Dear Common Sense Party supporters,
We have recently been asked to endorse the following proposed amendment to the US Constitution. Its promoters are organized in the non-profit entity, American Promise.
They are planning on asking every candidate for US Congress in 2026 to state whether that candidate would, if elected, sign a discharge petition to permit the consideration of this amendment in Congress, and whether that candidate would then vote in its favor.
The proposed amendment does not, by itself, set any campaign contribution or expenditure limits. However, it would reverse the US Supreme Court’s holdings in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and Buckley v. Valeo, thereby allowing the federal government, and individual states, to limit the amount of money spent in federal or state elections. Under current law, limits are allowed on contributions, but not on expenditures (either by persons or unions or companies). If this amendment passes, separate laws would still need to be passed with the actual limitations specified.
Can you please share your views on whether we should support this proposed US Constitutional Amendment? Please submit your own post or leave a comment—even if it is a simple “support” or “oppose.”
Thank you,
Tom Campbell
Interim Chair
Common Sense Party of California
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.
Where is the protection of minority rights from partisan politics that the Constitution is supposed to provide? I see the Amendment, as written, as a blank check for the party in power to limit the funding of the opposition while entrenching their own funding sources.
I oppose the Amendment, as written, and making its support a litmus test for endorsing candidates.
The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision unleashed a torrent of corporate, union, and billionaire money into our elections, transforming American democracy from a government of, by, and for the people into a marketplace where political influence is auctioned to the highest bidder. By equating unlimited independent expenditures with protected First Amendment speech, the ruling has flooded federal and state campaigns with unseen money, amplified the voices of the wealthiest few at the expense of ordinary citizens, fueled hyper-partisanship, and eroded public trust in our institutions. A constitutional amendment explicitly authorizing Congress and the states to impose reasonable limits on campaign contributions and independent expenditures would restore the balance the Framers intended, reaffirm the principle of “one person, one vote,” and ensure that elected officials remain accountable to voters rather than to super PACs and shadowy donors. Let’s support the American people in reclaiming their democracy from the corrosive grip of big money.
Geoffrey, thank you for replying to my comments. It is heartening to know that that someone read them.
I am not disputing the financial abuses of our current political system or the need for a constitutional amendment. My concern is that the amendment as written would lead to blatant partisan abuses without judicial recourse. After rereading the amendment, I think that the insertion of “reasonable” relieves my concern somewhat. I am also concerned that the emphasis on prohibitions on artificial entities may restrict public office to wealthy individuals.
A constitutional amendment is serious business and can have consequences beyond those intended.
Dear Jeff,
I also read your comment and am grateful for your having posted it. The proposed amendment would not repeal other protections that have built up over the years in court interpretations of the First Amendment. So, if a state wanted to impose limits on one party but not another, it would be prevented from doing so even if this amendment passed.
Kindly,
Tom Campbell
Support
Support
I don’t mind trying this, but I think people with money will always find a way to get around any rules and have influence. This one thing isn’t going to solve our problems.
I strongly support this amendment.