Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes a change to the U.S. Constitution that would say constitutional rights belong only to natural persons, not corporations or other artificial entities. It would let federal, state, and local governments regulate, limit, or prohibit political contributions and expenditures (including a candidate's own money), require public disclosure of permitted spending, and direct courts not to treat spending money to influence elections as First Amendment speech. The amendment also says the freedom of the press is preserved. If ratified by the states, the amendment would become part of the Constitution and change how courts and lawmakers can treat artificial entities and political spending.
A constitutional amendment must be approved by both chambers of Congress under higher-than-normal voting rules and is then sent to the states for ratification; it does not go to the President. It becomes part of the Constitution only if three-fourths of the states approve it.
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment declaring that constitutional rights and privileges apply only to natural persons, not to artificial entities such as corporations or LLCs.
It allows federal, state, and local governments to regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures in elections (including candidates’ own spending), requires public disclosure of permissible contributions and expenditures, and directs that spending money to influence elections not be treated as First Amendment speech.
The amendment preserves the constitutional freedom of the press.
A sweeping, high-conflict constitutional amendment with broad legal consequences and no built-in compromise is historically unlikely to achieve the required supermajorities and state ratification.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly articulates a broad constitutional change and provides high-level directives to governments and the judiciary, but it leaves substantial implementation, transitional, and enforcement details unspecified.
Whether corporate personhood should be eliminated entirely
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Whether corporate personhood should be eliminated entirely
Likely broadly supportive: the amendment removes corporate constitutional protections and enables stronger campaign finance limits and disclosure.
Supporters see it as restoring democratic control and reducing corporate influence in politics.
Mixed view: favors reducing undue political influence and increasing transparency, but worries about legal uncertainty and economic ramifications for business law.
Would seek narrowly tailored language and procedural safeguards.
Likely opposed: views the amendment as expansive government authority that undermines free speech, property rights, and predictable business law.
Sees it as a significant disruption to markets and civic institutions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
A sweeping, high-conflict constitutional amendment with broad legal consequences and no built-in compromise is historically unlikely to achieve the required supermajorities and state ratification.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Whether corporate personhood should be eliminated entirely
A sweeping, high-conflict constitutional amendment with broad legal consequences and no built-in compromise is historically unlikely to ach…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly articulates a broad constitutional change and provides high-level directives to governments and the judiciary, but it leaves substantial implementation, trans…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.