Campaign Finance Reform: Amending the Constitution
Amending the U.S. Constitution requires a two-step process outlined in Article V: proposal and ratification. Amendments must be proposed either by a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of state legislatures. (This latter method has never been used.) Ratification requires approval by three-fourths of the states.
Congressional Initiatives
In recent years, a number of bills have been introduced in Congress aimed at amending the constitution to undo the corporate protections provided by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling in 2010.
2025. Representative Pramila Jayapal introduced the We the People Amendment which specifies that the rights provided by the Constitution are for people, not corporations and that artificial entities have no Constitutional rights, ending the 2010 Citizens United decision. Additionally, the joint resolution mandates that Federal, state, and local governments require that all political contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. (Jimmy Panetta was one of over two dozen co-sponsors.)
2025. Representative Summer Lee and others introduced the Citizens Over Corporations Amendment which allows for public financing of campaigns, distinguishes between natural persons and artificial entities to regulate spending, and gives Congress and states the authority to set reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limits on campaign fundraising and spending.
2013-2025. There have been numerous introductions of the Democracy for All Amendment which would grant Congress and the States the ability to limit the raising and spending of money in campaigns for public office. It would also grant Congress and the States the ability to distinguish between a natural person and an artificial entity, such as a corporation.
2018-2021. Campaign Finance Reform promoted CFR28 which would regulate advertising with a definition that creates clear, enforceable limits on advertising without threatening other information or opinions about candidates.
State Legislative Initiatives
As of April, 2026, half of the fifty states have passed resolutions calling for a federal constitutional amendment, the For Our Freedom Amendment, to reverse Citizens United. Most of these resolutions are purely advisory. At present, two states have called for a constitutional convention.
State Legislative Initiatives (California)
The California Legislature has supported a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United through multiple legislative actions and ballot referrals since 2012.
2012: California became the sixth state to officially call for a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling. This was supported by a resolution passed by the state Assembly in March 2012.
2014: The Legislature passed Senate Bill 1272, also known as the Overturn Citizens United Act. It intended to place an advisory question (Proposition 49) on the November 2014 ballot, asking if officials should support an amendment to overturn the ruling. However, the California Supreme Court ordered it removed from the ballot pending a legal review of the legislature's authority to place advisory questions.
2016: After the state Supreme Court ruled in January 2016 that such advisory questions were permissible, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 254. This placed Proposition 59 on the November 2016 ballot. This measure was approved by voters.
State Citizens’ Initiatives
Voters in states like Alaska, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana, and Washington have approved ballot initiatives supporting the For Our Freedom Amendment.
State Citizens’ Initiatives (California)
California Proposition 59 was a non-binding advisory question that appeared on the 2016 California November general election ballot. It asked voters if they wanted California to work towards overturning the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The California Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question (Senate Bill 254), also known as Proposition 59, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an advisory question. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported advising the state's elected officials to use their authority to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, potentially through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
A "no" vote opposed this measure advising the state's elected officials to use their authority to overturn the Citizens United v. FEC decision.
For Our Freedom Amendment
American Promise is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that, since its founding in 2016, has advocated for ratifying an amendment to the Constitution that would allow the states and Congress to decide whether and how to regulate campaign spending in elections.
The For Our Freedom Amendment was drafted following extensive public and legal consultations. If ratified, it would not impose any specific reforms; rather, it would constitutionally empower state and federal lawmakers to enact reasonable regulations around campaign fundraising and spending. Opinion polling from 2025 suggests that 71% of Americans would support such an amendment, and favorability is consistent across all major political affiliations.
As of April, 2026, the following states have supported this amendment: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and West Virginia.
According to American Promise, the For Our Freedom Amendment:
Protects free speech and the voice of all Americans and ends the domination of our elections and corruption of our representative government by dark money and elite donors.
Has overwhelming support from Americans of every political viewpoint.
Offers lasting reform and breaks the two-party incumbent-favoring big money system that locks out competition, choice, and progress for the nation.
Is the lasting, constitutional method for rebuilding checks and balances, federalism and local freedom against global money nationalizing every election and dividing America.
Frees business from pay to play politics and unfair competition from big global corporations that are spending millions of dollars to buy political influence that destroys the level playing field.
Text of the Amendment
Section 1. We the People have compelling sovereign interests in the freedom of speech, representative self-government, federalism, the integrity of the electoral process, and the political equality of natural persons.
Section 2. Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the States, within their respective jurisdictions, from reasonably regulating and limiting contributions and spending in campaigns, elections, or ballot measures.
Section 3. Congress and the States shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation and may distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities, including by prohibiting artificial entities from raising and spending money in campaigns, elections, or ballot measures.
Argument
The U.S. campaign finance system is broken.
In the 2023-2024 cycle, an estimated $20 billion was spent on electioneering, much of that by a small group of elite donors and special interest groups. Misguided court rulings have essentially given the richest individuals a right to buy political influence, undermining the voices of ordinary citizens.
The consequences have been stark:
Pay-to-play policymaking and political favoritism;
Endless attack ads from faceless organizations;
Gridlock, polarization, and increasingly extreme candidates;
And plummeting trust in our government and institutions.
Nearly 90% of voters agree that our campaign finance system needs an overhaul — and until we fix it, we won’t be able to fully address any of our nation’s biggest challenges.
See “The Myth of the Unamendable Constitution” by American Promise CEO Jeff Clements: https://thefulcrum.us/amendments-to-the-constitution