Skip to content

ELEC-012 — Campaign Finance Democratic Authority Amendment

ARRP supports H.J.Res. 54, 119th Congress, as the primary constitutional-amendment vehicle for ELEC-012, with a recommended enforcement and federalism clarification described below. H.J.Res. 13, 118th Congress, is preserved as a narrower alternative vehicle if the broader natural-persons and artificial-entity approach in H.J.Res. 54 is not politically or legally viable.

The H.J.Res. 54 amendment text below is copied from a congressional proposal introduced by Members of Congress. It is not ARRP-original amendment text. H.J.Res. 13 is preserved as a linked alternative comparator. ARRP's contribution is the project framing, issue analysis, and linked post-ratification enabling legislation.

Primary Supported Vehicle: H.J.Res. 54, 119th Congress

Source: GovInfo, H.J.Res. 54, 119th Congress, Introduced in House, introduced February 12, 2025.

Article--

Section 1. The rights and privileges protected and extended by the Constitution of the United States are the rights and privileges of natural persons only. An artificial entity, such as a corporation, limited liability company, or other entity, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under the Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law. The privileges of an artificial entity shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.

Section 2. Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of that person's money, substantially more access or ability to influence in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure. Federal, State, and local governments shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed. The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.

Section 3. This amendment shall not be construed to abridge the right secured by the Constitution of the United States of the freedom of the press.

ARRP recommends adding an express enforcement and federalism section to H.J.Res. 54 before ratification. The purpose is to make clear that Congress may establish minimum nationwide standards for campaign-finance regulation in elections for public office and ballot measures, including statewide elections and statewide ballot measures, without relying on ordinary pre-amendment federal election powers.

Section 4. Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, including by establishing minimum standards for contributions, expenditures, covered transfers, disclosures, public campaign-finance systems, and artificial-entity political activity in elections for public office and ballot measures.

This power is an affirmative constitutional grant and shall not be limited by any doctrine reserving ordinary election administration, campaign-finance regulation, corporate regulation, ballot-measure regulation, or state-office election regulation to the States.

Nothing in this article shall require a State or State officer to administer or enforce federal law, prevent a State from adopting stronger protections consistent with this article, or abridge the freedom of the press.

Alternative Vehicle: H.J.Res. 13, 118th Congress

Source: GovInfo, H.J.Res. 13, 118th Congress, Introduced in House, introduced January 9, 2023.

H.J.Res. 13 remains the narrower Democracy for All-style alternative. Its official text should be reviewed directly if ARRP later shifts from H.J.Res. 54 to the alternative vehicle.

ARRP Position

H.J.Res. 54 is preferred because it directly addresses both sides of the institutional weakness: artificial-entity constitutional status and election-money-as-speech doctrine. ARRP should support H.J.Res. 54 with the recommended Section 4 clarification because statewide-election coverage is too important to leave vulnerable to reserved-to-the-States federalism objections. H.J.Res. 13 is retained as an alternative because it may be more narrowly tailored to campaign finance and easier to defend as a campaign-finance authority amendment rather than a broader corporate-personhood amendment.

The next conformity pass should test whether H.J.Res. 54's artificial-entity language should be narrowed, clarified, or supplemented before publication-ready reliance. Section 1 is not limited to election spending; it says artificial entities have no constitutional rights. That may be the intended Move to Amend / We the People theory, but ARRP should expressly review possible effects on press entities, nonprofit advocacy organizations, religious and civil-rights organizations, due-process and property claims, contract and takings questions, and non-election litigation before treating the text as ready for external circulation.

Historical Enforcement Models

The recommended Section 4 follows the structure of voting-rights amendments that pair a substantive constitutional rule with express congressional enforcement authority.

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment is the closest model. After Oregon v. Mitchell divided federal authority over the voting age between federal elections and state elections, the amendment supplied a national rule against age-based denial of the vote for citizens 18 or older and gave Congress enforcement power. That sequence shows why ELEC-012 should not rely on ordinary election federalism if the goal is to reach statewide elections.

The Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments supply the core formula: a right may not be denied by the United States or by any State, and Congress may enforce the article by appropriate legislation. The Fifteenth Amendment's enforcement history, including the Voting Rights Act cases, is especially important because it demonstrates that an amendment can alter the ordinary federalism baseline when it gives Congress enforcement authority.

The Fourteenth Amendment's Section 5 is useful but also cautions against ambiguity. City of Boerne v. Flores limits Congress when enforcement legislation redefines rather than enforces a constitutional rule. ELEC-012 should therefore make the substantive regulatory authority and the federal/state scope clear in the amendment itself.

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment is the cautionary contrast because it expressly applies only to federal offices. H.J.Res. 54 should avoid any comparable ambiguity if the intended coverage includes statewide elections and statewide ballot measures.

Budgetary Impact Statement

No direct appropriation is anticipated for the amendment itself. Implementing legislation may require funding for disclosure systems, enforcement, public databases, and agency capacity.

Note: Preliminary ARRP assessment only; not a CBO, OMB, agency, or legislative-counsel score.

Drafting Notes

  • This page intentionally preserves the external H.J.Res. 54 text rather than presenting it as ARRP text.
  • ARRP's recommended Section 4 is original project drafting and is not part of H.J.Res. 54 as introduced.
  • The linked enabling legislation is an ARRP working draft designed to operate after ratification of H.J.Res. 54 with the recommended Section 4 or a substantially similar amendment.
  • If a Democracy for All-style amendment resembling H.J.Res. 13 were ratified instead, the enabling legislation would need a narrower conformity review before introduction.
  • The internal project review refreshed the external-vehicle posture. H.J.Res. 54 remains an introduced House Judiciary referral with 70 cosponsors on Congress.gov as of July 4, 2026. H.J.Res. 13 and S.J.Res. 45 remain narrower Democracy for All-style alternatives from the 118th Congress, each referred to the relevant Judiciary Committee and not enacted.
  • The internal project review confirms that H.J.Res. 54 Section 1 is the main legal-tailoring issue because it reaches artificial-entity constitutional rights generally, not only election spending. The next drafting-conversion pass should draft either a narrower election-activity variant or an explicit rule-of-construction package before external circulation.
  • The internal project review did not change ARRP's amendment preference. H.J.Res. 54 remains the strongest fit for ELEC-012's artificial-entity and money-as-speech theory, while H.J.Res. 13/S.J.Res. 45 remain important fallback comparators if the project chooses a narrower campaign-finance-only amendment.
  • Before publication-ready reliance, qualified constitutional-law and election-law review should test whether H.J.Res. 54's broader artificial-entity rule should be limited to political activity, paired with additional rules of construction, or preserved as written with explicit discussion of its non-election implications.

Source Notes