SJM 8001
In CommitteeSenate
Elections, money spent on
Calling on Congress to exercise its authority under Article V of the United States Constitution to regulate money spent on elections.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill is a formal request (called a joint memorial) from Washington’s state legislature asking the U.S. Congress to propose a constitutional amendment that would let states and Congress regulate campaign finance more strictly—especially to limit large or anonymous spending and to clarify that only people, not corporations, have constitutional rights. It responds to concerns about rising dark money and outside spending in elections since 2012.
- Calls on the U.S. Congress to propose a constitutional amendment allowing state and federal legislatures to set limits on the size and timing of campaign contributions, including those made to independent expenditure groups.
- Proposes that Congress and states be allowed to distinguish between individuals and corporations or other artificial entities, and to ban corporate or organizational spending to influence elections.
- Requires timely public disclosure of who donates to campaigns and independent spending groups, including the amount and source of all contributions.
- States that constitutional rights (like free speech) apply only to individual human beings, not to corporations or other legal entities.
- Declares that spending money to influence elections should not be considered protected free speech under the First Amendment.
- Affirms that the proposed amendment would not restrict individuals’ rights to free speech, press, religion, or association.
Who is affected
- Voters — Voters in Washington State may be affected if large, anonymous, or uncontrolled spending by outside groups continues to influence election outcomes and public discourse.
- Political candidates — Candidates for state and federal office may face increased challenges from large, anonymous, or independently operated spending that they cannot control or fully disclose.
- Political spending groups (e.g., PACs, super PACs, nonprofits) — Political action committees (PACs), super PACs, and other nonprofit or corporate groups that currently spend unlimited or anonymous money on elections could face new restrictions on their activities if the proposed constitutional amendment passes.
- State government and legislature — Washington State and its legislature are asked to formally request a federal constitutional amendment, placing the state in a broader national movement to change campaign finance rules.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
Could reduce the influence of wealthy donors and outside special interests in elections, strengthening electoral integrity and public confidence in democratic processes — especially beneficial for everyday voters who currently experience diminished voice when large sums dominate discourse.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 2(1)(a): 'The authority to regulate the size and timing of contributions... whether made directly to campaigns or to groups making independent expenditures'Enhances transparency in political spending, enabling voters to evaluate who is influencing elections — this empowers informed decision-making and helps prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, benefiting all voters regardless of income or status.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Section 2(1)(c): 'The authority to require timely public disclosure of the source and amount of all such contributions'Could rebalance constitutional interpretation to prioritize individual human voices over corporate legal personhood — addressing concerns that corporate spending drowns out individual political speech, especially for low- and middle-income Washingtonians.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Section 2(2): 'States that constitutional rights... are the rights of individual human beings only'Would allow democratically elected legislatures to enact campaign finance limits that reflect community values — restoring public authority over political spending and countering judicial overreach that has enabled unlimited spending by wealthy individuals and corporations.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Section 2(3): 'States that the judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to be free speech under the first amendment...'
Potential Concerns (4)
Could restrict political speech by equating money spent on elections with non-speech activity, potentially chilling legitimate expressive activity (e.g., issue advocacy, grassroots mobilization) that is closely tied to electoral participation — even if the bill claims to preserve free speech rights, the constitutional shift could create legal uncertainty that deters advocacy by ordinary people and small groups.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Section 2(3): 'States that the judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to be free speech under the first amendment...'Could undermine legitimate collective expression by unincorporated associations (e.g., grassroots coalitions, advocacy networks, labor locals, community groups) that currently rely on organizational speech protections to amplify members’ voices — especially problematic for low-income or marginalized groups who lack individual resources but gain power through collective action.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Section 2(2): 'States that constitutional rights... are the rights of individual human beings only'Mandates disclosure of political contributions, which may expose donors (especially small-dollar or controversial-issue supporters) to harassment, retaliation, or social stigma — without clear safeguards or exceptions, potentially chilling participation from vulnerable or minority viewpoints.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Section 2(1)(c): 'The authority to require timely public disclosure of the source and amount of all such contributions'Could disproportionately impact small incorporated entities (e.g., local business associations, worker co-ops, community development corporations) that currently use independent expenditures to advocate for local interests — even if the bill intends to target large corporations, the constitutional language is broad and could be interpreted to include small organizations.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Section 2(1)(b): 'The authority to... prohibit such entities [artificial entities] from spending money to influence elections'
Who Is Most Affected
Voters — especially low- and middle-income residents — may gain greater influence over election outcomes and policy decisions as large, unaccountable spending is curtailed. However, some may fear disclosure requirements could expose them to retaliation if their political views are unpopular in their communities.
Candidates for office — especially those without access to wealthy donor networks — may benefit from a more level playing field, but may also face new compliance burdens and legal uncertainty during implementation of new rules.
Large political spending groups (e.g., super PACs, dark money nonprofits) would face significant new restrictions on unlimited or anonymous spending — a clear negative impact. Smaller, transparent advocacy groups may benefit from reduced competitive pressure from big-money actors.
State government and legislature gain symbolic leadership in a national movement to reform campaign finance, but bear no direct fiscal cost or administrative burden under this memorial — the actual regulatory impact depends on whether Congress and states adopt the proposed amendment.
Small businesses and incorporated advocacy groups (e.g., chambers of commerce, local nonprofits) may face restrictions on independent expenditures, but could benefit from reduced competition with deep-pocketed corporate interests if the amendment is narrowly interpreted.