Proposed Constitutional Amendment Seeks to Cap Campaign Spending and Empower Public Financing

This joint resolution is a heavy hitter: it proposes a new constitutional amendment designed to fundamentally change how political campaigns are funded. If ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures within seven years, this amendment would grant Congress and state governments clear authority to set “reasonable limits” on both contributions to, and expenditures by, campaigns and outside groups trying to sway elections. The core idea here is to give lawmakers the power to rein in the flow of big money in politics, something that has been notoriously difficult under current Supreme Court interpretations.

The Power to Cap Spending

The biggest takeaway for anyone tired of endless political ads is that this amendment allows for spending caps. For years, the courts have treated political spending as a form of protected speech, making it nearly impossible for governments to limit how much outside groups—often called Super PACs—can spend. This resolution flips that script. It explicitly grants Congress and the states the authority to set limits, provided those limits are “viewpoint-neutral,” meaning they can’t favor one political party or ideology over another. If you’re a busy voter, this potentially means fewer, shorter campaigns and less reliance on deep-pocketed donors, shifting the focus back to candidates and their ideas rather than their fundraising prowess.

Public Financing Gets a Green Light

Beyond setting limits, the resolution also explicitly authorizes the creation of public campaign financing systems. Think of this like a matching grant program for political candidates. Currently, many states and cities struggle to implement these systems effectively because they often run into legal challenges related to free speech. By making public financing an explicit constitutional power, the resolution clears the path for systems that use public funds to match small-dollar donations or offset large expenditures by opponents. For a working person who can only afford to donate $25, this system could make that small contribution carry significantly more weight, reducing a candidate’s need to court high-dollar donors at fancy dinners.

Corporations vs. People: A New Distinction

One of the most significant changes proposed is the power to differentiate between “natural persons” (actual people like you and me) and “legal entities” (like corporations, unions, or certain non-profits). This is a direct response to court rulings that treated corporate spending like individual speech. Under this proposed amendment, Congress and the states could pass laws that completely prohibit corporations or other artificial entities from spending money to influence elections. If implemented, this would dramatically reshape the political landscape, potentially silencing the massive independent spending campaigns funded by corporate interests. However, it’s worth noting the potential challenge here: organizations that rely on independent expenditures for advocacy would see their ability to operate severely curtailed, which raises questions about the scope of their associational rights.

The Freedom of the Press Safeguard

Crucially, the resolution includes a specific safeguard: none of these new regulatory powers can be used to restrict the freedom of the press. This is a necessary clarification to ensure that while campaign spending can be regulated, the ability of news organizations to report, editorialize, and publish information about candidates and issues remains untouched. This provision aims to protect legitimate journalism from being swept up in regulations designed to curb political spending.