Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to set limits on Federal campaign contributions and spending, prohibit corporate spending in the political process, require Congress to develop a system of public campaign financing for all Federal candidates who qualify for the ballot, and allow the States to set reasonable limits on campaign contributions and spending in State and local elections, and for other purposes.
- Sponsor
- Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 10, 2025
Bottom line
This proposed constitutional amendment aims to drastically reduce the influence of private money in federal elections by imposing strict limits on individual contributions, prohibiting corporate spending, and establishing a public financing system, while also affirming state power over local election finance.
What it actually does
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to fundamentally reshape campaign finance in the United States. It would establish strict, low limits on individual campaign contributions and spending for federal elections, completely ban all corporate and other legal entity spending in federal elections, and mandate Congress to create a system of public campaign financing for all qualified federal candidates. Additionally, it explicitly grants states the authority to set reasonable limits on campaign contributions and spending in state and local elections.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this amendment would restore democratic self-government and political equality by significantly reducing the influence of wealthy donors and corporations, thereby protecting the integrity of government and the electoral process. They contend it would empower ordinary citizens, make elected officials more responsive to their constituents, and level the playing field for candidates who lack access to large private funding, ensuring that the best ideas, not the biggest wallets, win elections.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that these provisions infringe upon First Amendment rights, particularly freedom of speech, by equating money with speech and imposing unconstitutional restrictions on political expression. They might also contend that public financing systems are inefficient, can lead to unintended consequences, and that the proposed individual limits are unrealistically low, making it difficult for candidates to effectively communicate with voters and for citizens to support causes they believe in.
The bill text is very short and straightforward, allowing for a quick understanding of its core proposals and the significant constitutional changes it seeks to enact.
Section 1
Establishing the Right to Vote in Elections with Campaign Finance Limits
This section declares that citizens have a fundamental right to vote in elections where campaign contributions and spending are subject to enforceable limits. It frames the regulation of money in politics as essential for advancing democratic self-government, promoting political equality, and safeguarding the integrity of both government institutions and the electoral process itself. This provision sets the foundational principle for the subsequent restrictions.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision establishes a foundational principle that money in politics can and should be regulated to ensure fair and equitable elections, directly countering the notion that unlimited spending is an absolute protected form of speech. They believe it prioritizes the collective right to a functional democracy over individual financial expression.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that this provision implicitly undermines existing interpretations of the First Amendment regarding political speech and spending, potentially paving the way for broad restrictions on expression that could be seen as infringing on individual liberties.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between the constitutional right to free speech (often interpreted to include political spending) and the goal of achieving political equality and preventing undue influence in elections.
Section 2
Imposing Strict Individual Federal Campaign Finance Limits
This section sets specific and very low limits on individual financial involvement in federal elections. An individual cannot contribute more than one hundred dollars ($100) per year to influence any other person's federal election. Furthermore, an individual's aggregate spending for influencing federal elections (including their own) or contributions to candidates/parties cannot exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) per year. Congress is granted the power to prescribe lower limits and periodically increase these amounts only to account for changes in the value of money.
Section 3
Banning Corporate and Entity Spending in Federal Elections
This section explicitly prohibits corporations and any other entity created by law from contributing or spending any amount of money for the purpose of influencing any federal election for Representative, Senator, President, or Vice President. It makes a specific exception, allowing political parties or candidate campaigns themselves to spend amounts prescribed by law, but not for other entities to spend on their behalf or independently.
Section 4
Mandating Congressional Action on Campaign Finance Reform
This section imposes a strict mandate on Congress, requiring it to enact specific legislation within 60 days of the amendment's ratification. This legislation must establish spending limits for federal candidates and political parties, create a system of public funding for all qualified federal candidates (equaling at least 80% of the allowed spending), require any unspent campaign funds to be returned to the Treasury without compensation, and establish civil and criminal penalties for violations of the amendment's limits and prohibitions.
Section 5
Withholding Congressional Compensation for Failure to Enact Campaign Finance Legislation
This section stipulates that if Congress fails to enact the required implementing legislation within one year of the amendment's ratification, no Senator or Representative shall receive any compensation or other emoluments from the United States for any period of time they remain in office until the legislation is in effect. This serves as a direct financial penalty and strong incentive for legislative compliance.
Section 7
Granting States Power to Regulate State and Local Campaign Finance
This section explicitly grants states the power to implement and enforce reasonable regulations on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence state or local elections. This includes the ability for states to set limits and prohibitions that are similar to, but not necessarily identical to, those established for federal elections in this article, allowing for state-specific approaches to campaign finance.
This section explicitly states that the proposed constitutional amendment shall not be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.
Section 8
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to include saving clauses or clarifications at the end of a legal text to address potential misinterpretations or conflicts with other constitutional principles, ensuring that the new amendment does not inadvertently undermine existing rights.
Case for: Supporters would argue this clause is vital to protect journalistic integrity and the role of the press in a democracy, ensuring that campaign finance regulations do not inadvertently stifle legitimate news reporting or political commentary on elections and candidates.
Case against: Critics might argue that while seemingly innocuous, the explicit mention of 'freedom of the press' without similar explicit protections for other forms of speech could imply a hierarchy of First Amendment rights, or that the other provisions *do* abridge other forms of speech, necessitating this specific carve-out.
Estimated impact: Ensures that media organizations' ability to report on and comment on elections, which is crucial for an informed electorate, is not directly curtailed by the new campaign finance regime.