Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 12, 2025
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment providing that the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, shall have no rights under the Constitution and are subject to regulation.
The amendment requires federal, state, and local governments to (1) regulate, limit, or prohibit election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure equal access of citizens to the political process, regardless of economic status; and (2) require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
Additionally, the judiciary is prohibited from construing the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 22, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.J.Res.54, the proposed constitutional amendment concerning the rights of natural persons, as objectively as possible. Explain what it would do, what problem it claims to solve, who may benefit, who may be harmed, what constitutional or election-law tradeoffs it creates, and what evidence would help determine whether it is good for the American people. Separate official bill facts from interpretation, and include the strongest arguments for and against it.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Analyze H.J.Res.54 from the perspective of someone concerned about corporate influence and money in politics. Explain how the proposal could help democratic accountability, what risks or unintended consequences still deserve scrutiny, and what counterarguments supporters should take seriously.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Analyze H.J.Res.54 from the perspective of someone concerned about free speech, political association, and government overreach. Explain the strongest objections to the proposal, whether any parts could still serve the public interest, and what safeguards would be needed if campaign-finance authority expands.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Analyze H.J.Res.54 from a civil-liberties and limited-government perspective. Focus on whether the proposal limits artificial legal privileges, expands government power, or both. Identify the practical tradeoffs for individual citizens, advocacy groups, unions, nonprofits, and corporations.
View full prompt & sources
PlainBill explanation
Read the proposal in plain language
AI-generated · Source-checked by AI · Oct 10, 2026
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-12 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.
What it would do
As introduced in the House on February 12, 2025, this resolution proposes a constitutional amendment, not an enacted law; it would require approval by three-fourths of state legislatures. It would reserve constitutional rights for individual people, removing them from corporations and other legally created organizations, though those organizations could still receive legal privileges through federal, state, or local laws. It would require all three levels of government to regulate, limit, or ban election donations and spending—including candidates’ own money—and require public disclosure of permitted donations and spending. Courts could no longer treat spending money to influence elections as speech protected by the First Amendment, but the amendment explicitly preserves freedom of the press.
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
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.
Federal, State, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures
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.
Artificial entities, including corporations and limited liability companies formed under state, federal, or foreign law, would have no constitutional rights and would be subject to regulation through federal, state, or local law.
Check the source
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.
Artificial entities' privileges would be determined through federal, state, or local law and could not be treated as inherent or inalienable.
Check the source
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.
Federal, state, and local governments would have to regulate, limit, or prohibit election contributions and spending, including candidates' own money. The stated aims are political access regardless of economic status and preventing money from giving anyone substantially greater access or influence over candidate elections or ballot measures.
Check the source
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.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated September 22, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on February 12, 2025.
Check the source
Source snapshot updated 2026-09-22T08:05:56Z.
2025-02-12: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
2025-02-12: Introduced in House
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-12. 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
Review of the complete supplied introduced text identified no unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations. This conclusion applies only to this text version, not 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
Review of the complete supplied introduced text identified no congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places. This conclusion is limited to this text version; the supplied sources do not establish what other versions or earmark disclosure materials may contain.
Other targeted benefits
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
Review of the complete supplied introduced text identified no materially narrow preferential benefit. The preservation of freedom of the press protects a generally applicable constitutional right and does not alone warrant a targeted-benefit finding. This conclusion applies only to the supplied text version, not other versions or accompanying materials.
What this analysis cannot establish
The supplied text is the introduced version of a constitutional amendment proposal, not evidence of an amendment in force. The actions snapshot does not establish subsequent congressional passage or state ratification; missing later actions do not prove that no further action occurred.
The text supplies no ratification deadline, separate implementation dates, or expiration or termination conditions.
The text does not specify contribution limits, disclosure procedures, enforcement agencies, penalties, or how substantially greater access or influence would be measured.
The text preserves freedom of the press but does not explain how that protection would interact with the restrictions on artificial entities or election spending.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Sep 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI
Context & perspectives
Debate & disagreements
Introduced in House · February 12, 2025 · Sources checked October 10, 2026 · AI-prepared pilot
The disagreement is about how to limit the influence of money in elections while protecting the rights of people who act through organizations.
The case supporters make
Sponsor Pramila Jayapal and the advocacy group Move to Amend argue that corporate constitutional rights and the treatment of election spending as protected speech give corporations and wealthy interests too much political influence. They present the amendment as a way to give individual people more control over government.
The Maine Policy Institute argues that removing constitutional protections from organizations would threaten free speech, fair legal treatment, and equal protection for institutions in civil society, the press, and the economy. This is the institute’s warning about possible effects, rather than an outcome established by the proposal.
This is a public commenter’s position, not a finding by Maine’s ethics commission.
What the proposal actually says
The text would reserve constitutional rights for individual people and leave the legal privileges of corporations and other artificial entities to federal, state, or local law. It would require governments to regulate, limit, or prohibit election contributions and spending, require disclosure, and prevent courts from treating election spending as First Amendment speech. It also expressly preserves freedom of the press.
These are selected, attributed positions, not a survey of everyone’s views or a PlainBill endorsement. The text does not set specific contribution limits or resolve how every future dispute would be decided. Claimed effects should be assessed separately from what the amendment requires.
