PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Barrett, Tom [R-MI-7] · R–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jul 3, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.J.Res.191 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.J.Res.191 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.J.Res.191 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.J.Res.191 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2026-06-03 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
This proposed constitutional amendment would expressly protect Congress’s and states’ authority, within their respective jurisdictions, to reasonably limit campaign contributions and spending in public-office elections and state or local votes on ballot measures. It would also allow different rules for individual people and legally created entities, including bans on those entities raising and spending money in these contests.
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the States, within their respective jurisdictions, from reasonably regulating and limiting contributions to and spending in campaigns for elections for public office, elections for public office, and State or local ballot initiatives or referendums, including by distinguishing between natural persons and artificial entities and prohibiting artificial entities from raising and spending money in such campaigns, elections, and State or local ballot initiatives or referendums.
This is a proposal to amend the Constitution, rather than an ordinary statute. The proposal requires ratification by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states within seven years after submission for ratification.
the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification
Section 1 declares compelling public interests in free speech, representative government, the division of authority between federal and state governments, election integrity, and political equality for individual people. These are declared principles, not evidence of the amendment’s effects.
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 would protect reasonable regulation and limits on contributions and spending for elections to public office and for state or local ballot initiatives and referendums—votes on proposed measures. Congress and states would act within their respective jurisdictions; the provision does not itself set contribution or spending amounts.
Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to forbid Congress or the States, within their respective jurisdictions, from reasonably regulating and limiting contributions to and spending in campaigns for elections for public office, elections for public office, and State or local ballot initiatives or referendums
Section 2 would permit lawmakers to distinguish individual people from artificial entities, meaning legally created entities. It would permit, but would not itself impose, prohibitions on those entities raising and spending money in the covered campaigns, elections, and ballot-measure contests.
including by distinguishing between natural persons and artificial entities and prohibiting artificial entities from raising and spending money in such campaigns, elections, and State or local ballot initiatives or referendums.
Section 3 would give Congress and states power to implement and enforce the amendment through appropriate legislation. It does not require them to enact particular restrictions.
3. Congress and the States shall have the power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated July 3, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on June 3, 2026.
Source snapshot updated 2026-07-03T08:06:11Z. 2026-06-03: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2026-06-03: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2026-06-03. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Jul 3, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI