A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the authority of Congress and the States to regulate contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections and to enact public financing systems for political campaigns.
Key claim: This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment giving Congress and the states authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures and to enact public campaign financing systems, including by treating corporations differently from natural persons.
Abstract
(SJRES78 · 119th Congress) This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment authorizing Congress and the states to (1) regulate and impose reasonable viewpoint-neutral limitations on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections; and (2) regulate and enact public campaign financing systems, including those designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by offsetting the raising and spending of money by candidates and others with increased public funding. The amendment grants Congress and the states the power to implement and enforce this amendment by legislation. They are allowed to distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other artificial entities created by law, including by prohibiting such entities from spending money to influence elections. Latest action (2025-09-17): Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Why this matters
A constitutional amendment authorizing Congress and the states to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures — and to treat corporations differently from natural persons — would restructure the legal foundation on which current campaign-finance doctrine (Buckley, Citizens United, and most recently NRSC v. FEC) rests. For voters and civic groups, it would practically enable spending limits and public-financing regimes that courts have struck down or narrowed. Its status as an introduced joint resolution means it faces the high bar of two-thirds congressional passage and ratification by three-fourths of the states, and its scope (viewpoint-neutral limits, corporate/natural-person distinction) remains contested on free-speech grounds.