View this post on the web at [link removed]

Good Morning My Fellow Angry Patriots.
When I ran for Congress in 2022 and again in 2024 [ [link removed] ], one of my first priorities was campaign finance reform. Not because it is a fashionable talking point, but because once you experience the system from the inside, it becomes impossible to ignore how distorted and unhealthy it really is.
Campaign finance in the United States is completely unmoored from anything resembling democracy. Super PACs, corporations, lobbyists, and massive pools of money dominate elections to the point where messaging, priorities, and even candidate viability are warped before voters ever get a real choice. It does not just distort outcomes. It distorts who even gets to participate.
What this system actually incentivizes is not good governance or good ideas. It incentivizes shaking hands in the right rooms, making promises to people with money, and building the best donor network possible. The candidates who succeed are not necessarily the most thoughtful or capable. They are the ones who can raise the most money, the fastest, and then spend it to overwhelm voters with persuasion.
Campaigns cost money. Mail costs money. TV ads cost money. Digital ads cost money. Organizing volunteers costs money. And the logic becomes circular. If the way to win is always more money, then the skill you are really selecting for is the ability to raise and spend endlessly. Fiscal restraint never enters the picture. Creativity never enters the picture. Guardrails disappear.
Politics is a Mega Industry
We like to talk about public service, but let’s be honest about scale. In a presidential election year, the amount of money flowing through American politics can exceed the revenues of the NFL, and the combined revenue MLB, and the NBA. Which is fucking crazy.
When you frame it that way, it becomes clear what we are dealing with. This is not civic engagement. This is an industry. A massive one. Bigger than some of the most powerful entertainment businesses in the world.
Citizens United threw gasoline on that fire. It opened the door to even more spending and even more corrupt relationships between politicians and donors. I do not care if you are a Democrat or a Republican. If you cannot look at this system and see a problem, then you are either willfully blind or deeply invested in keeping it exactly as it is.
The Lie of Grassroots Funding
Please Think about Becoming a Paid Subscriber
There is another part of this that frustrates me deeply. The reliance on individual donors. Average people. People who already pay taxes, already struggle with mortgages, rent, healthcare, childcare, car payments, and the basic cost of living.
These same people are constantly asked to open their wallets again. And when they do, campaigns brag about small-dollar donations as proof of grassroots support. The message is that the average person is powering change.
That story is misleading at best.
Campaigns use donation mixing tactics to lower their average contribution numbers. Big donors give large sums. Smaller donations are layered in to make the math look better. It creates the appearance of broad-based support while the real influence remains concentrated where it always is.
When those candidates take office, whose calls do you think get answered? It is not Kathy from rural Ohio who donated fifty dollars and wants to talk about her small soybean farm, unless it is a good photo op. It is the landowner with thousands of acres. The executive. The donor tied to a Super PAC. The person who can offer more than moral support.
That is not conspiracy. That is how incentives work.
Why I Support Publicly Funded Elections: My Math
This is why I support publicly funded campaigns at the federal level. And I am specifically talking about House and Senate races here, not state or local elections.
Here is how I think it should work.
Primaries remain privately funded. Candidates raise money, talk to donors, make their case, and earn their party’s nomination under existing campaign finance limits. That process stays competitive.
Once the primary is over, the general election changes. The winners receive public funding to run the remainder of their campaigns. No outside money into the campaign itself. No personal fundraising arms race. Just a defined budget and clear rules.
Importantly, this should not mean dumping millions of dollars into a candidate’s bank account. Instead, it should work on a credit system administered through federal oversight. Campaign expenses are submitted, verified, and paid through that system. Receipts are uploaded. FEC VISA card issued to candidate. Public campaign finance lawyers available for free. Spending is transparent. Abuse is harder and punishable.
A Publicly Funded Alternative That Actually Works
What Senate Races Would Actually Cost
Not all races are equal, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest.
Here is how this works using your framework.
Start with a base Senate budget of $15 million.
Small media markets would receive approximately 70% of that base.
That puts a race like Iowa at roughly $10.5 million per candidate.
Mid-sized markets would sit around 100% of the base.
That puts a race like Ohio at roughly $15 million per candidate.
Large media markets would receive up to 167% of the base.
That puts a race like California at roughly $25 million per candidate.
That funding would apply only to the general election, and only to the candidates on the ballot. No additional fundraising allowed.
What House Races Would Actually Cost
House races scale down similarly.
Start with a base House budget of $1.5 million.
Small rural districts would receive closer to $700,000 per candidate.
Mid-sized districts like Cleveland-area seats would receive around $1.5 million per candidate.
Large urban districts in places like Los Angeles, New York City, or Chicago would receive up to $2.5 million per candidate.
Every candidate runs within those limits. No one buys dominance through donor networks. Everyone competes on ideas, organization, and execution.
Obviously these numbers can be tweaked. But you get the idea.
The Total Price Tag
There are 435 House races every two years.
Only about one-third of the 100 Senate seats are up each cycle.
When you run the numbers using this model, the total cost to publicly fund all federal general elections every two years comes out to roughly $4 billion.
That is a lot of money. But it is also not outrageous.
We already tolerate far more money influencing elections indirectly through Super PACs, dark money, and regulatory capture. This system would be cheaper, cleaner, and more honest.
What We Get in Return
Publicly funded general elections would force candidates to work within constraints. They would have to prioritize. They would have to organize creatively. They would have to speak to voters instead of donors.
It would reduce donor capture.
It would improve candidate quality.
It would strengthen democratic legitimacy.
Is it perfect? No.
Is it better than what we have? Without question.
If we value democracy, we should be willing to invest in it directly instead of letting it be auctioned off.
If we do not, then we should at least be honest about the system we are defending.
I know this is not easy. Overturning Citizens United would likely require a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court shift. That is a separate fight.
But if we do nothing, the trajectory is clear. Corporate money, Super PACs, foreign influence, and dark funding will continue to expand. Politics will become even more of an industry. And democracy will continue to hollow out.
Publicly funded campaigns are not perfect. But they are a step toward restoring accountability, improving discourse, and putting candidates on something closer to equal footing.
If we value democracy, we should be willing to invest in it. If we do not, then we should at least be honest about what we are choosing instead.
What are your thoughts?
Stay Angry.

Unsubscribe [link removed]?