Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
This resolution proposes a change to the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress and the states to set reasonable limits on money raised and spent to influence elections and to let them distinguish between natural persons and corporations, including prohibiting corporate election spending. If the proposal is approved by the required supermajorities in Congress and then ratified by the required number of state legislatures, it would become part of the Constitution and give lawmakers authority to write and enforce implementing laws. The amendment text also says it must not be read to grant power to abridge the freedom of the press.
A constitutional amendment proposal must be approved by the required two-thirds supermajorities in both chambers of Congress and then ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures; it is not sent to the President for signature.
This proposed constitutional amendment would allow Congress and the States to regulate and set reasonable limits on money raised and spent to influence elections.
It explicitly permits distinguishing between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities, including prohibiting such entities from spending to influence elections.
The amendment authorizes implementing legislation and enforcement, while stating it does not grant power to abridge freedom of the press.
Sweeping, high-salience constitutional change on a divisive issue; historical rarity of amendments and expected organized opposition make passage unlikely.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise constitutional amendment that clearly states its purposive goals and grants broad regulatory authority to legislatures while leaving detailed implementation to future statutes.
Liberals emphasize reducing corporate money; conservatives emphasize speech risks.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals emphasize reducing corporate money; conservatives emphasize speech risks.
Likely strongly supportive as a tool to reduce corporate influence and advance political equality.
Sees the amendment as restoring government power to limit money in politics and protect democratic self-government.
Generally favorable to reducing perceived corruption and allowing reasonable limits, but cautious about vague terms.
Wants clear definitions, predictable enforcement, and safeguards for legitimate issue advocacy.
Likely opposed, viewing the amendment as a broad new federal power to restrict political speech and associational rights.
Concerned it enables government to silence corporations and other entities engaged in political expression.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Sweeping, high-salience constitutional change on a divisive issue; historical rarity of amendments and expected organized opposition make passage unlikely.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals emphasize reducing corporate money; conservatives emphasize speech risks.
Sweeping, high-salience constitutional change on a divisive issue; historical rarity of amendments and expected organized opposition make p…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise constitutional amendment that clearly states its purposive goals and grants broad regulatory authority to legislatures while leaving detailed implementat…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.