Adam Schiff (D-CA)
A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the authority of Congress and the States to regulate contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections and to enact public financing systems for political campaigns.
A Democratic resolution with 11 Democratic cosponsors · See all 12 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the 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
S.J. Res. 78 proposes an amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding election money. It would allow Congress and the States to set reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limits on raising and spending money to influence elections. The resolution also allows for the creation of public campaign financing systems to reduce the influence of private wealth. Additionally, it gives the power to distinguish between natural persons and corporations, including the ability to ban corporations from spending money on elections. The amendment explicitly states it cannot be used to limit the freedom of the press.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +10
Does this limit or expose the money behind campaigns?
The bill is explicitly designed to enable comprehensive campaign finance reform.
- Scored +6
Does this make elections run better?
Aims to reduce the disproportionate influence of private wealth and corporations in elections.
- Scored +5
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
Reduces the electoral influence of the wealthy relative to low-income citizens.
The opposite· 3 of 10
- Scored -10
Would billionaires be better off under this?
Directly targets the ability of the wealthiest individuals to influence elections via spending.
- Scored -8
Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this?
Specifically designed to restrict the influence of private wealth.
- Scored -7
Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this?
Directly limits the power of high net worth individuals to fund campaigns.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Limits on Election Spending: Section 1 allows for reasonable limitations on raising and spending money, which could regulate how elections are influenced.
-
Public Financing: Section 2 allows for public campaign financing systems designed to restrict the influence of private wealth by providing increased public funding.
-
Regulation of Corporations: Section 3 allows Congress and States to prohibit corporations or other artificial entities from spending money to influence elections.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Government Regulation of Spending: Section 1 gives Congress and the States the power to regulate and impose limitations on the spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.
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.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Reduces the electoral influence of the wealthy relative to low-income citizens. Would middle-income households be better off under this? — Decreases the disproportionate influence of ultra-wealthy donors on policy. Would billionaires be better off under this? — Directly targets the ability of the wealthiest individuals to influence elections via spending. Would the very wealthiest people be better off under this? — Specifically designed to restrict the influence of private wealth. Would people with substantial wealth be better off under this? — Directly limits the power of high net worth individuals to fund campaigns. Would business owners be better off under this? — Potentially bans corporations from spending money to influence elections. Would high-income households be better off under this? — Restricts their ability to use private wealth to influence electoral outcomes.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this limit or expose the money behind campaigns? — The bill is explicitly designed to enable comprehensive campaign finance reform. Does this make elections run better? — Aims to reduce the disproportionate influence of private wealth and corporations in elections. Does this limit the influence of paid lobbyists? — Limiting campaign contributions generally reduces the efficacy of financial influence/lobbying. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Grants States the explicit authority to regulate campaign spending. Does this give the federal government more power? — Grants Congress the explicit authority to regulate campaign spending. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Public financing systems often require more rigorous disclosure of funds. Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — Restricts the ability to spend money to influence elections, impacting political expression.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this reduce what the federal government spends? — Public campaign financing likely increases government expenditures. Does this reduce what the federal government owes? — Public campaign financing systems may increase government spending. Does this make the government pay for what it commits to? — Introduction of public funding for campaigns may impact fiscal budgets.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect the right to vote? — Reduces the influence of private wealth in elections, potentially leveling the playing field for voters. Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life? — Imposes limitations on the spending of money, which is often viewed as a form of speech.
- 2/3/2026
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- 1/27/2026
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 9/18/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/17/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 6 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Richard BlumenthalDemocrat · Connecticut
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Mazie HironoDemocrat · Hawaii
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Mark KellyDemocrat · Arizona
Angus KingIndependent · Maine
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
Jeanne ShaheenDemocrat · New Hampshire
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts