Did you know that half the states in the country have passed resolutions asking Congress to propose a constitutional amendment on election spending?

Idaho became the twenty-fifth state in March. The list runs from Massachusetts to Montana, Oklahoma to California — red states, blue states, and everything in between. All asking the same thing: let Congress set reasonable rules on how money flows through elections.

That authority was stripped away by a series of Supreme Court decisions — most famously Citizens United in 2010 — which ruled that spending money — even for corporations — is protected speech. Since then, election spending has exploded. Wisconsin's 2025 Supreme Court race cost ninety million dollars — the most expensive judicial election in American history.

Amending the Constitution is hard. But twenty-five states have already asked Congress to act. When you vote for Congress this fall, it's worth knowing where your candidates stand.

Learn More

25 states and counting. Idaho became the 25th state in March 2026 to pass a resolution urging Congress to propose a constitutional amendment restoring the authority of Congress and states to set rules on election spending. The Idaho House passed SJM 109 on March 30, following the Senate's earlier passage — both with overwhelming bipartisan support. (American Promise; Independent Voter News)

The list spans the ideological spectrum: Massachusetts, Montana, Alaska, Nevada, West Virginia, California, Oklahoma, Utah, Idaho, and 16 more. Legislatures in over a dozen additional states are actively considering similar resolutions.

What Citizens United changed: The 2010 Supreme Court decision ruled that corporate spending on elections is protected as free speech under the First Amendment. It overturned restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions. This followed a series of earlier decisions, starting with Buckley v. Valeo (1976) equating money with speech. Together, these rulings stripped Congress and state legislatures of the authority to regulate much election spending. (Wikipedia)

The "For Our Freedom Amendment" is the specific amendment supported by American Promise, a cross-partisan organization. It would restore the authority of Congress and state legislatures to set reasonable limits on campaign spending. (American Promise; The Fulcrum)

How constitutional amendments work: Requires a two-thirds vote of both chambers of Congress to propose, then ratification by three-fourths of states (38). Unlike ordinary legislation, amendments are not signed by the president, and state ratification doesn't require gubernatorial approval. Americans have used this process to overturn Supreme Court decisions eight times throughout history. (Article V, U.S. Constitution)

Wisconsin's $90 million judicial race: The 2025 Supreme Court election between Susan Crawford and Brad Schimel was the most expensive judicial election in American history. (Wisconsin Watch)

The scale of the spending problem: The 2026 midterms are projected to be the most expensive on record. At least $185 million in AI-related spending is already shaping the cycle. Thirty-six percent of all campaign money comes from the top 0.1% of the population.

Wisconsin activity: Wisconsin United To Amend is an active statewide organization. American Promise lobbied for SJR 121 in the 2024 legislative session. The Wisconsin Assembly called for a constitutional convention in May 2021. Multiple municipalities — including Viroqua — have passed local advisory resolutions. (Wisconsin United To Amend; WI lobbying records)

Idaho's experience: In 2024, more than $17 million was spent on campaign and independent expenditures in Idaho legislative races, with over $9.3 million from outside groups. One Virginia-based PAC spent over $700,000 to oppose certain Idaho candidates. (American Promise)

Related Civic Minute segments: Money in Wisconsin Politics (CM-2)