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.
- Bill Number
- S.J.Res. 78
- Origin Chamber
- Senate
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Government Operations and Politics
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-09-17: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-04-08T20:03:03Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
This joint resolution (S.J. Res. 78) proposes a constitutional amendment to grant Congress and the states explicit authority to regulate money in elections. The goal is to limit the influence of private wealth in political campaigns by allowing rules on contributions and spending, as well as public funding systems for elections.
Key Provisions
The proposed amendment includes four sections:
- Section 1: Allows Congress and states to set reasonable, neutral limits (not favoring any viewpoint) on how candidates and others raise and spend money to influence elections.
- Section 2: Permits Congress and states to create public financing systems for campaigns. These could counter private money by providing more public funds to candidates, reducing the role of wealthy donors.
- Section 3: Gives Congress and states power to enforce the amendment through laws. It also allows them to treat natural persons (individuals) differently from corporations or other legal entities (like companies or unions), including banning such entities from spending money on elections.
- Section 4: Protects freedom of the press by clarifying that the amendment does not allow restrictions on journalistic activities.
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 campaign spending as protected free speech under the First Amendment and limited government regulation of corporate and union spending in elections.
- It introduces a clear constitutional basis for distinguishing between individuals and corporations in election finance, overriding current interpretations that equate corporate spending with personal free speech.
- Previously, federal and state laws on campaign finance (like contribution limits) have faced legal challenges; this amendment would strengthen their foundation by embedding regulatory power directly in the Constitution.
Potential Impacts
- On government agencies: The Federal Election Commission (FEC) and state election bodies could gain broader authority to enforce new rules, potentially leading to more uniform national standards while allowing state-level variations.
- On citizens: Voters might see fairer elections with less dominance by big donors, but individuals could face new limits on personal contributions or spending to support candidates.
- On candidates and campaigns: Public financing could level the playing field for less wealthy candidates, reducing reliance on private fundraising and making campaigns more accessible.
- On international relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could indirectly affect how foreign entities (via U.S. corporations) influence U.S. elections, aligning with existing bans on foreign spending.
- Overall, it could reduce money's role in politics, promoting broader participation but possibly increasing taxpayer costs for public funding.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Congress and state governments: Gain expanded powers to regulate elections and implement public financing.
- Candidates and political parties: Benefit from potential public funds but face stricter limits on private money.
- Corporations, unions, and other organizations: Could be prohibited from direct election spending, limiting their political influence.
- Individual donors and voters: Donors might have capped contributions; voters could experience more equitable campaigns.
- Media outlets: Protected from regulation, ensuring they can report on elections without interference.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Shifts the balance of First Amendment interpretations by prioritizing regulation of election money over unrestricted spending, potentially leading to new laws and court challenges during ratification or implementation.
- Constitutional: As an amendment, it would fundamentally alter the document's framework on free speech and elections, requiring supermajority approval in Congress (two-thirds) and states (three-fourths), a high bar that tests political consensus.
- Political: Could spark debates on democracy versus free expression, with supporters viewing it as a fix for corruption and opponents seeing it as government overreach. If ratified, it might reshape campaign strategies, favoring policy-focused races over fundraising battles.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (12)
Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH], Sen. King, Angus S., Jr. [I-ME], Sen. Welch, Peter [D-VT], Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI], Sen. Kim, Andy [D-NJ], Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ], Sen. Padilla, Alex [D-CA], Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT], Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI], Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN], Sen. Kelly, Mark [D-AZ], Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]
Recent Actions
- 2025-09-17: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-09-17: Introduced in Senate
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 (2 pages)