payment - tax free! Legislators who want to maximize their income are essentially paid by the public to eat and drink with lobbyists. Many legislators and other public officials do not accept per diem payments and instead provide receipts for their actual expenses and are reimbursed. When public officials are away from their homes on official duty, they should be compensated for additional food and lodging expenses they have receipts for, but only for their actual expenses and nothing more.

    A good bill to END PER DIEM PAYMENTS includes:

    • The elimination of per diem payments.

  • Legislators are well compensated by the Commonwealth. They are paid a minimum of $102,844 annually, plus other benefits; the third-highest pay of any state legislature and twice the average Pennsylvanian’s income. Nevertheless, Pennsylvania politicians have been found to use their campaign accounts to fund items that would otherwise be funded by their own money. Campaign money has been spent on meals, vacations, European wine tasting tours, entertainment, and sporting events; items that are not directly related to influencing voters in their district.

    A good bill to prohibit personal use of campaign money includes requiring:

    • Every expenditure be itemized, including the name and business of the seller and the detailed description of every item or service purchased.

    • The purpose of every expenditure be for the purpose of electing the specific candidate by communicating with constituents of the district during the period that the candidate is an official candidate for office.

    • Campaign committees and candidates provide a statement describing how each expenditure advances the purpose of communicating with constituents of the district within the context of the candidate's reelection campaign.

  • It is currently legal for our state legislators to hold side jobs while serving as full-time, well-paid public servants. When a public official holds a side job that can potentially affect their official actions, the conflict of interest damages the trust that people need to have in their government. Many legislators also work for private interests that are affected by decisions our legislators make. For example, while he was Speaker of the House, Mike Turzai was also a lawyer for a large firm representing Fortune 100 corporations. Preventing state legislators from working other jobs forces our elected officials to prioritize their most important job - representing us!

    A good bill to prohibit side jobs for legislators includes:

    • A limit on active income to 20% of a legislator’s income.

    • A requirement that passive income sources be placed in blind trusts, with common sense exceptions.

    • The prohibition of any conflicts of interest and paid service on corporate and nonprofit boards.

    • A full report of all active and passive income.

    • Exemptions for income for military service.

  • When a former public official accepts a lobbying job or a job in an industry that the public official had an official relationship with, it creates a conflict of interest that damages the trust that people need to have in their government. If former public officials are permitted to accept such jobs, it should only be permissable after a long “cooling off” period. Pennsylvania currently has a one year "cooling off" period, meaning legislators must wait one year before they can become registered lobbyists. Some states have "cooling off" periods as long as six years. We support lengthening the Pennsylvania "cooling off" period as well as prohibiting legislators still in office from negotiating jobs with firms that lobby or do business with the state. The longer the “cooling off” period, the less likely it is that the public official will be enticed to trade his or her official powers for future gain because the payoff is made more distant and less certain.

    A good bill to close the revolving door includes:

    • The stipulation that no one convicted of a felony crime involving governance can ever serve as a registered lobbyist.

    • A waiting period of 10 years from the time a legislator leaves office and the time they can become a registered lobbyist.

  • The Supreme Court decision, Citizens United, lets corporations spend unlimited and often untraceable money on ads to elect candidates. This spending favors corporate-friendly candidates and is used to damage challengers who are not loyal to corporate priorities. But, states have the power to say what the corporations created and/or operating in their states can and cannot do. The Pennsylvania General Assembly has the power to legislate that corporations operating in Pennsylvania do not have the power to spend corporate money to influence the outcomes of elections. 

    This legal and constitutionally-sound method of ending corporate election spending is gaining traction in states across the country and is known as the “Montana Plan,” where the effort originated.”

PEOPLE IN: LET US VOTE

  • When the State Legislature or the Governor refuse to pass popular legislation, or if legislative leadership or committee chairs will not even give a bill a vote in the Legislature, the people’s only recourse is to vote out the legislators who are to blame. When legislation is held up by a single legislator, such as an unwilling committee chair or party leader, then only voters in that legislator’s district can vote them out. When the State Legislature and/or the Governor lack the political will to pass legislation, the voters should be able to organize to put an initiative question on the ballot and if the voters approve the changes, those changes should then become the law. A ballot initiative puts the power of legislation directly in the hands of the people - there’s nothing more democratic than that. Yet, just under half the states already have some type of ballot initiative process.

    A good voter ballot initiative bill includes:

    • A means by which the people of Pennsylvania can create laws through initiative and referendum.

    • A mechanism for the Legislature to veto approved ballot measures and subsequently, a mechanism for the voters to overturn the Legislature’s veto.

  • The April 2020 primary and November 2020 general elections were the first time that Pennsylvanians could vote by mail without a reason. When we helped to pass this lifesaving legislation in the fall of 2019, we had no idea how critical this policy would prove to be during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its first implementation revealed several shortcomings of the legislation, such as:

    • Pre-paid return envelopes are not mandated by Act 77 of 2019 and Act 12 of 2020.

    • Some of the procedures for vote-by-mail were interpreted or enacted differently in different counties.

    • Ballots were treated differently by different county election offices.

    • Some counties inspected ballot envelopes as they arrived and, if there was a problem with the outside envelope, voters were contacted and permitted to fix their outside envelopes. However, other counties did not give voters a chance to “cure” their ballot of problems.

    • Current law prohibits counties from processing ballots until the morning of election day. This guarantees that there will not be a complete count of all the votes by election night and, in many elections, not for several days. Under the worst case scenario, a campaign may deliberately seek to create doubt about the legitimacy of mail-in ballots and, in the case of a presidential election, may make it impossible to complete the count in time for the selection of electors to the electoral college.

    • Signatures are compared only to existing registration signatures and are not challengeable. Vote-by-mail should be a trusted, easy and efficient system for voting that reliably produces election results as quickly as voting in person does.

    A good bill to strengthen vote by mail includes:

    • The county-wide provision of pre-paid return postage with mail-in ballots to every registered voter.

    • A requirement that the vote-by-mail process should be clarified, with a focus on accessibility and security.

    • An amendment to Act 77 of 2019 to allow vote-by-mail ballot envelopes to be examined as they are received and for voters to be contacted to “cure” any disqualifying problems with their ballot submission, including the lack of a secrecy envelope.

    • An update of our current vote-by-mail procedure to a state-of-the-art system, including the ability to match ballot signatures to existing digitized signatures in state records.

    • The ability for ballots to be processed for counting earlier in the election process. Then the counting of ballots can begin the morning of election day and completed by the time the polls close.

  • The passage of Act 77 (indirectly) permits counties to set-up satellite election offices where voters can request ballots, fill them out, and return them - all in the same visit and well ahead of election day. These ballots are treated like vote-by-mail ballots. This is a process that voters can complete now in any county election office. Counties should be encouraged and funded to open satellite early voting sites to allow people who have difficult schedules to stop by and vote at their convenience and to relieve pressure on polling place workers on election day. Election laws should make it easy to cast a vote; whether at the polling place, by mail, or at satellite voting locations available to voters in the weeks leading up to election day.

    A good bill to encourage in-person early voting includes:

    • Additional funding for counties to open and staff satellite voting locations

  • Working class people with busy lives and schedules may be eligible to vote, but are not registered to vote. Further, registered voters who have moved often forget to update their voter registration until it is too late. Whenever an eligible Pennsylvania voter interacts with the government they should be automatically registered to vote (unless they choose to opt-out) to decrease the barriers to voting that the poor and working class face. This would ensure that almost everybody is registered to vote and will produce more accurate voter registration rolls because it would automatically update the voter rolls whenever people move.

    Automatic voter registration allows the state government to use information that it already has to electronically register citizens into a voter database. Any time an eligible voter interacts with government services like the Department of Transportation, Department of Human Services and the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, that citizen is automatically registered to vote at their current address. Half the states and Washington DC have adopted AVR.

    Currently, by order of the Department of State, Pennsylvanians are automatically registered to vote when they get or renew their drivers license. A federal lawsuit has been filed saying that such a change can only be initiated by legislation.

    A good bill to establish Automatic Voter Registration includes:

    • Allowing eligible Pennsylvanians to automatically register to vote every time they interact with the state: applying for/renewing a driver’s license, hunting license, fishing license, etc. Like the current procedure, after automatic registration, voters would receive a postcard giving them the opportunity to choose a party (or not) or to decline registration altogether. This is an opt-out system rather than the current opt-in system.

    • Passage by the Legislature rendering the lawsuit unnecessary.

  • Same day voter registration is another opportunity to ensure that working class people, those who may have moved recently and/or those with busy lives and demanding, inflexible schedules are able to participate in critical elections, even if they are unable to register ahead of the election day.

    A good bill to enact Same Day Registration includes:

    • Allowing citizens with a photo ID showing their current address to register to vote on election day itself. Photo IDs that are acceptable for first time voters in a new election district are acceptable. These voters could fill in a registration form and vote on a regular ballot that day.

    • Requiring a voter who is able to produce the type of ID required or any voter who is voting for the first time in a new precinct whose ID lacks a current address, to fill in a registration form. The new registrant would then be permitted to cast a provisional ballot. That provisional ballot is only counted after the registration has been approved through (essentially) the existing registration process, a process taking 10 days. The provisional ballots are not opened or counted until the registration process is complete.

  • Our closed primary system requires voters to “join” the Democratic or Republican party in order to vote in the primary election. Closed primaries magnify the power of the most ideological extreme voters and thus, produce legislators who are more ideologically extreme than the district they represent. As a result, the ability of members of the General Assembly to work together is diminished since legislators know that if they do compromise, they will be subject to challenge from an ideologically extreme candidate in the next closed “party members only” primary. Closed primaries produce an electorate that is polarized, apathetic, alienated, and/or disenfranchised.

    A good bill that allows all voters to participate in primary elections could include alternatives such as:

    • Open Primary: Maintains party primaries, but allows registered voters to vote in the party primary of their choice.

    • Alaska System: All candidates in the primary appear on the same ballot. The top four primary vote getters move on to the general election. The general election uses Ranked Choice Voting, the primary does not. This is the system recently passed in Alaska.

  • Legislators should not be incentivized to gain political power by taking away the voting rights of any citizen. From the post-slavery South to the current drug “wars,” legislators have a long history of creating crimes that target specific demographic groups and attaching the loss of voting rights to those crimes. By guaranteeing citizens the right to vote, regardless of their current incarceration, we can prevent legislators from abusing their power for their own political gain.

    Prisoners should be allowed to register to vote in their home communities and cast a vote by mail while in prison or jail. Prison and jail administrators should formally and effectively assist in both registration and voting.

    A good bill that allows all incarcerated people to vote includes:

    • Removing from the law any loss of voting rights related to a voter’s current state of incarceration.

    • Requiring that prison and jail administrators formally and effectively assist in both registration and voting.

PEOPLE IN: MAKE OUR VOTE COUNT

  • In our current system, when there are multiple candidates running for the same office, we vote for one candidate. Whichever candidate gets a plurality of votes wins the election even if that candidate does not get a majority of the votes. In elections where there are more than two candidates for the same office, voters often face the difficult decision to vote for the candidate they really want but who is likely to lose, or to vote for one of the two leading candidates. If they vote for the candidate they want, it could actually help to elect the candidate they truly don’t want. In other words, they have to decide whether or not to vote for the “lesser of two evils.” Districts should be represented by candidates who have the support of at least half of the voters and voters should be free to vote their conscience without fear of being a “spoiler.” In RCV, voters participate in the election by ranking the candidates. If no candidate wins outright by getting more than 50% of the vote, then the candidate who received the fewest votes of all the candidates is eliminated. Votes that had been cast for that eliminated candidate are instantly re-cast for the second favorite candidate of voters who had voted for the eliminated candidate. In RCV every candidate is not only seeking to be the first choice of each voter, but also the second or third choice and as such, candidates are more hesitant to engage in divisive and negative campaign tactics.

    A good Ranked Choice Voting bill includes:

    • Instituting Ranked Choice Voting for legislative, executive and judicial primary and general elections, including the US Presidential primary and general elections.

    • Granting permission to all municipalities to use Ranked Choice Voting for municipal elections.

  • When candidates run for political office, they need to collect a certain number of signatures in order to officially be on the ballot. The number of signatures that Democratic and Republican candidates need to collect is often far less than the number of signatures required for Green, Libertarian, Independent, Forward and other party’s candidates. In special elections, the different requirements are especially onerous. This system creates a competitive disadvantage for non-major parties, and it is an anti-democratic mutual protection scheme for the two major parties.

    A good bill to apply the same ballot access requirements for all candidates includes:

    • Making all parties and candidates collect the same number of petition signatures in order to run for office.

    • Allowing ‘third party’ candidates to operate by the same rules as major party candidates for special elections.

  • Our election for the highest office in the land is determined by a small number of ‘swing states.’ In 2012, literally all general election campaign events (and virtually all campaign expenditures) were concentrated in just 12 states. In 2016, virtually all campaign events (94%) were also in just 12 states. The electoral college makes most states irrelevant, leaves most states ignored and violates the concepts of ‘one person, one vote,’ and ‘the person with the most votes wins the election.’ The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is a constitutional way for states to agree to give their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the national popular vote. So far, 16 states plus the District of Columbia (totaling 196 electoral votes) have passed the NPVIC. When 270 electoral votes worth of states have passed the NPVIC it will take effect and the electoral college will be functionally sidestepped.

    A good bill to sidestep the electoral college includes:

    • Pennsylvania joining the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

  • Our Congressional and State Legislative maps are drawn by elected officials with inherent partisan conflicts of interest. Gerrymandering is when politicians choose their voters through clever partisan map-making and predetermine election results rather than voters choosing our elected officials through honest elections. The ability to draw congressional and legislative district lines should be in the hands of an independent commission composed of voters who have no extraordinary relationship to politicians or lobbyists and who are chosen by random selection of willing citizens. Every step of the process should be transparent to the public.

    A good Independent Redistricting Commission bill includes:

    • Full transparency.

    • Outlawing the use of meta-data and limiting the commission to only using census data.

    • No politicians, lobbyists or other conflicted individuals allowed on the commission.

    • Random selection to determine the commissioners.

    • Starting the redistricting process immediately following approval of the constitutional amendment and then repeating with each new census.

  • The less that judges are involved in politics, the better. We do not want judges to behave as representatives. Electing judges by district is dangerous because they will be rewarded for representing “their” district instead of doing their impartial duties according to the law.

    In July of 2020, the PA House and Senate voted to change the Pennsylvania Constitution in order to elect the Supreme Court, the Superior Court and the Commonwealth Court by district. If approved again by the legislature, this amendment could go on the ballot for voters to approve or disapprove as soon as May of 2021. Justices who are currently elected at-large would be elected by district. The lines of these districts will be drawn and redrawn by the House and Senate to gain political advantages - the same reasons that legislative districts are gerrymandered. Preventing gerrymandering of the state courts means voting against the proposed constitutional amendment. The proper role of our courts is to rule based on existing law and not to rule based on regional interests. The less judges are required to behave like politicians, the more the public will trust the fairness of the courts.

    A good bill to prevent judicial gerrymandering includes:

    • Voting against the proposed constitutional amendment and preventing judicial gerrymandering.

  • When districts are drawn, people in prison (who are denied the right to vote) are included in the district where the prison is, instead of the district where they are from and will return to once released from prison. Prison gerrymandering effectively moves legislative power and representation to areas where prisons are located and away from the prisoner’s home district.

    Prison gerrymandering was temporarily done away with in the 2021-2022 redistricting, but a legal change is needed to prevent its re-emergence during the next redistricting.

    A good bill to end prison gerrymandering includes:

    • Recognizing people who are incarcerated as residents of their last known address and not residents of the correctional facility when drawing district lines.

  • On the first day of each session, the House and the Senate vote on their internal rules and our legislature structures itself into an authoritarian body where a small group of committee chairs and legislative leaders must approve bills if they are ever going to get voted on.

    Every voter in a democracy deserves a voice in the legislative process, expressed through the election of representatives. In turn, each representative deserves a voice in the legislative process so they can represent their constituents. The House and Senate rules should give every legislator meaningful representation in the General Assembly.

    A good bill to change the House and Senate rules includes:

    • Each legislator has one bill guaranteed to receive a vote in committee.

    • Automatic calendaring of all bills in committee and on the floor of the House and Senate so every bill gets consideration.

    • Designating bills co-sponsored by a majority of the chamber priority status with direct reporting to the floor of that chamber.

    • Priority bills reported positively out of committee must be debated and voted on the floor of the House.

    • Bills with a discharge petition will be discharged from the committee without referral to another committee.

    • Committee members will be allotted in proportions that reflect the overall party composition of the House (the Senate already has such an arrangement).

    • Committee chairman is elected by committee members based on their expertise and abilities, not seniority.

    • Each member is guaranteed an equal share of resources to run their office. Currently, party leaders dole out staff salaries and facilities as they see fit.

    • Bills with demonstrated bipartisan support must be guaranteed a vote in committee.

    • Bills voted out of committee with bipartisan support must be guaranteed a vote on the chamber floor.

    • Bills passed in one chamber with bipartisan support should be given consideration in the other chamber.

  • Hand-marked paper ballots are an intuitive and reliable form of voting that is the only form of voting that is not vulnerable to hacking or malfunction and can be used even in the case of a power outage. Cyber security experts agree that hand-marked paper ballots are the safest form of voting and offer the ‘gold standard’ for an election audit by providing a verifiable paper record that can be recounted in close elections. For voters with low-technology literacy, hand-marked paper ballots offer the simplest way to participate in our elections.

    A good hand-marked paper ballot bill includes:

    • A requirement that all voting machines involve “the use of an individual, durable, voter-verified paper ballot of the voter’s vote.”

    • The use of optical scanner machines to generate and store digital images of the hand-marked ballots to enable a quick count and timely tally of election results, facilitate recounts, audits and adjudication, assist with counting absentee and provisional ballots and expedite the tabulation of votes in Ranked Choice Voting elections.