The Platform

Reform Agenda

Specific, actionable reforms to restore accountability and rebalance power between citizens, states, and the federal government. Not left. Not right. Forward.

Income Tax Reform

16th Amendment (1913)

Repeal or Reform the 16th Amendment

The 16th Amendment gave the federal government unlimited direct taxing power over individual citizens. What began as a modest tax on the wealthy has become a sprawling system that touches every working American, and funds a federal apparatus the Founders never envisioned.

Reform options range from full repeal to replacement with a national consumption tax (fair tax), a flat tax, or a constitutional cap on income tax rates. The goal is not to eliminate federal revenue; it's to restore structural limits on the government's power to tax and spend without constraint.

Questions worth asking:

  • Should the federal government have unlimited power to tax individual income?
  • Would a consumption tax be more fair and transparent than an income tax?
  • Should there be a constitutional cap on tax rates?

How does this resonate with you?

Restore the Senate

17th Amendment (1913)

Repeal or Reform the 17th Amendment

The Founders created the Senate as the states' voice in the federal government. State legislatures appointed senators who would defend state sovereignty and resist federal overreach. The 17th Amendment ended this by shifting to direct popular election.

The result: senators now answer to national donors and party leadership rather than state governments. The states lost their structural seat at the table, and federal power has expanded unchecked ever since. Reform options include full repeal (restoring state legislature appointment), hybrid models, or recall mechanisms that give states meaningful leverage over their senators.

Questions worth asking:

  • Should state governments have a direct voice in the federal legislature?
  • Has the Senate become too similar to the House in how it operates?
  • Would state-appointed senators be more resistant to federal overreach?

How does this resonate with you?

Transparency and Accountability

Federal Reserve Act (1913)

Federal Reserve Reform

The Federal Reserve controls interest rates, the money supply, and inflation, forces that determine the value of every dollar you earn and save. It operates with a level of independence and secrecy that is unmatched by any other institution in American governance.

A full audit of the Federal Reserve (beyond the limited financial audits already conducted) would reveal how monetary policy decisions are made, who benefits, and what risks the Fed has taken with the economy. Greater transparency is not radical; it's the minimum standard we should expect from an institution with this much power.

Questions worth asking:

  • Should the Federal Reserve be subject to a comprehensive public audit?
  • Is the current level of Fed independence appropriate for a democracy?
  • Should Congress have more oversight of monetary policy decisions?

How does this resonate with you?

End Career Politicians, Starting with the House

Downstream: Career incumbency crisis

Congressional Term Limits

The Founders envisioned citizen-legislators, people who served for a time and then returned to private life. The House of Representatives was designed to be the chamber closest to the people, with two-year terms ensuring constant accountability. Instead, it has become a body of entrenched incumbents who treat their seats as permanent property.

The House is where term limits are most urgently needed. Representatives routinely serve 20, 30, even 40 years. The seniority system concentrates power in the longest-serving members, creating a permanent ruling class within a body designed to be the most democratic. Committee chairs, party leadership, and the institutional knowledge needed to navigate Congress are all hoarded by those who have been there longest, creating a system where new members are structurally powerless and long-serving members are structurally untouchable.

A constitutional amendment limiting House members to six terms (12 years) and senators to two terms (12 years) would restore the principle of rotation in office, break the incumbency machine, and ensure that Congress reflects the current will of the people. Combined with 17th Amendment reform, this would fundamentally restructure the incentives of the legislative branch.

Questions worth asking:

  • Should House members be limited to 12 years of service?
  • Does the seniority system serve the public interest or protect a permanent political class?
  • Would term limits produce better legislation by bringing in members with real-world experience?
  • Should term limits apply differently to the House and Senate?

How does this resonate with you?

Break the Money Machine

Downstream: 17th Amendment + income tax

Campaign Finance Reform

The modern campaign finance system is a direct structural consequence of the 17th Amendment. When senators were appointed by state legislatures, they didn't need campaign war chests. When both chambers became popular election bodies, the demand for campaign money exploded, and a permanent class of donors, bundlers, and lobbyists emerged to supply it.

Meanwhile, the income tax created a federal budget worth influencing. Every dollar Congress spends is a dollar someone will lobby for. The tax code's tens of thousands of pages represent decades of special interest carve-outs. The result is a system where access to elected officials is effectively purchased, and where the gap between public opinion and policy outcomes grows wider every year.

Reform must address both the demand and supply sides: strict limits on campaign contributions and spending, transparency requirements for all political money, a ban on lobbyist-to-legislator fundraising, and closing the revolving door between Congress and K Street. The goal is not to eliminate political speech; it's to ensure that representation is not for sale.

Questions worth asking:

  • Should there be strict limits on how much can be spent on federal campaigns?
  • Should all political donations (including to Super PACs) be fully transparent?
  • Should there be a mandatory cooling-off period before members of Congress can become lobbyists?
  • Can representative democracy function when campaigns cost millions of dollars?

How does this resonate with you?

Return Power to Congress

Downstream: Congressional abdication + executive expansion

Restrain the Imperial Presidency

The power of the presidency has expanded far beyond what the Founders intended, not primarily because presidents seized power, but because Congress surrendered it. When Congress stopped doing its job (delegating legislative authority to agencies, avoiding hard votes, deferring to executive action), the presidency filled the vacuum. The structural changes of 1913 created the conditions for this abdication.

The executive branch now writes rules with the force of law through regulatory agencies, wages undeclared wars, spends money Congress never specifically appropriated, and invokes emergency powers that bypass the legislative process entirely. Every president, regardless of party, inherits and expands this power, because the structural incentives reward it.

Reform must work both sides of the equation. On the executive side: limit executive order authority to genuine administrative functions, require congressional authorization for military action beyond immediate self-defense, sunset emergency powers after 30 days without congressional renewal, and subject regulatory agencies to direct congressional oversight. On the congressional side: restore Congress's institutional will to legislate by ending the practices that make abdication politically convenient.

Questions worth asking:

  • Should executive orders that create policy (rather than directing administration) require congressional approval?
  • Should emergency powers automatically expire without congressional renewal?
  • Should Congress be required to vote on major regulations before they take effect?
  • Is the administrative state (agencies writing rules with the force of law) compatible with the Constitution?

How does this resonate with you?

Every Branch Does Its Own Job

Downstream: Systemic role confusion

Restore Constitutional Role Clarity

The Constitution assigns distinct roles to each branch. Congress legislates. The president executes. The courts interpret. The Federal Reserve, an institution that exists outside this framework entirely, manages monetary policy. The states govern within their sovereign spheres. When these roles are respected, accountability is possible. When they blur, no one is responsible for anything.

Today, the lines are unrecognizable. Executive agencies write regulations that function as laws Congress never passed. The president legislates by decree through executive orders. Congress conducts performative oversight hearings while refusing to use its actual powers: the purse, confirmation, and impeachment. Courts are asked to settle policy disputes that the political branches refuse to address. The Fed makes fiscal-scale decisions that properly belong to Congress.

Restoring role clarity requires structural reform, not just good intentions. Congress must reclaim its legislative authority, and accept the political costs of voting on hard issues. The executive must be constrained to execution, not legislation. Courts must return policy questions to the political branches. And the Fed must be brought under meaningful oversight without becoming a political tool. Each branch doing its own job is the prerequisite for accountability.

Questions worth asking:

  • Should Congress be prohibited from delegating legislative authority to executive agencies?
  • Should there be a constitutional mechanism to force Congress to vote on issues it's avoiding?
  • Is the current structure of the Federal Reserve (outside all three branches) constitutionally appropriate?
  • How do we restore accountability when no branch will claim responsibility for outcomes?

How does this resonate with you?

Accountability for Political Elites

Downstream: Power without accountability

Transparency and Anti-Corruption

Public trust in government is at historic lows, and for good reason. Lobbying, insider trading by members of Congress, revolving doors between government and industry, and the suppression of information the public has a right to know have created a system that serves the powerful at the expense of the people.

The structural changes of 1913 created a government large enough and powerful enough to be worth corrupting. When the federal government controls trillions of dollars and regulates virtually every aspect of economic life, the incentives for corruption are enormous, and the mechanisms for accountability are inadequate.

Reforms should include strict lobbying restrictions, a ban on congressional stock trading, full transparency in government dealings, and the release of information (like the Epstein files) that the public has a legitimate interest in seeing. Accountability is not a partisan issue. It is the minimum price of self-governance.

Questions worth asking:

  • Should members of Congress be banned from trading individual stocks?
  • Is the current lobbying system compatible with representative democracy?
  • Should the government be required to release information like the Epstein files?
  • Should there be an independent anti-corruption body with real enforcement power?

How does this resonate with you?