Bills
| 3.23.22

Amending the U.S. Constitution to enable Congressional Regulation of the Raising and Spending of Money in Elections (S. Joint Res. 5)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is S. Joint Res. 5?

(Updated May 8, 2021)

This joint resolution would amend the United States Constitution and give Congress the authority to set limits on "the raising and spending of money" to influence federal elections. States would be given the ability to pass legislation to enforce the amendment.


The resolution distinguishes between "natural persons" and "corporations or other artificial entities", which basically means the resolution draws a line between the right to free speech of actual people and organizations. Specifically, it authorizes Congress the authority to prohibit organizations from spending money to influence elections. 

The resolution includes an amendment stating that it doesn't authorize Congress or states to use it as a legal justification to "abridge the freedom of the press." Basically, just because the resolution grants Congress the ability to limit the First Amendment rights of corporations spending money on elections doesn't mean it gives Congress the ability to limit the First Amendment rights of the press.

Argument in favor

Big money's grip on elections is so tight that America is barely a democracy. It takes a solution as big as a constitutional amendment to solve a problem this broad and deep.

Argument opposed

The bill restricts the First Amendment right to free speech and is too narrowly focused on elections while failing to address advocacy spending. It also insulates establishment culture in Washington.

Impact

Corporations and other organizations trying to spend money on elections; Congress; State governments.

Cost of S. Joint Res. 5

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In Depth: Sponsoring Sen. Tom Udall (D-MN) explained in a news release that there is widespread support for limiting the influence of money in elections:
"A narrow majority of the U.S. Supreme Court has been systematically diluting the power of the American voter by allowing corporations and billionaires to pour millions of dollars to influence our elections. New Mexicans, and all Americans, are sick of corporations and special interests trying to buy our elections. Over 3 million people have signed petitions, which were delivered to me on Monday, calling for Washington to reform the broken campaign finance system."
However, not everyone supports Sen. Udall's proposal. As George Rasley at CHQ explains:
"Under the proposal, Congress would be granted virtually unlimited power to regulate and ration speech about those who hold or seek federal office, including both congressional and executive offices. This power would extend to 'the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections,' including (but not limited to) 'the amount of funds that may be spent by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.'"
Of Note: In order to be enacted, the resolution would require approval by both the Senate and the House before being sent to state legislatures to be ratified. Because this resolution proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, it does not require approval of the President.
An article from the Supreme Court Blog explains that this resolution is a response to the controversial 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which determined that:
"the government may not prohibit corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.
Media: