H.J. Res. 54 would add a constitutional amendment declaring that the rights and privileges protected by the U.S. Constitution belong only to natural persons.
The amendment explicitly bars constitutional protections for ‘‘artificial entities’’—for example, corporations and limited liability companies—and declares that any privileges those entities have will come from statute, not from the Constitution.
The resolution also targets money in politics: it directs federal, state, and local governments to regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures (including a candidate’s own spending), requires public disclosure of permissible spending, and instructs courts not to treat money spent to influence elections as First Amendment speech. A narrow carve‑out preserves the freedom of the press.
At a Glance
What It Does
Amends the Constitution to state that only natural persons hold constitutional rights; artificial entities are stripped of constitutional protections and placed under statutory control. It further mandates government authority to restrict and disclose political contributions and expenditures and directs courts not to classify campaign spending as First Amendment speech.
Who It Affects
Publicly and privately held corporations, LLCs, unions, nonprofit organizations, and trade associations that currently invoke constitutional protections; campaign operatives, candidates, and donors who engage in political spending; and state, local, and federal regulators responsible for campaign finance enforcement and disclosure systems.
Why It Matters
The amendment would overturn decades of case law that treats certain entities as constitutionally entitled to free‑speech and other protections, shifting the baseline to legislative control. It creates new constitutional grounds for Congress and states to impose limits and disclosure requirements on political spending and to redefine the legal status of business entities in constitutional litigation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The amendment performs two linked but distinct constitutional shifts. First, it eliminates ‘‘constitutional personhood’’ for non‑human organizations.
Where courts today often recognize corporations, unions, and other entities as having certain constitutional protections, this text declares those protections unavailable to ‘‘artificial entities’’ unless legislatures grant them. That places the burden squarely on elected bodies to define which privileges an entity may exercise and under what conditions.
Second, the amendment rewrites the constitutional treatment of political spending. It requires government at every level to be able to regulate, limit, or ban contributions and expenditures so that money cannot buy materially greater access or influence over elections.
It also imposes a universal disclosure requirement for any permissible political spending and instructs courts that spending money to influence elections is not protected speech under the First Amendment.Taken together, the two moves would free legislatures to impose rules that federal courts have previously found unconstitutional, and they would change the constitutional baseline used in litigation. The amendment preserves the freedom of the press as a separate guarantee, but does not elaborate how press entities incorporated as companies would be treated, leaving important interpretive questions for future policymakers and judges.
Practically, adoption would trigger a wave of legislative and administrative changes addressing corporate rights, campaign finance limits, disclosure regimes, and the statutory frameworks that define entity privileges.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Section 1 declares that constitutional rights and privileges belong only to natural persons and explicitly names corporations, LLCs, and other entities as ‘‘artificial entities’’ without constitutional rights.
Section 1 assigns authority to Federal, State, and local law to determine any privileges of artificial entities and states those privileges are not inherent or inalienable.
Section 2 requires governments at every level to be able to regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures—including a candidate’s own spending—to prevent money from translating into disproportionate access or influence.
Section 2 mandates public disclosure of any permissible campaign contributions and expenditures and directs the judiciary not to treat such spending as First Amendment speech.
Section 3 preserves the constitutional guarantee of freedom of the press, creating an explicit—but narrow—carve‑out amid broader restrictions on corporate and organizational rights.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Strip constitutional protections from artificial entities and vest privilege‑making in law
This section is the amendment’s fulcrum: it declares that only natural persons have constitutional rights and privileges. It lists ‘‘artificial entities’’ (for example, corporations and LLCs) as outside the Constitution’s protections and instructs that any privileges they may enjoy must come from federal, state, or local statutes. Practically, this eliminates the constitutional basis for defenses and claims that corporations have rights such as speech, equal protection, or due process, unless legislatures explicitly grant those protections by statute. That shifts legal consideration from constitutional courts to legislatures and regulators when defining corporate entitlements.
Mandate to limit and disclose political spending; remove money‑as‑speech protection
Section 2 imposes a constitutional direction for government actors to ‘‘regulate, limit, or prohibit’’ political contributions and expenditures, explicitly including a candidate’s own funds. It ties the objective to equalizing access to the political process and preventing money from producing substantial access or influence. The section also requires public disclosure of permissible contributions and expenditures and bars judicial construction of election‑related spending as First Amendment speech. This provision is written to enable aggressive campaign finance statutes and robust disclosure regimes that current case law often disallows.
Press exception
Section 3 states that the amendment ‘‘shall not be construed to abridge’’ freedom of the press. The text preserves press freedom as a constitutional guarantee, but it leaves open whether press entities that are artificial entities retain corporate protections or must rely on statutory protections. Implementers and courts will therefore need to interpret the scope of the press guarantee when it intersects with the Section 1 prohibition on constitutional rights for entities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Individual voters and small donors — The amendment aims to reduce the disproportionate influence of large pooled funds and corporate spending, increasing the relative voice of individual contributors and potentially lowering barriers to candidate access. It also strengthens the case for public‑interest disclosure that helps voters evaluate influence.
- State and local governments — Legislatures and regulators gain clear constitutional authority to craft stricter campaign finance limits, disclosure schemes, and entity‑specific regulations without being blocked by existing Supreme Court precedents that protect corporate spending as speech.
- Grassroots and civic organizations (as natural‑person networks) — Organizers that rely on small donations and volunteer mobilization stand to gain from rules that limit aggregated private spending and require disclosure from large spenders.
- Election administrators and public integrity bodies — The amendment supplies a constitutional mandate to prioritize equal access and transparency, supporting enforcement and rule‑making on financing and disclosure.
Who Bears the Cost
- Corporations, trade associations, and business‑funded political committees — The text removes constitutional protections used to defend political spending, commercial speech claims, and other rights, subjecting these entities to new statutory limits and disclosure obligations.
- Large donors and independent expenditure groups — Entities and wealthy funders that rely on independent spending to influence elections would face tighter regulatory options and compulsory public reporting of expenditures.
- Companies that rely on constitutional protections beyond political speech — Businesses that currently invoke constitutional protections (due process, takings, contract, or equal protection) may lose a constitutional backstop and face greater legislative exposure, increasing legal and regulatory uncertainty.
- State and federal courts — The judiciary will confront heavy litigation to interpret the amendment’s scope, definitions (for example, what counts as an ‘‘artificial entity’’), and the boundary of the press carve‑out, creating docket pressure and transitional uncertainty.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The amendment squarely pits two legitimate goals: restoring democratic equality by curbing moneyed influence and allowing democratic majorities to regulate entities, versus safeguarding robust expressive, associational, and commercial protections that stable legal rights provide to organizations. In short, it substitutes legislative discretion for judicially enforced constitutional protections—trading predictability and protections for entities against the polity’s ability to curb concentrated political power.
The amendment raises several consequential interpretive and implementation questions. First, the phrase ‘‘artificial entity’’ is broad but undefined; disputes will arise about whether labor unions, unincorporated associations, religious nonprofits, partnerships, sovereign wealth funds, or similarly situated actors count as artificial entities or merit special treatment.
That matters because many of those bodies currently claim constitutional protections for collective action or speech. Second, transferring authority to legislatures to set ‘‘privileges’’ creates variability across jurisdictions and risks patchwork outcomes where entities enjoy robust protections in some states but not others, complicating interstate commerce and federal regulatory schemes.
On campaign finance, the blanket instruction that courts not treat spending money as speech is sweeping but not mechanistic—it will prompt detailed litigation over whether non‑monetary expressive activities funded by entities can be regulated, how to treat issue advocacy versus express advocacy, and how disclosure requirements interact with privacy and association rights. The press carve‑out narrows risk for journalism, but it also raises the question of whether corporate owners of media outlets retain operational protections, or whether press freedom must be redefined to protect content producers rather than corporate structures.
Finally, there are transitional issues—existing contracts, retroactive liabilities, and the status of prior judicial precedents—which the amendment does not address and that will produce complex legal challenges after ratification.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.