Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
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.
Whether corporate personhood should be eliminated entirely
Requires supermajority approval and addresses polarizing issues; sweeping change with little compromise language.
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.
How solid the drafting looks.
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…
Pro readers get the full perspective split, passage barriers, legislative design review, stakeholder impact map, and lens-based policy tradeoff analysis for Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United State…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.