Constitutional Amendment Proposes $100 Cap on Individual Federal Election Spending, Bans All Corporate Money

This proposed Constitutional amendment is a massive, structural overhaul of how federal elections are funded in the U.S. Essentially, it aims to put the brakes on big money in politics by imposing extremely strict limits on who can spend what, and it forces Congress to set up a public funding system for federal races.

The New Math: $100 Max for You

If this passes, forget about big individual donations to presidential or congressional campaigns. The amendment sets a hard limit on what any individual can spend or contribute to influence a federal election. You could only spend or give a maximum of $100 to influence any single election (President, VP, Senator, or Representative). On top of that, your total annual spending or contributions across all federal races couldn't exceed $1,000. Think about that: For someone who currently donates a few hundred dollars to their favorite candidate or political action committee, this is a dramatic cut. It effectively levels the playing field for individual donors, making the big-money donor and the small-money donor almost functionally identical in terms of financial muscle. Congress could adjust these amounts later, but only for inflation.

Corporate Money: Gone Completely

This is perhaps the most straightforward and radical part of the amendment: It imposes a total ban on corporations or any other entity created by law from spending or contributing any money whatsoever to influence federal elections. This means no corporate PACs, no union spending, and no non-profit organizations created under specific legal structures could spend money to run ads, support candidates, or influence the outcome of a federal race. The only exceptions are the candidates’ own campaigns and political parties, provided they stick to the new spending limits. For anyone who believes corporate influence warps policy—from environmental regulations to tax codes—this provision is the ultimate reset button. It forces political parties and candidates to rely entirely on individual contributions and the new public funding system.

The Public Funding Mandate and the Congressional Salary Threat

Once ratified, the amendment doesn't just stop there; it forces Congress’s hand. Within 60 days, Congress must pass laws establishing a public campaign financing system. Crucially, this system must cover at least 80 percent of the total allowable spending for any candidate who qualifies for the ballot. This means that if you’re running for Congress and meet the qualification threshold, the government is footing the vast majority of your campaign costs. If Congress fails to pass this required legislation within one year of ratification, the penalty is severe and direct: Senators and Representatives would forfeit their salaries and other benefits for any time they serve while the law is missing. That’s a powerful incentive to get the new system up and running quickly, though it also risks rushing complex legislation.

Real-World Impact and Implementation Challenges

For the average person, this amendment means that the candidates they vote for would be funded almost entirely by public money and small individual contributions. The connection between big corporate donations and political access would theoretically vanish. For a small business owner, this means that their ability to influence policy would be the same as any other individual citizen—limited to a $100 contribution—but it also means they wouldn't have to worry about large corporations dominating the political landscape through massive spending. However, the immediate implementation is complex. The courts are given jurisdiction to hear lawsuits brought by U.S. citizens to enforce the amendment, suggesting that the definition of “influence” and “entity created by law” will be heavily litigated immediately after ratification. Furthermore, while the amendment preserves the freedom of the press, the total ban on corporate spending will force many existing political organizations to completely restructure how they operate or cease political spending altogether.