Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would add a new article to the Constitution giving Congress and the States clear authority to regulate and limit contributions and spending in campaigns and in state or local ballot initiatives and referendums. It specifically allows laws that distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities and could prohibit artificial entities from raising or spending money in those campaigns. The amendment would take effect only if ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years of its submission; until then it is not part of the Constitution and does not change current law.
A constitutional amendment must be approved by two-thirds of both the House and the Senate in Congress and then be ratified by three-fourths of the states within the specified seven-year window; it is not sent to the President for signature.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment giving Congress and the States authority to regulate and limit contributions and spending in campaigns for public office and in state or local ballot initiatives and referendums.
It expressly permits distinguishing between natural persons and artificial entities and allows prohibiting artificial entities from raising or spending money in those campaigns.
The amendment lists compelling sovereign interests and grants Congress and the States power to implement and enforce the article by legislation.
Constitutional amendments changing speech rules rarely secure necessary supermajorities and statewide ratification; subject is polarizing despite narrow text.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, concise constitutional amendment that primarily functions to authorize Congress and the States to regulate and limit campaign contributions and spending and to permit distinguishing between natural and artificial persons (including prohibitions on artificial-entity fundraising and spending). It uses broad, enabling language that explicitly overrides contrary constitutional constructions and delegates implementation to future legislation.
Progressives emphasize democracy and limiting corporate influence.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize democracy and limiting corporate influence.
Likely strongly supportive; sees the amendment as restoring democratic equality by allowing limits on money in politics.
Views corporate independent spending bans as necessary to reduce outsized influence of artificial entities.
Cautiously supportive if narrowly tailored; values reducing corruption but wants clear definitions and procedural safeguards.
Concerned about vague terms and potential unintended limits on protected speech.
Likely strongly opposed; views the amendment as granting broad government power to restrict political speech and associational rights.
Sees a ban on corporate spending as a direct threat to free expression and business interests.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Constitutional amendments changing speech rules rarely secure necessary supermajorities and statewide ratification; subject is polarizing despite narrow text.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize democracy and limiting corporate influence.
Constitutional amendments changing speech rules rarely secure necessary supermajorities and statewide ratification; subject is polarizing d…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, concise constitutional amendment that primarily functions to authorize Congress and the States to regulate and limit campaign contributions and spending a…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.