A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections.
- Sponsor
- Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 27, 2025
Bottom line
This resolution seeks to fundamentally alter the legal framework governing campaign finance by overturning Supreme Court precedents that equate money with speech and grant corporations free speech rights in elections.
What it actually does
The joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment to explicitly grant Congress and the States the power to regulate and limit money in elections. It would allow for distinctions between natural persons and corporations regarding election spending, potentially prohibiting corporate spending, while explicitly protecting freedom of the press.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this amendment is necessary to restore democratic self-government and political equality by reducing the influence of large contributions and expenditures in elections. They contend it would protect the integrity of government and the electoral process from undue corporate and wealthy donor influence, allowing for reasonable limits on spending.
Opponents contend
Opponents argue that this amendment would infringe upon fundamental free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, asserting that spending money to advocate for political causes is a form of protected speech. They contend that allowing Congress and states to regulate and potentially prohibit corporate spending could stifle political discourse and empower incumbents.
The bill text itself is extremely short and easy to read, but its implications are profound and require significant background knowledge to fully grasp.
Article--, Section 1
Congressional and State Authority to Regulate Election Spending
This section proposes to amend the Constitution to explicitly empower both the U.S. Congress and individual States to pass laws that regulate and set "reasonable limits" on how much money candidates and other entities can raise and spend to influence elections. The stated goals are 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 rebalancing political power, allowing elected bodies to address what they see as the corrupting influence of money in politics. They believe it would enable policies that foster greater citizen participation and ensure elections are decided by voters, not by the size of campaign war chests.
Critics contend
Opponents contend that this provision would grant excessive power to government to restrict political speech, arguing that spending money to advocate for a candidate or cause is a protected First Amendment activity. They fear it could lead to censorship or disproportionately harm challengers who rely on independent expenditures to compete with incumbents.
Tradeoffs
This provision directly addresses the tension between the desire to limit the influence of money in politics to promote political equality and the protection of free speech rights, particularly as interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases like Citizens United v. FEC.
Article--, Section 2
Differentiating Between Individuals and Corporations in Election Spending
This section grants Congress and the States the explicit authority to differentiate between natural persons (individuals) and corporations or other artificial entities (like unions or non-profits) when regulating election spending. Crucially, it allows for the prohibition of such entities from spending money to influence elections, directly addressing the legal premise of Citizens United.
Article--, Section 3
Safeguarding Freedom of the Press
This section explicitly states that nothing in the proposed amendment should be interpreted to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press. This is intended to ensure that legitimate journalistic activities and reporting on elections are not inadvertently curtailed by new campaign finance regulations.