Brian Boyle, American Promise’s chief program officer & general counsel, submitted testimony to the Arizona Senate Federalism Committee concerning SCR 1012, a resolution that would support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution designed to restore the ability of states to protect our elections from dark money and foreign interference.

To: Members of the Senate Federalism Committee
From: Brian Boyle, Chief Program Officer & General Counsel, American Promise
Re: SCR 1012
Date: February 10, 2025 

Testimony Concerning SCR 1012 

Chairman Finchem and Honorable Members of the Federalism Committee – thank you very much for the opportunity to testify this afternoon.

My name is Brian Boyle, and I am the General Counsel and Chief Program Officer for American Promise. We are an organization with a singular focus: helping to mobilize support across the country for a constitutional amendment that would restore the power of the states to decide whether and how to regulate money in their political system. 

In my remarks this afternoon, I’d like to cover three things:

• First, what is the nature of the problem when it comes to money in politics? What are the types of threats it presents, and why is it a constitution-level problem?
• Second, what is the solution? How would a potential amendment to the United States Constitution address this problem?
• Third, what is your role in all of this? How can you be part of creating a solution that the people of Arizona, and the people all across this country, would very much like to see? 

First – what’s the problem? Well, to explain the problem, I don’t think I can put it much better than Chairman Finchem did when I met with him a couple weeks ago. He said, “When it comes to money in politics, the whole system is sort of like an oven in your kitchen. It goes from zero to five hundred – and 500 is really blazing. Right now, money in politics in this country is at 450, and it’s only getting hotter. And maybe we should be able to dial it down.” 

So what’s going on? It’s not just about the amount of money in the political system, although that in itself is pretty astounding. It’s also about where the money is coming from. And it’s about whether we even know where the money is coming from. Here are just a few data points: 

• You’ve all run for office, so you know that some of the money goes directly to candidates in the form of contributions. But there’s also a lot of “outside money” or so-called “independent spending.” If you look at the data for federal elections, in 2008 the total amount of outside spending was just about $574 million. Last year, in 2024, the total amount of outside spending was nearly $4.5 billion – a 900% increase in just 15 years. 
• Now consider the sources of the money in the system. Back in 2008, there were just 100 people in the country who were responsible for 1.5% of all federal election spending. In 2024, the top 100 donors were responsible for nearly 15% of all federal spending. That’s a very, very small group of people – small enough to fit comfortably inside this room – who are responsible for a huge portion of the money that flows through the system. 
• Another dynamic that you’re probably all familiar with is out-of-state money. A few years ago, there was a law review article that came out called The Geography of Campaign Finance Law. It surveyed a bunch of the data and said this: “donors in five percent of the nation’s zip codes—concentrated in the nation’s major metropolitan areas—contribute more than three times as much in itemized contributions to federal elections than the rest of the country combined.” People talk about these as “donor zip codes.” These are the handful of very wealthy places that are flooding the rest of the country with their money. I’m sure this is a dynamic that you’ve seen yourselves. 
  • Just consider the recent race for U.S. Senate in Arizona. When you take a look at the data about itemized contributions from individuals, it tells an interesting story. Kari Lake raised nearly $17 million dollars, and 73% of that came outside of Arizona. Ruben Gallego raised nearly $36 million dollars, and 76% of that came from out-of-state. 
• Lastly, when it comes to where the money is coming from, perhaps the most worrying fact is that foreign money is also making its way into our American elections. To give one stark example: In the state of Maine, over $100 million dollars flowed into that state’s ballot elections from foreign government-owned or foreign government-influenced corporations. 

Now, I’m not here to list all of the shocking examples of how money is influencing our elections. I’m just trying to give a sense of the scope of the problem. It’s a ton of money, it’s concentrated money, it’s out-of-state money, and it’s even foreign money. 

Those are some of the reasons why 8 in 10 Americans say that they are concerned about the influence of money in politics. And that’s why, last year, “reducing the influence of money in politics” was the number three priority for Americans when they were asked what they hoped Congress and the President would focus on. 

Now, point two, what about the solution? Really, what we need is a solution designed to address a simple question: Who decides?

Who decides whether foreign money should be able to flow into Arizona’s – or any state’s – elections?

Who decides whether outside billionaires – people who’ve never stepped foot in your state – should be able to dominate Arizona’s elections with all their money? 

Who decides whether or not the true sources of money in politics should be known to the voting public?

For the past 50 years, the Supreme Court has said: We decide. Not you. Not the people. Us. This first began back in the 1970s with a case called Buckley v. Valeo, and it has continued over the past five decades. The Court has essentially transformed the federal judiciary into the nation’s campaign finance policymaker.

But I believe – and the proposed constitutional amendment would take the view – that the people of Arizona, and the people of all states, should be able to decide the answers to these types of questions for their state.

Now, purely as a matter of policy, you might like or agree with some of the particular campaign finance rules that the Supreme Court has created over the past 50 years. Nothing in the proposed amendment would require you to have a different rule if you didn’t want one. But what this amendment says is that you should get to decide the rules for Arizona.

Making campaign finance policy is not a judicial function, and the courts are not engaged in legal interpretation when they make campaign finance rules. They are making policy. And right now, the policy that has been created by judges over the years is putting federalism and American sovereignty at risk.

Under the current judge-made system, foreign governments and actors – many of whom don’t share America’s interests – can secretly pour untraceable money into elections through dark money groups.

And when states try to curb such spending by foreign interests – as Ohio and Maine have recently done – those state laws get stalled or struck down in court. Maybe we can cross our fingers and hope that if and when these laws make their way to the Supreme Court, the Court will decide the way we want it to.

But should states’ ability to protect the integrity of their elections depend on whether five members of the Court happen to agree with that state’s decisions?

That’s why the solution is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restore the power of states to protect their elections from foreign and outside influence. Passing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would put these types of decisions back where they belong. Who would decide? With this amendment, you would decide.

Now, my last point: what’s your role?

As members of this committee and the state legislature, you have been chosen by your constituents to lead. The resolution before you today is meant to send a message to Washington, D.C. — to say: “We’ve had enough of the status quo, and we support an amendment that would restore our power to decide how to deal with the influence of money in politics.”

I can assure you — this resolution will matter, it will be powerful. When state lawmakers like yourselves support these resolutions, the people in D.C. take notice.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. I encourage you to vote in favor of SCR 1012. I would be happy to answer any questions. 5