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.
- Bill Number
- H.J.Res. 122
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-09-17: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-26T08:07:59Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 122) proposes a constitutional amendment to empower Congress and state governments to regulate money in elections, including contributions, expenditures, and public financing systems for political campaigns. The goal is to address concerns about the influence of private wealth on elections by allowing reasonable restrictions while protecting free speech and press rights.
Key Provisions
- Section 1: Permits Congress and states to regulate and set fair, neutral limits (not favoring any viewpoint) on how candidates and others raise and spend money to influence elections.
- Section 2: Allows Congress and states to create public financing systems for campaigns, which could counter private money's influence by providing more public funds to balance spending by candidates or others.
- Section 3: Grants Congress and states authority to enforce the amendment through laws. It also allows distinguishing between individuals (natural persons) and corporations or other legal entities (artificial entities), including banning such entities from spending money to influence elections.
- Section 4: Ensures the amendment does not limit freedom of the press, protecting journalistic activities from regulation.
The amendment would become part of the Constitution if ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures within seven years of submission.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This would reverse or modify key Supreme Court rulings, such as Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which treated political spending as protected free speech under the First Amendment, limiting government regulation of corporate and union expenditures.
- It shifts power from broad First Amendment protections for unlimited campaign spending to allowing targeted, viewpoint-neutral regulations, potentially enabling stricter limits on "dark money" (anonymous donations) and super PACs (political action committees).
Potential Impacts
- Government Agencies: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) and state election bodies could gain tools to enforce new rules, reducing administrative burdens from complex loopholes but increasing oversight responsibilities.
- Citizens and Voters: Could lead to fairer elections by reducing the sway of wealthy donors, making campaigns more accessible to everyday candidates and potentially increasing voter trust in the political process.
- International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it might indirectly affect how U.S. elections are perceived abroad, possibly strengthening the country's democratic image by curbing perceptions of corruption tied to big money.
- Overall, it could decrease the role of private wealth in politics, promoting more publicly funded campaigns and altering how elections are financed.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Candidates and Political Parties: Benefit from public financing options but face new spending limits, leveling the playing field for challengers against incumbents or wealthy self-funders.
- Corporations and Wealthy Individuals: Face restrictions on political spending, including potential bans for corporations, limiting their ability to influence elections through donations or ads.
- Voters and Advocacy Groups: Gain from reduced money's influence, potentially leading to policies more reflective of public opinion rather than donor interests.
- Congress and State Governments: Empowered to enact reforms, but must navigate enforcement challenges and potential legal challenges during ratification.
- Media and Press Outlets: Protected explicitly, ensuring they can report on elections without interference.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Constitutional: As an amendment, it would embed these powers directly into the Constitution, overriding conflicting Supreme Court interpretations of the First Amendment (which protects free speech, including political expression). "Viewpoint-neutral" limits mean regulations must apply equally to all sides, avoiding bias claims.
- Legal: Provides a clear framework for new laws, reducing judicial blocks on campaign finance reforms, but could spark lawsuits over what counts as "reasonable" limits or "influencing elections."
- Political: Likely to fuel debate on money in politics, with supporters viewing it as essential for democracy and opponents seeing it as government overreach on speech. Ratification requires broad bipartisan or cross-state support, which has historically been challenging for similar proposals (e.g., past failed amendments on campaign finance). If passed, it could reshape electoral competition, emphasizing grassroots efforts over financial firepower.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (88)
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37], Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Brownley, Julia [D-CA-26], Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6], Rep. Keating, William R. [D-MA-9], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15], Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1], Rep. Kelly, Robin L. [D-IL-2], Rep. Evans, Dwight [D-PA-3], Rep. Fields, Cleo [D-LA-6], Rep. Brown, Shontel M. [D-OH-11], Rep. Ryan, Patrick [D-NY-18], Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Garamendi, John [D-CA-8], Rep. Amo, Gabe [D-RI-1], Rep. Boyle, Brendan F. [D-PA-2], Rep. Gomez, Jimmy [D-CA-34], Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3], Rep. Budzinski, Nikki [D-IL-13], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3], Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7], Rep. Olszewski, Johnny [D-MD-2], Rep. Goodlander, Maggie [D-NH-2], Rep. Fletcher, Lizzie [D-TX-7], Rep. Stansbury, Melanie A. [D-NM-1], Rep. Leger Fernandez, Teresa [D-NM-3], Rep. Balint, Becca [D-VT-At Large], Rep. Randall, Emily [D-WA-6], Rep. Mannion, John W. [D-NY-22], Rep. Larson, John B. [D-CT-1], Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8], Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2], Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12], Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-52], Rep. Lieu, Ted [D-CA-36], Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3] and 38 more
Recent Actions
- 2025-09-17: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-09-17: Introduced in House
- 2025-09-17: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- 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. — issued 2025-09-17 — PDF (3 pages)