Frequently Asked Questions

Does this mean we Democrats are unilaterally disarming against Republicans? Will it make it harder for us to win elections?


No! Not at all. This policy only covers our primary elections between Democrats and only those in safe or solid Democratic jurisdictions where Dems are almost certain to win the general election. It does not cover general elections.


Passing this policy will actually make it easier for all Democrats to win elections! Recent elections show that voters are hungry for bold action to take on big money in politics. Arizona’s Stop Dark Money ballot initiative won with 73.5% of the vote in 2022. Maine voters passed the End Super PACs ballot initiative with 74.9% in favor. A recent Arizona poll shows not only overwhelming support among Arizona Democrats to pass the People’s Primary policy but major shifts in favorable views of our party and our candidates if it is adopted. These poll results prove the strong expected electoral benefit of adopting this policy. Trump’s extreme corruption will only increase the salience of the corruption issue for voters. But the Democratic Party must be positioned to lead the charge to end big money corruption with credibility. Now is the time to take action to clean up our own house and show voters they can count on us to use the power we ask them to give us to confront this corruption head on. 


By adopting this policy we will strengthen the weakened Democratic Party brand and win back trust from working class voters and others who may doubt whether our candidates will fight for them rather than bending to billionaire big donors. We will show the clear cross-partisan super majority of voters that despise big money corrupting our elections that Democrats are walking the talk on this very popular issue. We will preserve more potential money for general elections. We will inspire small donors, activists, and volunteers to give their all to elect our candidates. And by acting to break free from big money outside spending, Democrats will super charge the already-significant small dollar donor advantage we have built over Republicans. We need to maximize our strengths and mobilize the greatest possible surge of popular support to defeat Trump and MAGA’s authoritarian menace in the critical midterm elections. Adopting the Peoples Primary Policy is about winning and maintaining power to deliver real change for the people. 

What about unions?


Because unions are funded by individual members, and because union Super PACs or traditional PACs are generally funded by many union members making small dollar donations, this policy should not restrict or disadvantage unions in any way. 


In particular: 


Unions and all organizations would be free to do unlimited outside spending without conditions for general elections.

Shouldn't we be focused on fighting Trump's fascism right now instead of reforming our primaries? Is this really the time for this?

Now is exactly the right time. To effectively resist Trump's fascism and win the power to stop it, Democrats must be trusted by voters and uncompromised in our fight for working people.

The uncomfortable truth is that some Democrats have been weak in fighting back against Trump; and those are often the ones most beholden to big money interests. When candidates depend on billionaire donors and corporate Super PACs, they're less likely to take the bold, uncompromising stands we need right now.

This reform will strengthen our ability to defeat Trump and MAGA extremism. A major Pew Research Center study on political values highlighted widespread bipartisan agreement that financial influence and special interests dominate the U.S. political system including:  

The fight against fascism requires maximum voter turnout, grassroots energy, and public trust. This policy delivers all three. The 2026 midterms are critical to checking Trump's power. By showing voters we're serious about confronting corruption and fighting for working people—not billionaires—we inspire volunteers, energize small donors, win back working-class trust, and mobilize the broad coalition needed to defeat authoritarianism. 

Is the People's Primary Policy receiving special treatment?

No. 

What about progressive grassroots organizations?


To the extent that grassroots organizations are funded by members who pay dues or by small dollar donors and supporters who contribute under the legal contribution limits for candidates, this policy will not restrict or disadvantage them.


In particular: 


Under the policy, grassroots organizations will not be permitted to spend more than the grassroots threshold using funds that come from wealthy donors who make large contributions over $5000.


Progressive grassroots groups and all organizations would be free to do unlimited outside spending without conditions for general elections.


What about Clean Elections? 


This proposal is strongly aligned with the purpose of Clean Elections and makes it more viable for candidates to choose to opt in to the Clean Elections program, the best pro-democracy, pro-working class avenue for election financing. While we recognize that the Clean Elections program needs to be updated and strengthened by the legislature to enable candidates to opt into it and be sufficiently competitive in most or many circumstances, this policy would be a step in that direction.


Where does this “People’s Pledge” concept come from? Has it been used and worked before?


The People’s Pledge concept of candidates agreeing to a financial penalty to prevent outside spending on their behalf was pioneered by Elizabeth Warren in her race against Republican Scott Brown for the Massachusetts US Senate race in 2012. Then it was used again by Ed Markey and his Democratic primary opponent Stephen Lynch in their 2013 primary for the other Massachusetts US Senate seat. In both cases the pledge was effective in largely shutting down the outside spending that the pledge prohibited (see here and here). Later, when Democrats who believed they had a big money outside spending advantage in intra-party contests started balking at taking the pledge in future races, the voluntary pledge project lost steam, as the post-Citizens United Super PAC landscape became more normalized. But as the travesty of Super PACs and billionaires and corporations spending tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars to dominate our elections has grown and big money outside spending interventions in Democratic primaries have become more extreme, Democrats across the country are now looking to this proven concept for a solution to intervene in the outrageous status quo. Our policy seeks to build on this proven tool by making the People’s Pledge part of the basic rules of the road for Democratic primary elections in safe and solid Democratic districts or jurisdictions. 


What about Citizens United? How does our party have the power to do this?


Our laws and the courts have made it very clear: political parties are voluntary associations that have the power to regulate our internal affairs consistent with the law. This includes primary elections. We can’t directly prohibit a corporation or billionaire from spending to influence our primary elections, but we can use penalties and incentives to require our candidates to make this pledge which prevents such spending by defeating its purpose.


What about lawsuits? Has the policy been reviewed by attorneys?


Attorneys, including election and campaign finance law experts at the national level have been involved in the design and drafting of this policy from the start. Esteemed attorneys like Terry Goddard, former Arizona attorney general and architect of Arizona's Voters Right To Know law, and Lawrence Lessig, Harvard law professor, are endorsers of the proposal. A full legal review by expert attorneys in election and campaign finance law is currently underway and we expect their report before January 24th. Frivolous lawsuits are always possible, but should never prohibit us from doing what is right and best for our state, our party, and our democracy. This policy is designed to be robustly resilient to legal challenges and we believe it is worth defending against any challenge to protect our power as a voluntary association to regulate our internal affairs in alignment with democratic principles and rights to best serve the people of our state.


What if someone tries to mess with the process through “false flag” spending for a candidate on purpose so that they get punished?

The Trustee Committee has the discretion to not assess penalties when they feel the intention of Large Donor Funded Outside Spending was to trigger penalties rather than directly affect the outcome of the race. We believe entities doing Large Donor Outside Spending are unlikely to spend in efforts to leverage our policy against candidates they don’t like because that financial investment would carry large risk and low returns on investment. The intent of this policy is to prevent potential violations and enable effective enforcement consequences in response to willful and consequential violations -- not to enforce penalties in response to mistaken, inadvertent, or minor violations.

Why are vendors penalized for participating in Large Donor-Funded Outside Spending?

The North Carolina Democratic Party always has the choice for where to spend our money. We want to support local vendors who share our commitment to a people-powered politics, and encourage more to reject big special interests trying to put their thumb on the scale in our Democratic Primaries in North Carolina.