Overturn Citizens United

Outside spending on federal elections grew from $574 million in 2008 to $4.5 billion in 2024, with at least $1.9 billion of that total coming from groups that do not disclose their donors. In the 2024 presidential cycle, ten individual donors supplied approximately 44 percent ($481 million) of the funding flowing to one major-party presidential campaign and its affiliated super PACs, with a single donor contributing more than $240 million through super PACs alone (Brennan Center for Justice). The 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and the subsequent D.C. Circuit ruling in SpeechNow.org v. FEC together hold that the First Amendment bars Congress from limiting independent expenditures by corporations, unions, and individuals on elections. Reinstating the campaign-finance authority that existed before those decisions requires an Article V amendment.

What Citizens United did

In Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the Supreme Court struck down 2 U.S.C. § 441b — the federal ban on independent expenditures by corporations and unions in candidate elections, now codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30118 — as a violation of the First Amendment. The 5-4 majority overruled portions of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and McConnell v. FEC (2003) and held that the government has no anti-corruption interest in limiting independent political spending by any speaker, including for-profit corporations.

Two months later, the D.C. Circuit applied the same reasoning in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, 599 F.3d 686 (2010), and struck down contribution limits for committees that make only independent expenditures. That decision created the super PAC. In McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014), the Supreme Court extended the Citizens United line by invalidating the aggregate biennial cap on individual contributions to federal candidates and party committees.

Under those rulings, any natural person, corporation, union, or unincorporated association may spend unlimited sums on independent expenditures in federal elections, and committees organized to receive contributions for that purpose may accept individual contributions in any amount. Reported dark-money spending in federal elections rose from less than $5 million in 2006 to $1.9 billion in 2024 (Brennan Center for Justice).

The amendment

Statutory measures, including the DISCLOSE Act and existing FEC disclosure regulations, can compel transparency about donors and expenditures, but they cannot reinstate the substantive contribution and expenditure limits the Supreme Court invalidated. Reinstating those limits requires an Article V amendment.

Three vehicles are pending in the 119th Congress:

• H.J.Res.121 (Rep. Mary Scanlon) and S.J.Res.43 (Sen. Adam Schiff), known together as the Democracy for All Amendment / Citizens Over Corporations Amendment, authorize Congress and the states to set reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, distinguish natural persons from corporations and other artificial entities, and preserve press freedom.
• H.J.Res.119 (Rep. Jim McGovern), the Free and Fair Elections Amendment, sets statutory caps directly in the constitutional text: prohibits corporate spending in federal elections, requires Congress to develop public financing for federal candidates, and authorizes states to set limits in state and local elections.
• H.J.Res.54 (Move to Amend’s We the People Amendment) withdraws constitutional rights from corporations and other artificial entities and declares that money is not speech.

The amendment text proposed here would do the following:

• Authorize Congress and the states to set reasonable, viewpoint-neutral limits on campaign contributions and expenditures by candidates and others to influence elections.
• Authorize Congress and the states to prohibit spending in elections by corporations and other artificial entities created by law, and to distinguish such entities from natural persons in campaign-finance regulation.
• Authorize public campaign-financing systems at the federal, state, and local levels.
• Preserve freedom of the press in any implementing legislation.
• Apply prospectively beginning with the first federal election held more than one year after ratification.

Precedent

The Tillman Act of 1907 (34 Stat. 864), signed by President Theodore Roosevelt, banned all corporate contributions to federal election campaigns and remains in force, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 30118 with respect to direct contributions. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and its 1974 amendments imposed contribution and expenditure limits that the Supreme Court partially upheld in Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976). The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 added the soft-money and electioneering-communication restrictions that Citizens United and McCutcheon later invalidated.

Four amendments to the U.S. Constitution have already been used to overturn Supreme Court decisions: the Eleventh Amendment overturned Chisholm v. Georgia (1793); the Fourteenth Amendment overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857); the Sixteenth Amendment overturned Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. (1895); and the Twenty-Sixth Amendment overturned the portion of Oregon v. Mitchell (1970) that barred Congress from setting the voting age in state elections. The proposed amendment would be the fifth.

Twenty-three state legislatures have passed resolutions calling for a federal amendment to overturn Citizens United, beginning with Hawaii in 2010 and most recently Utah in 2025 (Free Speech For People). Three of those states — California, Illinois, and Vermont — have called for an Article V convention on the subject. Maine voters in November 2023 approved Question 2 with 86 percent support, banning election spending by corporations with at least 5 percent foreign-government ownership. A federal court enjoined the law in 2025 on First Amendment grounds.

A 2025 Program for Public Consultation survey found 76 percent of registered voters favor a constitutional amendment giving Congress and the states authority to limit campaign spending. A 2018 Pew Research Center survey reported that 77 percent of Americans believe there should be limits on the amount of money individuals or organizations can spend on political campaigns.

First 100 days

Day one. The President issues a statement endorsing a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and directs the White House Counsel’s office to coordinate text and ratification strategy with congressional sponsors. The Department of Justice publishes a legal analysis concluding that statutory action cannot reinstate the campaign-finance authority invalidated in Citizens United, SpeechNow.org, and McCutcheon, and that an Article V amendment is required.

Day thirty. The amendment is introduced in both chambers as a joint resolution combining the elements of H.J.Res.121, H.J.Res.119, and S.J.Res.43. Companion model legislation is published for state legislatures, covering both ratification once the amendment is transmitted and an Article V convention call if the congressional path stalls. The administration submits a revised DISCLOSE Act to require contemporaneous disclosure of donors over $10,000 to political committees and 501(c)(4) organizations spending on elections, as a parallel statutory measure.

Day ninety. Both chambers hold floor votes on the joint resolution. Once two-thirds of each chamber approve, the proposal is transmitted to the states for ratification. The administration coordinates a state-by-state ratification campaign for the three-fourths approval required under Article V, with a seven-year ratification window specified in the transmittal resolution.

Effect of the amendment

The amendment restores the regulatory authority that existed under the Tillman Act of 1907, the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 before Citizens United, SpeechNow.org, and McCutcheon. It permits, but does not require, Congress and the states to cap independent expenditures, prohibit spending in elections by corporations and other artificial entities, and establish public campaign-financing systems for federal, state, and local candidates. Each of those measures returns to ordinary legislative consideration.