Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 11, 2025
Bottom line
The proposed amendment seeks to empower federal and state governments to enact comprehensive campaign finance reforms, potentially overturning Supreme Court precedents that equate money spent in elections with protected free speech.
What it actually does
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would grant Congress and the States the power to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money to influence elections. It explicitly allows for distinguishing between natural persons and artificial entities, potentially prohibiting such entities from spending money in elections, while safeguarding the freedom of the press.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this amendment is essential to restore democratic self-government and political equality by reducing the outsized influence of wealthy donors and corporate money in elections. They contend it would protect the integrity of government and the electoral process, ensuring that the voices of ordinary citizens are not drowned out by large expenditures.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the amendment would infringe upon fundamental First Amendment rights, particularly the freedom of speech and association, by allowing the government to restrict political expression. They argue that limiting campaign spending, especially by organizations, is a form of censorship that could stifle robust public debate and limit the ability of groups to advocate for their views.
The bill text is extremely short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core proposal.
Section 1
Authority to Regulate Money in Elections
This section grants Congress and the States the explicit power to regulate and establish reasonable limits on how money is raised and spent by candidates and other entities to influence elections. The stated purpose is to advance democratic self-government, political equality, and protect the integrity of government and the electoral process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for reining in the influence of money in politics, which they believe distorts democratic outcomes and undermines public trust. They contend that 'reasonable limits' are necessary to ensure political equality and prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption.
Critics contend
Critics argue that granting such broad power to regulate political spending could lead to restrictions on free speech, as money is often used to amplify political messages. They contend that 'reasonable limits' are subjective and could be used to silence dissenting voices or disadvantage certain candidates or causes.
Tradeoffs
This provision navigates the tension between the First Amendment's protection of free speech and the desire to ensure fair and equitable elections. It seeks to balance individual rights to political expression with the collective interest in a democratic process free from undue financial influence.
Section 2
Differentiating Natural Persons from Artificial Entities
This section clarifies that Congress and the States have the power to implement and enforce the amendment, and specifically allows them to distinguish between natural persons (individuals) and corporations or other artificial entities created by law. This distinction could include prohibiting such artificial entities from spending money to influence elections.
Section 3
Protection of Freedom of the Press
This section explicitly states that nothing in the proposed article shall be interpreted to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press. This is intended as a safeguard to ensure that any regulations on election spending do not inadvertently or intentionally restrict the ability of news organizations to report on or comment on elections.