WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HCR 79

Urging Congress to propose and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to clarify that the states and Congress may reasonably regulate and limit the spending of money to influence campaigns, elections, or ballot measures.

89th Legislature (2025) Introduced by Briscoe Cain and 4 co-sponsors

Texas urges Congress to propose constitutional amendment allowing government regulation of campaign spending on elections and ballot measures.

Referred to State Affairs
#elections--campaignfinancing(i0290) #resolutions--constitutionalamendments(i0661) #resolutions--legislativepolicy(i0685) #resolutions--memorializingcongress(i0675)
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HCR 79

Legislative bill overview

HCR 79 is a resolution urging the U.S. Congress to propose a constitutional amendment that would explicitly allow states and the federal government to regulate and limit campaign spending on elections and ballot measures. This would effectively overturn or circumvent the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision (2010), which struck down many campaign finance restrictions as violations of free speech rights.

Why is this important

Campaign finance is a foundational issue affecting electoral integrity, political access, and the influence of wealthy interests in politics. A constitutional amendment would represent one of the few mechanisms to reverse major Supreme Court rulings and would dramatically reshape how political campaigns are funded across the nation. This touches core questions about whether money equals speech and who has meaningful political influence.

Potential points of contention

  • Free speech concerns: Opponents argue campaign spending restrictions violate First Amendment protections; supporters counter that regulating money isn't restricting speech itself
  • Practical enforcement complexity: Questions about how "reasonable" limits would be defined and whether they'd withstand constitutional scrutiny without clear standards
  • Political advantage calculation: Democrats and progressive groups generally support this (believing it constrains wealthy conservative donors), while Republicans and business groups typically oppose it (viewing restrictions as limiting their political voice)
  • Amendment feasibility: The extremely high bar for constitutional amendments (two-thirds of both Congressional chambers, then 38 states) makes passage unlikely regardless of merits

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.