Congress proposes radical campaign finance overhaul—but faces steep odds
H.J.Res. 119 — Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to set limits on Federal campaign contributions and spending, prohibit corporate spending in the political process, require Congress to develop a system of public campaign financing for all Federal candidates who qualify for the ballot, and allow the States to set reasonable limits on campaign contributions and spending in State and local elections, and for other purposes. · Filed by Jim McGovern (D-MA) · Introduced Sep 10, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This proposed constitutional amendment would set strict limits on campaign contributions ($100 per candidate per year, $1,000 aggregate) and spending, ban corporations from spending money to influence federal elections, require Congress to establish a public financing system covering at least 80% of qualifying candidates' campaign costs, and allow states to set their own limits on state/local elections. It would also penalize Congress members with loss of compensation if they fail to enact the required public financing legislation within one year of ratification.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core function is to propose a constitutional amendment fundamentally restructuring federal campaign finance by imposing contribution/spending limits, banning corporate political spending, and mandating public financing. This is straightforward constitutional reform legislation, not a hidden rider or narrow carve-out.
What the text implies
- The $100-per-candidate and $1,000-aggregate limits are extremely restrictive by historical standards and would dramatically reduce individual donor influence, potentially shifting power toward public funding and grassroots organizing.
- Section 5's penalty (loss of congressional compensation) creates a self-executing enforcement mechanism that could force Congress to act, but also raises separation-of-powers questions about whether Congress can bind itself this way.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who it affects
Ordinary citizens would gain reduced influence of wealthy donors and corporations on elections, potentially lowering barriers to entry for non-wealthy candidates and increasing political equality. The public financing system would reduce dependence on private fundraising.