SJRES-43-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
What it does
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment that would explicitly authorize Congress and state governments to set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections. It would allow lawmakers to treat corporations and other artificial entities differently from natural persons, including barring such entities from spending money to influence elections, while stating the amendment does not authorize restrictions on freedom of the press. Like all constitutional amendments, it would require two-thirds approval in both the House and Senate and ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures to take effect.
Who benefits
Advocates for campaign finance regulation, including good-government and election-reform groups, who have sought a constitutional basis to reverse or limit Citizens United v. FEC after courts struck down spending caps as unconstitutional. Smaller donors and candidates who argue big-money spending currently drowns out their influence may also see this as beneficial if such limits are later enacted. Incumbent lawmakers and states seeking authority to restrict independent expenditures and corporate spending would gain new regulatory tools.
Who is hurt
Corporations, unions, trade associations, and advocacy groups that currently rely on independent expenditures and issue advocacy to influence elections would face potential new restrictions on their spending. Wealthy individual donors and Super PACs that fund large-scale campaign spending could see their activities curtailed. Civil liberties organizations that view unrestricted political spending as protected speech may also view this as diminishing constitutional protections they currently rely on.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that unlimited political spending, especially by corporations and wealthy donors, allows a small number of actors to dominate political discourse and drown out ordinary citizens' voices, undermining political equality. They contend that since Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and related rulings have made statutory limits nearly unenforceable, only a constitutional amendment can restore Congress's and states' ability to regulate election spending, pointing to reported billions spent by outside groups in recent election cycles as evidence of the problem.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that spending money to communicate political views is a core form of free speech protected by the First Amendment, and that allowing Congress and states to set spending limits risks entrenching incumbents who can use regulation to suppress challengers and dissenting voices. They contend the amendment's distinction between natural persons and corporations could also restrict nonprofit advocacy groups, unions, and media-adjacent organizations, and that despite the press exemption, the line between protected press activity and regulated political spending would be difficult to draw and could invite selective enforcement.
Constitutional context
This resolution would amend the First Amendment's free speech protections as interpreted in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which held that campaign spending limits implicate core political speech, and Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which held that corporate independent expenditures cannot be restricted based on corporate identity. It proceeds under Article V's amendment process rather than ordinary legislation, since existing precedent forecloses these restrictions under current constitutional text.
Checks and balances
If ratified, this amendment would expand the authority of both Congress and state legislatures to regulate election spending, with courts retaining a narrowed role limited to interpreting the amendment's own terms rather than applying current First Amendment doctrine to overturn such laws.
Historical precedent
Similar constitutional amendments to overturn Citizens United v. FEC have been introduced in nearly every Congress since 2010, none of which has achieved the required two-thirds congressional approval.