Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.

Bill Number: H.J.Res. 54
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Civil Rights and Liberties, Minority Issues
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-02-12: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Last Updated: 2026-06-30T08:07:14Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

This joint resolution (H.J. Res. 54) proposes a constitutional amendment to clarify that the rights and protections in the U.S. Constitution apply only to natural persons (human individuals), not to artificial entities like corporations. It aims to limit the influence of money in politics by allowing governments to regulate campaign contributions and spending more freely, ensuring broader access to the political process for all citizens regardless of wealth.

Key Provisions

Section 1: Establishes that constitutional rights and privileges belong exclusively to natural persons. Artificial entities (e.g., corporations, limited liability companies, or similar organizations created by law) have no constitutional rights. These entities can be regulated by federal, state, or local laws enacted by the people, and any privileges they receive are determined solely by those laws, not as inherent or unchangeable rights.
Section 2: Authorizes federal, state, and local governments to regulate, limit, or ban contributions and expenditures in elections—including those from candidates themselves—to promote equal access to politics for all citizens, preventing wealth from providing undue influence over elections or ballot measures. All allowed contributions and spending must be publicly disclosed. Courts cannot treat money spent to influence elections as protected "speech" under the First Amendment (which protects freedom of expression).
Section 3: Explicitly states that the amendment does not limit the constitutional right to freedom of the press.

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

Significant Changes to Existing Law

Overturns precedents like Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which equated corporate political spending with protected free speech, allowing unlimited independent expenditures by corporations and unions.
Shifts authority from judicial interpretations (which have extended some constitutional protections to non-human entities) to legislative bodies, empowering lawmakers to define and limit the political activities of corporations without First Amendment challenges.
Introduces mandatory public disclosure for political spending and decouples election-related spending from free speech protections, enabling stricter campaign finance rules than currently allowed under Supreme Court rulings.

Potential Impacts

On Citizens: Could reduce the dominance of wealthy individuals or groups in elections, promoting fairer participation and influence for average voters by curbing big-money donations and ads.
On Government Agencies: Federal, state, and local election bodies (e.g., Federal Election Commission) would gain broader authority to enforce campaign finance regulations, potentially simplifying oversight and reducing legal challenges to new laws.
On Corporations and Businesses: Limits their ability to claim constitutional protections for political activities, making them more accountable to regulations on lobbying, donations, and election spending.
On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though foreign-based entities (e.g., multinational corporations) would lose any claimed U.S. constitutional rights, potentially affecting how international businesses engage in U.S. politics.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Natural Persons (Citizens and Voters): Gain stronger protections against unequal political influence from wealth.
Artificial Entities (Corporations, LLCs, Unions, Non-Profits): Lose constitutional rights, facing increased regulation of their political involvement.
Political Candidates and Campaigns: Face new limits on self-funding and external spending, with requirements for transparency.
Government Entities: Legislatures and regulators at all levels benefit from expanded rulemaking power; the judiciary sees reduced role in campaign finance disputes.
Media and Press Organizations: Protected from the amendment's scope, maintaining their First Amendment freedoms.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal: Resolves ambiguities in corporate personhood (the idea that businesses can claim some human-like rights), allowing laws like contribution caps or spending bans to withstand court scrutiny without relying on free speech defenses.
Constitutional: Reinforces the original intent of the Constitution as protecting individual humans, potentially narrowing the scope of "person" in legal contexts (e.g., under the 14th Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses) while preserving press freedoms to avoid chilling journalism.
Political: Could reshape elections by diminishing the role of super PACs (political action committees) and dark money, fostering more grassroots campaigns but sparking debates over free speech and economic liberty; ratification would require broad bipartisan or supermajority support across states, a high bar historically met only 27 times.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7]

Cosponsors (77)

Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-7], Rep. Williams, Nikema [D-GA-5], Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20], Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-12], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Doggett, Lloyd [D-TX-37], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3], Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9], Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large], Rep. Magaziner, Seth [D-RI-2], Rep. Velázquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7], Rep. Moulton, Seth [D-MA-6], Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20], Rep. Khanna, Ro [D-CA-17], Rep. McCollum, Betty [D-MN-4], Rep. Brown, Shontel M. [D-OH-11], Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50], Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14], Rep. Salinas, Andrea [D-OR-6], Rep. DeLauro, Rosa L. [D-CT-3], Rep. Carbajal, Salud O. [D-CA-24], Rep. Chu, Judy [D-CA-28], Rep. Vargas, Juan [D-CA-52], Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10], Rep. Adams, Alma S. [D-NC-12], Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12], Rep. García, Jesús G. "Chuy" [D-IL-4], Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3], Rep. Sykes, Emilia Strong [D-OH-13], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2], Rep. Davis, Danny K. [D-IL-7], Rep. Mullin, Kevin [D-CA-15], Rep. Pressley, Ayanna [D-MA-7], Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5], Rep. Deluzio, Christopher R. [D-PA-17], Rep. Lynch, Stephen F. [D-MA-8], Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35], Rep. Huffman, Jared [D-CA-2], Rep. DelBene, Suzan K. [D-WA-1], Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6], Rep. Balint, Becca [D-VT-At Large], Rep. Neguse, Joe [D-CO-2], Rep. DeSaulnier, Mark [D-CA-10], Rep. Thompson, Mike [D-CA-4], Rep. Craig, Angie [D-MN-2], Rep. McBride, Sarah [D-DE-At Large], Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1] and 27 more

Recent Actions

2025-02-12: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2025-02-12: Introduced in House
2025-02-12: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only. — issued 2025-02-12 — PDF (3 pages)