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 would propose a constitutional amendment giving Congress and state legislatures the authority to set reasonable limits on money raised and spent to influence elections. It would also allow Congress and the states to treat corporations and other legally created entities differently from individual people — including banning such entities from spending money to influence elections. The amendment would need to be ratified by three-fourths of states (38 of 50) to take effect.
Who benefits
Candidates with less access to large donors who may compete more effectively under spending limits. Small-dollar donors whose contributions would carry relatively more weight. Voters and advocacy groups who argue that concentrated money distorts electoral outcomes. State legislatures that would gain new authority to regulate campaign finance within their borders. Incumbents in some cases, as spending limits can entrench existing name recognition advantages.
Who is hurt
Corporations, trade associations, labor unions, and other organized entities that currently spend money on elections under First Amendment protections established in Citizens United v. FEC (2010). Wealthy individual donors who use large contributions as a form of political speech. Political action committees (PACs) and super PACs that aggregate and spend large sums. Media organizations and advocacy nonprofits that run election-related advertising. Candidates who rely on high-dollar fundraising to compete against well-known opponents.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited corporate and outside spending in elections, and that the resulting surge in "dark money" — spending by groups that do not disclose donors — has made it harder for ordinary voters to know who is funding political messages. They contend that a constitutional amendment is the only durable remedy because the Court has repeatedly struck down statutory limits as violations of the First Amendment, and that allowing Congress and states to set reasonable limits would restore the ability of elected representatives to set the rules of democratic competition.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that spending money to communicate political views is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and that giving Congress and states broad power to limit such spending creates serious risks of incumbent politicians writing rules that suppress political opposition or disfavor certain viewpoints. They contend that the amendment's language — authorizing limits on spending "intended to affect elections" — is broad enough to restrict political speech by individuals, nonprofits, and the press, and that the cure of amending the Bill of Rights is more dangerous than the problem it seeks to solve.
Constitutional context
This amendment directly targets the First Amendment free speech doctrine established in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which equated campaign spending with protected speech, and Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which extended that protection to corporations. Because it is a proposed constitutional amendment rather than ordinary legislation, it would supersede those rulings if ratified — the Commerce Clause and agency-authority cases in the provided context are not directly implicated. The Tenth Amendment is tangentially relevant, as the amendment would affirmatively expand state authority to regulate elections.
Checks and balances
Congress and state legislatures would gain new authority to limit campaign spending; the primary check is the ratification process itself (requiring two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of states), and courts would retain authority to interpret the scope of "reasonable limits" and any implementing legislation.
Historical precedent
Multiple similar constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since Citizens United (2010), including the Democracy for All Amendment in prior sessions, but none has advanced past committee or achieved the two-thirds vote required for referral to the states.