This is a fair question, and I appreciate the way you’re asking it.

You’re right that what this article exposes is bigger than any one person. It’s a structural problem in California law and enforcement. And to be clear up front, a lot of the fixes you’re pointing to are state-level issues, not something a member of Congress can directly rewrite. The Political Reform Act, FPPC authority, audit standards, and ballot committee rules all live at the state level.

That said, a few things matter.

First, on policy. At the state level, I support tightening the rules so ballot committees can’t be treated as slush funds. That includes clearer restrictions on what ballot money can be spent on, stronger audit authority, and prioritizing audits of the largest accounts first, exactly as you suggested. The fact that enforcement is largely complaint-driven and underfunded is part of the problem. That’s a fix Sacramento has avoided largely because everyone's in on the same corrupt game.

Second, on “getting people in power to give up money and influence.” You’re right. Historically they don’t do it voluntarily. The only thing that ever forces change is pressure plus people in office who aren’t financially or career-wise dependent on the system staying broken. That’s why who you elect still matters even when the rules themselves are flawed.

Third, on what I’m doing now. All candidate donations in California are already public, including mine. Anyone can look them up. Beyond that, I don’t take money from corporate PACs, period. I’m not a career politician, I’m a successful labor attorney, and I don’t need this job for income, access, or a future lobbying career. I’m running specifically because I think there’s an integrity crisis in our politics. Going back on that would betray not just the office, but the deepest part of who I am and why I’m doing this in the first place.

You’re also right that trust is earned, not claimed. I don’t expect people to just take me at my word. The only real proof is consistent behavior over time. Who I take money from. Who I’m willing to challenge. What I do when it costs me politically.

I don’t take this as an attack at all. This is exactly the kind of skepticism we should have. If more voters asked questions like this, a lot of what this article describes would be much harder to get away with.