We are unifying Americans to restore the power of voters, through their elected representatives, the power to set the rules about money in politics. Here’s why – and how.
The U.S. campaign finance system is broken. A series of Supreme Court decisions — most notably, Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC — stripped lawmakers’ ability to decide whether and how to set limits on political spending. These court decisions kicked open the door to unlimited election spending by billionaire donors, out-of-state groups, and even foreign entities. This doesn’t serve the interests of actual constituents, and it opens the door to political corruption.
In the 2023-2024 cycle, an estimated $20 billion was spent on electioneering, much of that by a small group of elite donors and special interest groups. Misguided court rulings have essentially given the richest individuals a right to buy political influence, undermining the voices of ordinary citizens.
The consequences have been stark:
Nearly 90% of voters agree that our campaign finance system needs an overhaul — and until we fix it, we won’t be able to fully address any of our nation’s biggest challenges.
It wasn’t always this way. In the early 20th century, Americans demanded campaign finance rules to curb corruption and limit the influence of corporate money. In the 1970s, a bipartisan Congress strengthened the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) to boost transparency and accountability.
But over time, the Supreme Court dismantled these safeguards. In 1976, the Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that political spending is a form of speech under the First Amendment. This established a dangerous precedent: any law that limits campaign spending could be struck down as an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech.
Over the past fifty years, this logic was pushed to the extreme. For example, in Citizens United v. FEC (2010), the Supreme Court held that:
Citizens United and other court rulings have dismantled basic anti-corruption measures, taken away legitimate power from lawmakers, and enabled big spenders, including foreign entities, to consolidate unprecedented political power.
The For Our Freedom Amendment is a proposed constitutional amendment that would restore the ability of lawmakers to decide whether and how to regulate political spending. It would not mandate any specific reforms, or advance the agenda of a specific party. Rather, it would give elected officials the freedom and flexibility to enact policies that reflect the will of their constituents.
The For Our Freedom Amendment was developed through a multi-year, nationwide deliberative process. Citizens, lawmakers, and scholars from across the political spectrum helped shape its language.
The Supreme Court has decided that many campaign finance laws are inherently unconstitutional. That would no longer be an issue, however, if the Constitution explicitly rejected that notion and stated that reasonable regulations of political spending are permissible.
In decisions like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court held that political spending is a protected form of speech under the First Amendment. As a result, even reasonable anti-corruption laws, such as donor disclosure requirements or limits on foreign political spending, can be overturned in court. This is true of both federal and state laws.
The For Our Freedom Amendment would return power to state and federal lawmakers, allowing them to choose whether to pass laws that limit the influence of big money in politics, enact strong transparency requirements, and protect the integrity of U.S. elections. Without a constitutional amendment, even commonsense efforts will continue to be blocked by the court system.
No. The For Our Freedom Amendment is a cross-partisan proposal that enjoys wide support from citizens and lawmakers across the political spectrum. It is not affiliated with any political party, and it has been endorsed by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers, as well as political Independents. Surveys have found that voter support for a constitutional amendment is strong across Republican, Democrat, and Independent party lines.
The amendment would restore the ability of lawmakers to decide whether or not to regulate political spending and reduce the influence of big money in elections. It would not mandate any specific reforms, or advance the agenda of a specific party. Rather, it would give elected officials the freedom and flexibility to enact policies that reflect the will of their constituents.
American Promise is a cross-partisan organization. Our volunteers, staff, and advisors join us from across the political spectrum. Meet our Advisory Council.
Yes. The U.S. Constitution has already been amended 27 times, and nearly every generation of Americans has used the amendment process to respond to the nation’s evolving needs, including to overturn misguided Supreme Court decisions.
The For Our Freedom Amendment also has rare cross-partisan support. Eight-in-ten voters support the idea, and twenty-three states — as varied as Massachusetts and Montana, Alaska and Nevada, West Virginia and California — have formally called on Congress to pass an amendment that would return power to the people and reduce the political influence of big donors.
By design, it’s difficult to amend the Constitution — but it is absolutely possible. You can read more from the CEO of American Promise, Jeff Clements, in his op-ed, “The Myth of the Unamendable Constitution.” Historically, periods of division and discontent have produced successful movements for constitutional change. For this reason, among others, scholars believe we are poised to enter an “amendment era.” Learn why in this article from POLITICO.
The For Our Freedom Amendment would give lawmakers the constitutional authority to ban foreign money in our elections—something they currently cannot do under Supreme Court precedent. In July 2025, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston struck down a Maine law that aimed to block foreign governments and foreign-owned corporations from spending to influence Maine candidate and ballot-question campaigns. Following Supreme Court precedent, the appellate court ruled that these restrictions violate the First Amendment.
The For Our Freedom Amendment would restore the ability of Congress and state legislatures to enact reasonable campaign finance laws — including banning foreign spending and requiring full disclosure of donors. Without this constitutional change, however, foreign entities can (and will) continue exploiting legal loopholes to influence American politics.
The For Our Freedom Amendment would give Congress and state legislatures the ability to decide whether or how to regulate Super PACs.
A “Super PAC,” sometimes called an “independent expenditure” group, is a type of political action committee that can raise and spend unlimited sums of money to influence elections, as long as the entity does not directly coordinate with a campaign or candidate. Super PACs were made possible by two court decisions in 2010: Citizens United v. FEC and Speechnow.org v. FEC.
The For Our Freedom Amendment would restore the ability of lawmakers to set limits on fundraising and spending by such groups, as well as close the loopholes that allow big donors to remain anonymous.
The For Our Freedom Amendment would help combat dark money in U.S. elections by restoring lawmakers’ ability to require disclosure of political donors.
Today, some disclosure laws are considered permissible — but others have been struck down by courts, creating loopholes that allow elite donors and special interest groups to spend money without transparency or public scrutiny.
The amendment would affirm that reasonable campaign finance laws, including donor disclosure requirements, are constitutional.
Not yet. Several constitutional amendments have been proposed in Congress for the past four decades; however, the exact text of the For Our Freedom Amendment has not yet been formally introduced on Capitol Hill. To date, 23 states have called on Congress to introduce the For Our Freedom Amendment, or one similar to it.
The For Our Freedom Amendment was developed through a multi-year, nationwide deliberative process. Citizens, lawmakers, and scholars from across the political spectrum helped shape its language. We stand strongly behind our amendment text, which offers a combination of cross-partisan appeal, legal rigor, and the flexibility required to govern in the 21st century.
American Promise is supported through a combination of individual donations and foundation grants. We operate through two nonprofit entities:
We are committed to full transparency. We disclose our donors in our annual reports and publish our financial information on our website.
You can support American Promise and the For Our Freedom Amendment in several meaningful ways.
