What This Bill Does
H.J. Res. 191 proposes a constitutional amendment that would give Congress and the states explicit authority to regulate and limit campaign contributions and spending in elections for public office, as well as in state and local ballot initiatives and referendums. It would also allow lawmakers to distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities, and to prohibit artificial entities from raising and spending money in those campaigns. If ratified by three-fourths of the states within seven years, the amendment would become part of the Constitution.
- Would amend the Constitution, not just pass an ordinary law.
- Would let Congress and states regulate and limit campaign contributions and spending.
- Applies to elections for public office and to state or local ballot initiatives and referendums.
- Allows lawmakers to distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities.
- Sets a seven-year deadline for ratification by three-fourths of the states.
Who This Bill Affects
For the general public, this proposal could change who is allowed to spend money in elections and how much they can spend, including in state and local ballot initiatives and referendums. If adopted, it could make it easier for governments to limit campaign spending by corporations, unions, and other artificial entities, while also affecting donors, candidates, advocacy groups, and election lawyers who operate under current campaign-finance rules.
See how this bill affects you — sign in for a personalized analysisWho Supports & Opposes This
- Campaign-finance reform advocates They would argue the amendment gives voters and lawmakers clearer authority to limit large-money influence in elections. In their view, this can reduce corruption or the appearance of corruption and make political competition more equal.
- State lawmakers seeking more control over elections They may support the measure because it explicitly recognizes state authority to regulate campaign money within state and local jurisdictions. That could let states tailor rules to local election systems and ballot measures without constitutional uncertainty.
- Small-donor and good-government voters They may see the amendment as a way to reduce the dominance of wealthy donors and outside spending groups. The text’s emphasis on political equality and electoral integrity aligns with that concern.
- Free-speech and civil-liberties advocates They are likely to argue that campaign spending is a form of political expression and that the amendment would weaken constitutional protections for speech. They may worry it would let governments suppress disfavored viewpoints by limiting spending.
- Business groups and other incorporated entities They may oppose the explicit authority to prohibit artificial entities from raising and spending money in campaigns. Their concern would be that corporations and similar entities would lose a major avenue for participating in public debate and ballot fights.
- Issue-advocacy organizations Groups that rely on independent spending for ballot initiatives or referendums may fear the amendment would make it easier to restrict their activity. They could argue that limits on spending reduce the ability to inform voters and organize around policy questions.
Key Implications
-
““Congress and the States shall have the power to implement and enforce this article””
This would give both federal and state lawmakers authority to write follow-up laws enforcing the amendment. In practice, that means the exact limits on donations and spending would depend on future legislation.
-
““reasonably regulating and limiting contributions to and spending””
The amendment would constitutionally permit limits that current doctrine may scrutinize more closely. That could affect contribution caps, spending limits, disclosure rules, or other campaign-finance restrictions.
-
““including by distinguishing between natural persons and artificial entities””
This language expressly allows different treatment for people versus entities such as corporations or similar organizations. That could support laws that restrict entity spending even when individual citizens retain broader rights.
-
““prohibiting artificial entities from raising and spending money””
This is the most direct change for corporate and organizational political activity. It would open the door to laws that bar certain entities from funding election-related communications or ballot campaigns.
-
““ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years””
The proposal would only take effect if a very large supermajority of states approves it within the stated deadline. That makes the amendment’s practical effect dependent on a broad national consensus.
Latest Status
June 3, 2026
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Take Action
Get more from BillBoard
Free tools to understand, respond to, and track this bill.
Ask AI about this billData sourced from api.congress.gov.