Proposed Constitutional Amendment Targets Campaign Spending, Allowing Bans on Corporate Political Cash

This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would fundamentally restructure how political campaigns are funded in the U.S. If passed by three-fourths of the states, this amendment grants Congress and state legislatures the explicit power to set "reasonable limits" on how much money candidates and outside groups can spend trying to influence elections. The goal is to protect the integrity of elections and ensure political equality.

The New Rules of the Political Money Game

Right now, campaign finance law is a complicated mess, largely governed by court decisions that treat money as speech. This amendment aims to change that by handing the power back to lawmakers. The key change is that Congress and the states would be authorized to treat regular people differently than "artificial entities"—think corporations, non-profits, or trade associations—when it comes to political spending. In fact, this power could be used to outright ban those entities from spending money to influence elections. For the average person, this means the money flowing into political races might look a lot different, potentially reducing the massive influence of corporate spending that often dominates election cycles and focuses on issues that matter most to big business, not necessarily the local economy or rising childcare costs.

What “Reasonable Limits” Really Means

The bill text uses the phrase "reasonable limits" when describing the spending caps Congress and states could impose. This is where the rubber meets the road, and it’s also where things get vague. While the intent is to level the playing field, the definition of "reasonable" is wide open. For example, a state legislature could decide that a limit of $10,000 for an outside group is reasonable, which might be enough for a few mailers but not enough for a major TV ad campaign. The upside is that lower spending ceilings could make it easier for local candidates without deep pockets to compete. The downside is that future politicians could use this broad authority to set limits so low that they effectively silence groups they disagree with, even if those groups represent legitimate public interests, like local environmental advocates or trade worker unions.

Who Wins and Who Loses?

If this amendment passes, the clearest beneficiaries are Congress and state legislatures, who gain a huge new chunk of constitutional authority. Candidates who rely on grassroots funding or who struggle to compete against Super PACs funded by corporations might also see a benefit. However, the groups that stand to lose the most are the "artificial entities"—corporations and associations—whose political spending could be severely restricted or eliminated entirely. This is a massive shift for groups like the Chamber of Commerce or major industry associations that rely on significant spending to advocate for policies that affect their bottom lines, like tax breaks or regulatory changes. Their ability to weigh in on issues that directly impact their employees and sectors would be significantly curtailed.

One crucial provision is the explicit protection for the press. The amendment states clearly that these new powers cannot be used to restrict the freedom of the press, including what newspapers or media outlets can publish. So, while the money flowing into political ads might be regulated, the ability of journalists to report on the issues and candidates remains protected—a necessary safeguard in any massive overhaul of political speech rules.