This constitutional amendment grants Congress and the states the power to set reasonable limits on campaign spending by individuals and entities to ensure fair elections, while explicitly protecting freedom of the press.
Mary Scanlon
Representative
PA-5
This proposed constitutional amendment grants Congress and the states the authority to establish reasonable limits on campaign spending by candidates and outside groups to ensure fair elections. It allows for different spending regulations for individuals versus corporations or other entities. Crucially, this new power cannot be used to restrict the freedom of the press.
Proposed Constitutional Amendment Would Allow Congress to Set 'Reasonable Limits' on Election Spending
This Joint Resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would fundamentally change the rules around political spending. If ratified, it would grant both Congress and state legislatures the power to set “reasonable limits” on how much money can be spent to influence elections, whether by candidates, political parties, or outside advocacy groups. The stated goal is to advance political equality and protect the integrity of the election process.
The New Rules of the Game: Who Can Spend What?
Right now, thanks to decades of court rulings, spending money in politics is largely treated as a form of protected free speech, making it incredibly difficult to cap or limit. This amendment attempts to carve out a new constitutional path for regulation. The most significant part for everyday people is the clear distinction it allows regulators to make: they can treat you—a natural person—differently than they treat corporations, LLCs, and other legal entities. This means Congress could potentially ban corporations from spending money entirely on elections while setting different, less restrictive rules for individuals.
Why This Matters for Your Wallet and Your Vote
If you’re tired of seeing endless, often misleading, attack ads funded by groups with opaque names, this bill aims to address that. The potential benefit is a more level playing field. For the average working person, whose voice is often drowned out by millions in independent expenditures, this could mean candidates spend less time courting massive donors and more time focusing on broad public issues. Think of a local school board race or a state legislative contest: if the money faucet is restricted, those elections might become less about who has the richest friends and more about who has the best ideas.
However, the devil is always in the details, and the term “reasonable limits” is vague enough to drive a truck through. While the intent is good, giving government the power to define what is “reasonable” in political speech could lead to overreach. What if a limit is set so low that a local union or a small advocacy group can’t afford to run an effective campaign against a bad local law? This is the core trade-off: trading the risk of unlimited money influencing elections for the risk of government over-regulating speech.
Explicit Protection for the Press
One provision that stands out is the explicit protection for the media. The amendment states that nothing in it can be used by Congress or the states to restrict the freedom of the press. This is a crucial safeguard. It means that while the government could limit how much money a corporation spends on a political ad, they couldn't use this new power to tell a newspaper or a news website what it can or cannot publish or report on. This ensures that the ability of journalists to inform the public remains separate from the regulation of campaign finance.