Five Constitutional Paths to Democracy Reform: Why the We the People Amendment Is the Most Comprehensive Solution
For more than a century, Americans have struggled with a fundamental question:
Who should govern our democracy—the people or concentrated wealth?
Today, that question has taken on new urgency. Billionaires spend unprecedented sums to influence elections. Corporate lobbyists write legislation. Super PACs dominate campaign fundraising. Artificial intelligence companies are becoming some of the most powerful corporations in history. Meanwhile, Americans across the political spectrum believe the political system is rigged.
Many agree something must change.
Congress is now considering five proposed constitutional amendments that seek to address money in politics and the influence of powerful interests.
While they all recognize the problem, they offer very different solutions.
Some regulate campaign finance.
Some establish new election rules.
Only one seeks to change the constitutional doctrines that made corporate political power possible in the first place.
Five Different Constitutional Paths
Congress is currently considering five major constitutional amendments:
- H.J.Res. 54 – Move to Amend The We The People Amendment (Sponsored by Rep. Pramila Jayapal)
- H.J.Res. 121 / S.J.Res. 43 – Democracy For All (Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon / Sen. Jeanne Shaheen)
See: Side-by-Side Comparison of HJR 54 and SJR 43
See: Side-by-Side Comparison of HJR 54 and HJR 121
- H.J.Res. 122 / S.J.Res. 78 – Citizens Over Corporations (Rep. Joe Neguse / Sen. Adam Schiff)
See: Side-by-Side Comparison of HJR 54 and SJR 78
See: Side-by-Side Comparison of HJR 54 and HJR 122
- H.J.Res. 191 – Supported by American Promise (Rep. Tom Barrett)
See: Side-by-Side Comparison of HJR 54 and HJR191
- H.J.Res. 119 – Free and Fair Elections Amendment (Rep. Jim McGovern)
See: Side-by-Side Comparison of HJR 54 and HJR 119
Each recognizes that concentrated wealth has gained enormous influence over our democracy.
The difference is how they propose solving it.
The Root Problem
Most reform efforts begin with the assumption that the problem is simply too much money in politics.
Move to Amend believes the problem runs much deeper.
Unlimited political spending didn't happen by accident.
It was built on two constitutional doctrines created through decades of Supreme Court decisions:
- that corporate entities possess constitutional rights intended for human beings, and
- that spending money to influence elections is protected free speech.
Those two legal doctrines have allowed concentrated wealth to challenge democratically enacted laws—not only campaign finance laws, but labor protections, environmental regulations, consumer safeguards, public health measures, and more.
If those doctrines remain in place, many of the structural problems remain as well.
Five Different Solutions
Although these amendments are often discussed together, they actually fall into three distinct approaches.
1. The We the People Amendment (H.J.Res. 54)
The We the People Amendment directly addresses both constitutional doctrines.
It:
- Abolishes corporate constitutional rights by declaring constitutional rights belong to natural persons only.
- States that money spent to influence elections is not protected free speech.
- Requires governments to regulate campaign finance.
- Requires public disclosure of campaign funds.
Rather than regulating existing Supreme Court precedents, it changes the constitutional framework itself.
2. Democracy For All (H.J.Res. 121) and Citizens Over Corporations (H.J.Res. 122)
These amendments primarily authorize Congress and the states to regulate campaign spending.
They acknowledge concerns about corporate influence but stop short of eliminating corporate constitutional rights.
Both the Democracy for All Amendment and the Citizens Over Corporations Amendment say government “may” regulate political spending—not that it “shall”—leaving Congress and the states free to do nothing while courts decide whether any restrictions are “reasonable.”
Move to Amend argues they leave the constitutional foundation of corporate power largely intact, permitting them to use constitutional rights to overturn democratically enacted laws protecting the health, safety and welfare of people, and communities.
3. Supported by American Promise (H.J.Res. 191)
Introduced by Republican Rep. Tom Barrett of Michigan, who has publicly aligned himself with President Trump's agenda and has promoted the amendment as part of his conservative "Blueprint for a Better America” This Amendment also authorizes Congress (does not mandate) and the states to regulate campaign spending.
Like H.J.Res. 121 and H.J.Res. 122, H.J.Res 191 does not eliminate corporate constitutional rights.
American Promise believes states should have broad authority to determine campaign finance rules, which has gained support from Steve Bannon's War Room and the Federalist Society. Move to Amend believes Americans should ask a simple question: Why are groups that supported Citizens United comfortable with this constitutional amendment? The answer may lie in what it leaves to future legislatures instead of settling in the Constitution. American Promise has announced a $20 million campaign behind H.J.Res. 191. Much of their funding comes through donor-advised funds, making it difficult for the public to identify the original sources of the money behind the campaign.
Move to Amend believes that approach risks creating fifty different systems of campaign finance rather than establishing one constitutional standard. See more below
4. Free and Fair Elections (H.J.Res. 119)
The Free and Fair Elections Amendment takes a different approach from the other proposals.
Rather than simply authorizing governments to regulate money in politics, it establishes several specific campaign finance rules directly in the Constitution.
Among other things, it would:
- prohibit corporate spending in federal elections,
- establish limits on campaign contributions and expenditures,
- require public financing for qualifying federal candidates,
- require public disclosure of campaign spending.
For advocates focused primarily on campaign finance reform, H.J.Res. 119 represents one of the strongest constitutional proposals because many of its provisions are self-executing rather than dependent on future congressional action.
However, unlike the We the People Amendment, it does not eliminate corporate constitutional rights. Corporate entities would continue to possess constitutional rights to overturn democratically enacted laws protecting the health, safety and welfare of people, and communities..
Move to Amend argues that while H.J.Res. 119 addresses corporate election spending, it leaves untouched the broader constitutional doctrine that corporations possess constitutional rights.
Supporters of H.J.Res. 54 contend that corporations would still be able to invoke constitutional protections outside the campaign finance context unless that doctrine is explicitly ended.
Regulating Corporate Power vs. Abolishing Corporate Constitutional Rights
This is where the proposals fundamentally diverge.
Four of the amendments would continue recognizing corporate constitutional rights while giving governments greater authority to regulate campaign spending.
The We the People Amendment takes a different approach.
It declares that constitutional rights belong to natural persons only.
Artificial entities—including corporations, limited liability companies, and similar business entities—would no longer possess constitutional rights. Instead, they would retain the statutory rights, privileges, powers, and protections granted by federal, state, or local law, while constitutional rights would belong exclusively to We the People.
That distinction matters.
If corporations continue possessing constitutional rights, they can continue challenging democratically enacted laws in court. History demonstrates that concentrated wealth is remarkably adaptable.
When one avenue is closed, powerful interests often find another.
From railroad trusts to Standard Oil, from Wall Street to Big Tech, wealthy interests have consistently found new legal pathways to preserve political influence. Lasting reform requires eliminating the constitutional doctrine—not simply regulating its latest expression.
If constitutional rights belong only to people, the Constitution reflects its original purpose—to protect human beings, not artificial entities created by the state.
"May Regulate" vs. "Shall Regulate"
One of the most important differences between these amendments comes down to a single word—and what that word modifies.
The Democracy For All, Citizens Over Corporations, and For Our Freedom amendments all focus on giving governments the authority to regulate campaign spending.
In constitutional terms, they ensure that Congress and the states may regulate—or, in the case of H.J.Res. 191, that they shall have authority to regulate and limit campaign spending. But having constitutional authority is not the same as having a constitutional duty to act. Congress or a state legislature could still choose not to enact meaningful campaign finance reforms. Afterall, “may” can end up being “may not,” or “will not.”
The We the People Amendment takes a different approach.
It states that governments shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures to influence elections.
Here, the word "shall" applies to the government's obligation itself—not merely to its authority. It compels government action. This creates a constitutional duty to act rather than simply granting permission.
If unlimited money in politics threatens democracy, addressing it should not depend on whether future politicians decide to use powers they already possess.
Money Is Not Speech
Most reform proposals leave intact the constitutional doctrine that equates political spending with speech while authorizing greater regulation.
The We the People Amendment directly rejects that premise.
It states that spending money to influence elections is not protected speech.
Rather than creating another exception to existing Supreme Court precedent, it overturns the constitutional foundation upon which cases like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United were built.
Protecting Against Future Supreme Courts
Every generation sees different Supreme Court majorities.
Court precedents evolve.
Interpretations change.
One reason Move to Amend emphasizes changing constitutional language itself is that constitutional amendments are far more difficult for future courts to undermine than ordinary legislation.
By eliminating corporate constitutional rights and rejecting money as protected speech, supporters argue that the We the People Amendment leaves far less room for future courts to rebuild the legal framework that produced today's system.
The Greatest Danger Isn't Failing to Pass an Amendment—It's Passing the Wrong One
Constitutional amendments are among the rarest acts in American history.
Only twenty-seven have been ratified in nearly 250 years.
If Americans are going to amend the Constitution to address money in politics, we may only get one opportunity for a generation so we should ensure the amendment solves the underlying problem rather than creating new ones.
Oligarchs are exceptionally skilled at finding loopholes.
When regulations change, they create new legal entities.
They reorganize.
They shift money.
They finance new organizations.
They hire a team of lawyers..
History shows that concentrated wealth continually adapts.
That is why Move to Amend argues that simply regulating campaign spending, without ending corporate constitutional rights, risks allowing new loopholes to emerge.
That is why the details matter.
Passing an amendment that leaves the underlying constitutional doctrines intact risks beginning another cycle of legal workarounds rather than ending it.
Supporters of the We the People Amendment argue that democracy reform should not simply regulate today's loopholes. It should eliminate the constitutional foundation that allows new loopholes to emerge tomorrow. Needed is transforming, not merely reforming, the relationship between We the People and corporations and money spent in elections.
Constitutional Guardrails Matter
Move to Amend's principal concern with H.J.Res. 191 is not that it gives Congress and the states authority to regulate campaign finance. It is that it does so without establishing the constitutional democratic guardrails found in the We the People Amendment.
H.J.Res. 191 restores authority to regulate and limit campaign contributions and expenditures, but it leaves intact the constitutional doctrines that have allowed concentrated wealth to dominate our political system. It does not end corporate constitutional rights. It does not declare that money spent to influence elections is not protected speech. And it does not establish constitutional standards to ensure political equality.
The We the People Amendment does.
Section 1 declares that constitutional rights are the rights of natural persons only, while artificial entities receive only those privileges, powers, and protections granted by law – whether in elections or everywhere else in society where corporate rights currently overrule people’s rights.
Section 2 goes even further. It does not simply authorize campaign finance regulation—it establishes the constitutional purpose of that regulation:
"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 amendment also requires that:
"Federal, State, and local governments shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed."
These are constitutional standards—not merely grants of authority.
Both H.J.Res. 54 and H.J.Res. 191 would leave room for Congress and the states to write campaign finance laws. The difference is the constitutional framework within which those laws would be written.
Under the We the People Amendment, lawmakers could not ignore the Constitution's mandate to abolish corporate constitutional rights and money defined as free speech, without which “to promote political equality, require public disclosure, and prevent wealth from purchasing substantially greater political influence” are unattainable.
Without these constitutional democratic guardrails, , legislatures could still rewrite campaign finance laws to serve changing political interests while leaving intact the constitutional doctrines that have enabled concentrated wealth to dominate American democracy.
More Than an Amendment—A National Movement
The We the People Amendment is also different because it is not simply legislation.
It is backed by a nationwide grassroots movement that has spent more than fifteen years educating communities about the constitutional roots of corporate power.
Today that movement has achieved:
- 725+ city, county, and state resolutions
- 821 endorsing organizations
- 530,000+ petition signers
History shows that constitutional amendments are never won by Congress alone.
They are won because millions of ordinary people change the political culture first.
That is exactly what Move to Amend is working to build.
Now we need your help turning those conversations into action.
🚨 Before you support any constitutional amendment, read the fine print.
Only 28 amendments have been ratified in nearly 250 years.
This may be our only opportunity for a generation to fix the corrupting influence of money in politics.
The question isn't whether an amendment sounds good—it's whether it actually closes the loopholes that gave us Citizens United and corporate rule in the first place.
Buyer beware. The Constitution deserves more than a quick fix.
Support the We the People Amendment (H.J. Res. 54) and build a democracy where constitutional rights belong to people—not corporations.
