Proposed Constitutional Amendment Gives Congress Power to Limit Campaign Spending and Cut Off Corporate Money

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would fundamentally change how political campaigns are funded in the U.S. If ratified by three-fourths of the states, this amendment would grant Congress and state legislatures the authority to set “reasonable limits” on how much money can be spent to influence elections. Crucially, it also allows for the creation of public financing systems to offset private donations, and gives lawmakers the power to distinguish between spending by natural persons (you and me) and spending by corporations or other legal entities.

The Checkbook Control Clause

Right now, thanks to decades of court rulings, pretty much anyone—individuals, corporations, PACs—can spend vast amounts of money on political speech, arguing it’s protected under the First Amendment. This resolution aims to overturn those precedents by explicitly granting Congress and the states the power to regulate contributions and expenditures. The idea is to reduce the overwhelming influence of big money. For the average person, this could mean that elections focus more on policy and less on who can afford the most expensive ad buys, potentially making your vote feel more impactful. The bill specifies that any limits must be “viewpoint-neutral,” meaning they can’t favor one party or political perspective over another.

Drawing the Line Between People and Paperwork

One of the most significant provisions is the power granted to lawmakers to “draw a line between natural persons and corporations or other legal entities.” This is the legislative equivalent of saying: You are not a person, and you don’t get to spend like one. This authority could allow Congress to completely bar corporations, unions, and other incorporated groups from spending money to influence elections. If you work for a company that currently funds political advocacy—whether it’s for better infrastructure or against environmental regulations—that funding stream could dry up overnight. While this is intended to curb corporate influence, it’s a massive restriction on the political speech of these entities, and it will undoubtedly face legal challenges over what constitutes a “legal entity” and where the line is drawn.

Public Financing and Press Protection

To balance out the restrictions, the resolution also authorizes Congress and the states to establish public financing systems for political campaigns. This means that public funds could be used to match or replace private donations, potentially leveling the playing field for candidates who don’t have access to wealthy donors. Think of it as a way to make sure a candidate who connects with a lot of regular voters can compete with a candidate backed by Wall Street money. Importantly, the resolution includes a clear carve-out: nothing in this amendment should be interpreted to grant power to infringe upon the “freedom of the press.” This is meant to protect traditional journalism outlets, but the legal definition of “the press” in the digital age is constantly debated, which could lead to complications for new media or advocacy journalism groups.

The Real-World Risk: Vague Authority

The biggest challenge here is the phrase “reasonable limits.” What’s reasonable to a state legislator trying to get re-elected might look like a massive restriction on free speech to a court. Because this language is vague, it leaves a lot of room for interpretation by future Congresses and the Supreme Court. While the goal is to reduce the power of money in politics, the risk is that poorly implemented limits could inadvertently silence smaller advocacy groups or make it harder for new voices to break through the noise. This power shift is massive, transferring authority over election spending from the courts (which currently interpret the First Amendment) directly to elected lawmakers—the very people who benefit from campaign spending rules.