Tom Barrett (R-MI)
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that Congress and the States shall have certain authority to regulate and limit contributions and spending in campaigns for elections for public office, elections for public office, and ballot initiatives and referendums.
A Republican resolution with 1 Democratic cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This joint resolution proposes an amendment to the United States Constitution. It gives Congress and the individual States the authority to regulate and limit money spent on and contributed to political campaigns and ballot measures. The amendment states that the people have compelling interests in free speech, self-government, federalism, election integrity, and political equality. It specifically allows the government to distinguish between real people and artificial entities, such as corporations. Furthermore, it permits the government to prohibit artificial entities from raising and spending money in these campaigns and elections. To become part of the Constitution, the amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures within seven years.
Yes· 3 of 6
- Scored +9
Does this limit or expose the money behind campaigns?
Proposes a constitutional amendment allowing comprehensive regulation and limits on campaign contributions and independent expenditures.
- Scored +8
Does this make elections run better?
Aims to protect electoral integrity and political equality by allowing limits on political spending and artificial entities.
- Scored +6
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Enhances political equality for everyday citizens by reducing the outsized influence of wealth in elections.
The opposite
- Scored -5
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Limits the ability of high-net-worth individuals and corporate entities to spend unlimited funds on campaigns.
- Scored -5
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Allows governments to prohibit or limit large independent expenditures by artificial entities and wealthy donors.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Section 2 might be seen as positive because it allows Congress and the States to reasonably regulate and limit campaign contributions and spending, which supports the integrity of the electoral process and the political equality of natural persons as mentioned in Section 1.
-
Section 2 could be viewed as a positive benefit for individuals because it gives the government the specific power to distinguish between natural persons and artificial entities, and to prohibit artificial entities from raising and spending money in campaigns, elections, and ballot initiatives.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no specific sections or provisions identified that outline negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this limit or expose the money behind campaigns? — Proposes a constitutional amendment allowing comprehensive regulation and limits on campaign contributions and independent expenditures. Does this make elections run better? — Aims to protect electoral integrity and political equality by allowing limits on political spending and artificial entities. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Empowers state governments to regulate and limit political campaign contributions and spending within their jurisdictions. Does this give the federal government more power? — Grants Congress and the states the specific authority to regulate campaign spending and contributions.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Enhances political equality for everyday citizens by reducing the outsized influence of wealth in elections. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Supports the political equality of natural persons against wealthy corporate interests. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Allows governments to prohibit or limit large independent expenditures by artificial entities and wealthy donors. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Limits the ability of high-net-worth individuals and corporate entities to spend unlimited funds on campaigns.
- 7/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/3/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Introduced in House
Ro KhannaDemocrat · California