Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to set limits on Federal campaign contributions and spending, prohibit corporate spending in the political process, require Congress to develop a system of public campaign financing for all Federal candidates who qualify for the ballot, and allow the States to set reasonable limits on campaign contributions and spending in State and local elections, and for other purposes.

Bill Number: H.J.Res. 119
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Government Operations and Politics
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-09-10: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Last Updated: 2025-09-15T18:18:19Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 119) proposes a constitutional amendment aimed at reforming campaign finance in the United States. Its primary goals are to promote democratic self-government and political equality by limiting the influence of money in federal elections, protecting the integrity of government and the voting process, and ensuring fair access to public funding for candidates.

Key Provisions

The proposed amendment includes the following main sections:

Section 1: Protects citizens' right to vote in elections where campaign contributions and spending are subject to enforceable limits, preventing the federal government from restricting this right.

Section 2: Sets strict contribution and spending limits for federal offices (Representative, Senator, President, Vice President):
No person can contribute or spend more than $100 in a calendar year to influence another person's election for these offices.
Aggregate limit of $1,000 per year for all contributions, spending on one's own election, or donations to candidates, campaigns, or political parties.
Congress can lower these limits or adjust them periodically for inflation (changes in money's value), but only as needed.

Section 3: Prohibits corporations and other legally created entities from contributing or spending any money to influence federal elections. However, political parties and candidates' campaigns can spend amounts set by law.

Section 4: Requires Congress to pass laws within 60 days of ratification:
Limiting spending by candidates, campaigns, and parties for federal offices.
Providing public funding (taxpayer-supported money) for all qualifying candidates in primary, general, or special elections, covering at least 80% of the allowed spending limit. For presidential and vice-presidential candidates, funding is apportioned based on states or the District of Columbia.
Requiring unspent campaign funds to be returned to the U.S. Treasury without reimbursement.
Enforcing limits and prohibitions with civil (non-criminal, like fines) and criminal penalties.

Section 5: After one year from ratification, members of Congress (Senators and Representatives) lose pay or other benefits if the required laws from Section 4 are not enacted.

Section 6: Allows U.S. courts to hear lawsuits from citizens to enforce the amendment's rules, including direct challenges under the amendment itself.

Section 7: Gives states authority to create and enforce reasonable rules on campaign money in state and local elections, which can include the federal limits and prohibitions.

Section 8: Clarifies that the amendment does not allow Congress or states to restrict freedom of the press (e.g., media outlets' ability to report or comment on elections).

The amendment becomes part of the Constitution if ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Overturns Key Supreme Court Precedents: This would fundamentally alter rulings like Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which treated corporate political spending as protected free speech under the First Amendment, by explicitly banning such spending via constitutional text.
Introduces Hard Caps and Public Funding: Unlike current federal laws (e.g., the Federal Election Campaign Act), which allow unlimited independent expenditures by individuals, corporations, and unions, this imposes strict dollar limits and mandates public financing, shifting reliance from private donors to government funds.
Empowers States and Courts: Expands state control over local elections and gives citizens direct access to federal courts for enforcement, bypassing some existing administrative processes through the Federal Election Commission.
No Inflation Adjustment Mandate: While Congress can adjust for inflation, it is not required, potentially leading to stricter limits over time compared to laws that automatically index for cost-of-living changes.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: The Federal Election Commission and Congress would need to implement new enforcement mechanisms, including public funding distribution, within tight deadlines. Failure could result in unpaid members of Congress, pressuring swift action. The Treasury would receive returned unspent funds, potentially increasing federal revenue slightly.

On Citizens: Voters gain stronger protections for "clean" elections, reducing money's influence and potentially increasing participation by making races more equal. However, taxpayers would fund public campaigns, which could raise costs (estimated in billions annually based on similar proposals). Citizens can sue directly to enforce rules, enhancing accountability.

On Candidates and Political Parties: Qualifying candidates receive public money, leveling the playing field for challengers without wealthy backers, but strict limits may disadvantage incumbents or well-connected candidates. Parties can spend within limits but lose corporate support.

On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though reduced foreign influence via corporate channels (if corporations have international ties) could indirectly strengthen U.S. election integrity perceptions abroad.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Citizens and Voters: Primary beneficiaries through protected voting rights and reduced corruption risks; also taxpayers funding public campaigns.
Political Candidates and Parties: Face spending caps but gain public funding access; incumbents may lose fundraising advantages.
Corporations and Businesses: Severely restricted, as they cannot spend or contribute to federal races, affecting their lobbying and advocacy strategies.
Congress and Federal Agencies: Must enact and enforce reforms quickly, with personal financial penalties for delays.
States and Local Governments: Gain flexibility to regulate their elections, potentially harmonizing with federal rules.
Media and Press: Unaffected in core operations but could see shifts in how elections are covered due to less money-driven ads.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Constitutional Implications: As an amendment, it would embed campaign finance limits directly into the Constitution, making them harder to overturn than statutes or Supreme Court decisions. It balances First Amendment free speech concerns (treating money in politics as distinct from pure speech) by protecting press freedom, but could face challenges on equal protection or voting rights grounds during ratification debates.

Legal Implications: Expands judicial oversight with citizen standing (right to sue) for enforcement, potentially leading to more litigation. Civil and criminal penalties strengthen deterrence but require clear definitions to avoid overreach.

Political Implications: Could reduce polarization by curbing big-money influence, fostering more issue-based campaigns. However, it might entrench two-party dominance if public funding favors established candidates, and ratification (needing 38 states) would be politically contentious, likely requiring broad bipartisan support amid debates over free speech and government spending.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2]

Recent Actions

2025-09-10: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2025-09-10: Introduced in House
2025-09-10: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to set limits on Federal campaign contributions and spending, prohibit corporate spending in the political process, require Congress to develop a system of public campaign financing for all Federal candidates who qualify for the ballot, and allow the States to set reasonable limits on campaign contributions and spending in State and local elections, and for other purposes. — issued 2025-09-10 — PDF (4 pages)