On conflicts of interest, Reich is on especially strong ground. Presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress, justices, and senior officials should not trade individual stocks while holding public power. Nor should they shape policy while holding assets directly affected by that policy. Most Americans understand this without needing a law degree. If a town inspector should not approve work on his brother-in-law’s building, a senator should not be buying and selling stocks affected by legislation. Blind trusts, divestiture rules, strong disclosure, and a real ban on trading individual securities would be a major step toward restoring trust.⁴
Reich is also right to worry about presidents using the Justice Department as a political weapon. A republic cannot have one justice system for friends of the president and another for his enemies. But the Justice Department is part of the executive branch, so a law flatly forbidding presidential involvement in prosecution decisions would run into serious constitutional trouble. The more practical answer is transparency and insulation: logs of White House contacts with DOJ, protection for career prosecutors and whistleblowers, stronger inspectors general, and written explanations for politically sensitive interventions. The same is true of pardons. Congress can investigate suspicious pardons and require transparency, but a congressional veto over pardons would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment.⁵
Gerrymandering is one area where reform is both urgent and possible. Voters should choose their representatives; representatives should not choose their voters. Congress can require fairer rules for U.S. House districts: independent commissions, transparent maps, public hearings, and neutral criteria. States should do the same for their own legislative districts. This will not make politics pure, but it would make it harder for politicians to lock in power before citizens ever vote. It also matters for presidential elections, because any plan to award Electoral College votes by congressional district would be dangerous unless gerrymandering is curbed first.⁶
Voting rights also need repair, but precision matters. The point is simple: eligible citizens should not have to fight through tricks, delays, district games, or discriminatory rules to cast a meaningful ballot. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act still exists, so the better goal is to strengthen it after years of judicial narrowing. Section 5 preclearance — the rule that required certain jurisdictions with histories of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting laws — should be revived with a new, current, evidence-based formula aimed at discrimination as it exists today. Congress cannot simply dust off the old system and expect today’s courts to approve it. The right to vote deserves careful drafting, not wishful drafting.⁷
On press freedom and academic freedom, Reich again points to real dangers. A democracy cannot function if too much of what we see, hear, and read is controlled by a handful of corporations, billionaires, or platforms. The answer, however, must be viewpoint-neutral: stronger antitrust enforcement, limits on concentration, scrutiny of mergers, and protection for local journalism. Government should not decide who may own media based on whether it likes their politics. The same principle applies to universities. Taxpayers deserve honest and accountable research, but politicians should not condition grants on ideological loyalty. Scholars should follow evidence, not political orders.⁸
Campaign finance reform is harder because the current Supreme Court treats much political spending as protected speech. That does not mean reformers should give up; it means they should start where progress can survive. A system in which candidates spend more time courting large donors than listening to voters is not healthy, even when it is technically legal. Public matching funds for small donations, stronger disclosure, better enforcement, and rules that make it easier for candidates to run without begging billionaires for help would all move us in the right direction. The goal should be simple enough for every voter to understand: make ordinary citizens louder.⁹
On wealth, I would revise Reich’s proposal. I understand the appeal of a wealth tax. Extreme fortunes do not merely buy comfort; they buy access, influence, and insulation from ordinary life. An annual wealth tax, however, is extraordinarily difficult to administer. Valuing private businesses, land, artwork, partnerships, trusts, and other complex assets every year would invite avoidance, litigation, and endless gamesmanship.