SJR43 proposes a new constitutional article that explicitly authorizes Congress and the states to regulate and set “reasonable limits” on raising and spending money used to influence elections. The text allows lawmakers to treat natural persons differently from corporations and other legal entities and even to prohibit those entities from spending money to affect elections, while adding an express non-abridgment clause for the press.
The amendment would change the constitutional baseline governing campaign finance: it removes a key constitutional obstacle to limits on independent expenditures and corporate political spending and leaves the details to implementing legislation and the courts. Its broad phrases — “reasonable limits,” “intended to affect elections,” and the press carve-out — create substantial drafting and enforcement questions that would determine how far federal and state rules can go in practice.
At a Glance
What It Does
The amendment inserts a three-section article giving Congress and state legislatures explicit authority to regulate or limit the raising and spending of money intended to influence elections and to implement those powers by statute. It expressly permits distinctions between natural persons and corporations or other legal entities and allows prohibitions on corporate or other entity spending to influence elections.
Who It Affects
Candidates and campaigns, political committees (including PACs and super PACs), corporations, unions, nonprofits that engage in political spending, and the lawyers and compliance officers who advise them. It also affects state and federal legislators who would draft implementing laws and election administrators charged with enforcement.
Why It Matters
As a constitutional amendment, the text would override current Supreme Court doctrines that limit campaign-finance regulation, enabling a wide range of reforms now blocked by First Amendment precedent. The amendment’s language is intentionally broad, so the practical reach — from contribution caps to outright corporate spending bans — will depend on subsequent legislation and judicial interpretation.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The proposed amendment adds a short constitutional article in three sections. The first section states a purpose — advancing democratic self-government and political equality — and gives Congress and the states the power to regulate and limit the raising and spending of money used to influence elections.
That sentence is the key: by putting this authority in the Constitution itself, the amendment would change the legal ground on which campaign finance rules rest.
Section 2 supplies the implementing power: Congress and the states “shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” The clause explicitly allows lawmakers to distinguish between natural persons and “corporations or other artificial entities created by law,” and it goes further by saying that such entities may be prohibited from spending money to influence elections. Practically, this opens the door to a range of statutory tools — contribution limits, caps on independent expenditures, bans on corporate election spending, targeted disclosure regimes, or public-financing schemes — subject to whatever implementing texts legislatures adopt.The amendment also includes a short protection for the press: Section 3 says the article must not be read to grant Congress or the states the power to abridge freedom of the press.
That language will matter in future litigation because it requires courts and lawmakers to reconcile new campaign-finance rules with traditional press protections, but it does not define who counts as the press or what kinds of press activity are protected.Because the amendment is compact and leaves major terms undefined — “reasonable limits,” “intended to affect elections,” “corporations or other artificial entities,” and “press” — the real-world effects will turn on implementing statutes and subsequent judicial interpretation. States could pursue a variety of approaches in parallel with federal legislation, creating a potential patchwork of rules.
Observers should watch the first round of implementing statutes for choices about definitions, disclosure, enforcement mechanisms, and how closely laws hew to the amendment’s stated aim of political equality.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The amendment is a three-section constitutional article that expressly authorizes federal and state regulation of money used to influence elections.
It permits lawmakers to treat ‘‘natural persons’’ differently from ‘‘corporations or other artificial entities created by law’’ and expressly allows prohibitions on such entities spending to influence elections.
Section 2 vests Congress and the states with power to implement and enforce the article by statute, shifting the work from the courts to legislatures and regulators.
The text includes a standalone press protection (Section 3) saying the amendment cannot be read to give governments power to abridge freedom of the press, but it does not define ‘press’ or specify the contours of that protection.
The amendment sets no numeric limits, thresholds, or definitions — terms like “reasonable limits” and “intended to affect elections” are left to implementing legislation and judicial construction.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Constitutional authorization to regulate election-related money
Section 1 furnishes the amendment’s operative grant of authority: it says Congress and the states may regulate and set reasonable limits on raising and spending money to influence elections, framed in terms of promoting democratic self-government and political equality. That framing signals the amendment’s policy justification and will likely guide courts in reviewing implementing statutes; it also supplies a constitutional purpose that legislators can cite when designing rules intended to reduce the influence of concentrated wealth.
Implementing power and explicit entity distinction
Section 2 gives Congress and the states explicit power to implement and enforce the article through legislation and singles out a specific tool: lawmakers may distinguish between natural persons and corporations or other legal entities, including by prohibiting such entities from spending to influence elections. Practically, this makes clear that bans on corporate independent expenditures and tailored rules for different entity types are constitutionally permissible if enacted under the amendment; it also places the burden on legislatures to define terms, establish enforcement mechanisms, and decide penalties or remedial regimes.
Press carve-out
Section 3 places a textual limitation on the amendment’s reach by stating that it must not be construed to give Congress or the states power to abridge the freedom of the press. This is a protective clause, but its brevity creates questions: how will courts distinguish protected journalistic activity from political spending by media companies or sponsored content? Implementing statutes will need to respect this clause, and litigants will press hard to define its boundaries.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Elections across all five countries.
Explore Elections 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
- Small-dollar donors and grassroots candidates — by enabling limits and public-financing approaches, the amendment creates legal space to reduce the relative influence of large donors and amplify smaller contributors.
- State governments and Congress — the amendment gives legislatures explicit constitutional authority to design and enact campaign-finance regimes previously constrained by Supreme Court precedent.
- Advocates of political equality and good-government groups — organizations seeking tighter controls on corporate and wealthy-donor influence gain a clear constitutional basis for reforms and litigation support.
Who Bears the Cost
- Corporations, trade associations, and major funders — the text explicitly permits laws that can ban or sharply curtail corporate political spending and independent expenditures.
- Political committees and super PACs that rely on large, unlimited independent expenditures — their operating models could be dismantled or strictly limited by implementing statutes.
- Compliance teams, campaign lawyers, and state election agencies — drafting, implementing, and enforcing new rules will generate regulatory and litigation costs and require new administrative capacity.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The amendment confronts a classic trade-off: empowering legislatures to limit money in politics to advance political equality and reduce corruption risks will necessarily restrict some forms of political expression — and determining where reasonable regulation ends and protected speech begins is the core unresolved dilemma. The brevity of the text forces legislatures and courts to make hard choices about definitions, scope, and enforcement that balance democratic equality against individual and press freedoms.
The amendment’s practical reach depends entirely on how legislatures and courts interpret a handful of broad, undefined phrases. “Reasonable limits” and “intended to affect elections” are policy-laden, elasticity-prone standards; legislatures can choose narrow, targeted rules or broad prohibitions, and courts will have to decide whether a given statute is a permissible exercise of the new power. That process will generate early and consequential litigation over definitions, mens rea (intent), and the temporal and geographic scope of regulated activity.
The press carve-out is both necessary and deliberately sparse. It signals that traditional press protections survive, but it leaves open whether modern actors — digital platforms, for-profit media companies, sponsored content, or advocacy outlets that publish news-like material — count as the press.
Implementation will require careful statutory drafting to avoid creating an uneven shield that protects some expressive actors while exposing others to broad campaign-spending limits. Finally, a potential interstate patchwork of state laws could raise coordination problems: differing state definitions of prohibited spending, inconsistent disclosure rules, and cross-border enforcement questions will test administrative systems and invite constitutional challenges on grounds other than the First Amendment (for example, commerce or federal preemption theories).
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.