Nov. 9, 2025 — Today, as the U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission, American Promise issued the following statement from Jeff Clements, co-founder and CEO:
“Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in NRSC v. FEC, Americans are once again stuck watching nine unelected judges decide the rules of our elections—rules that for the first 200 years of our country’s history belonged to the people, as the founders intended. Ever since Buckley v. Valeo nearly 50 years ago, courts have treated political spending like an untouchable right and pushed voters and our elected representatives to the sidelines. That approach was wrong then, and it’s wrong now. In case after case, federal judges have struck down state and local efforts to put reasonable guardrails on campaign money and restore trust in elections.
“The result is a political system increasingly drowning in money and corruption. The vast majority of Americans, across the political spectrum, reject a system of unlimited election spending, and candidates, parties, and donors are trapped in an arms race no one asked for. A small circle of powerful interests, even foreign interests, can now tilt elections at every level—flooding local races with outside money and polarizing and misleading attacks that drown out local voices and deepen partisan division. That doesn’t expand free speech or improve the marketplace of ideas; it drowns out the voices of ordinary voters and locks in gridlock on the issues Americans care about most. Without an off-ramp, political spending will only continue to rise, further concentrating power and corrupting our system of self-government beyond repair.
“Under our Constitution, the American people through our elected representatives—not the courts—have the power to decide about how money should influence our elections. After decades of failed Supreme Court rulings, Americans are advancing a constitutional amendment that explicitly restores that power. We urge continued action in our state legislatures and Congress to pass and ratify this constitutional amendment promptly.”
For Background:
American Promise does not take a position on the particular policy at issue in NRSC v. FEC. In August, the organization filed an amicus brief supporting neither side. The brief urges the Court to reconsider its modern campaign finance jurisprudence in light of Founding-era understandings of free speech and the proper role of the judiciary. It notes that the Court’s 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, which, for the first time, equated political spending with speech, didn’t consider originalist principles and shifted control over campaign finance policy away from elected lawmakers and toward the Court itself.
Public opinion data underscores the depth of concern. New nationwide polling commissioned by American Promise finds broad, cross-partisan agreement that money in politics is a serious threat to U.S. elections, with large majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents supporting a constitutional amendment to allow Congress and the states to set reasonable limits on political spending and opposing a system of unlimited election spending.
American Promise is advancing the For Our Freedom Amendment, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restore the power of Congress and the states to set reasonable limits on campaign spending. The amendment would not impose any particular set of rules; instead, it would return these decisions to voters and their elected representatives.
To date, 23 states, as varied as Massachusetts and Montana, Alaska and Nevada, West Virginia and California, have formally called on Congress to pass the amendment, or one similar to it, and send it to the states for ratification.
