Voters Call for Constitutional Amendment to Curb Money's Influence in Politics

Fifty years after Buckley v. Valeo, concerns grow that wealthy donors dominate elections.

Apr. 3, 2026 at 4:05pm

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

An abstract, overlapping geometric painting in shades of navy, teal, and ochre, depicting a gavel, ballot box, and dollar bills, conceptually representing the chaotic impact of money on the democratic process.A fractured, avant-garde painting illustrates the growing public concern over the outsized influence of money in the political process.San Diego Today

Voters and elected officials are calling for a constitutional amendment to regulate campaign spending and reduce the outsized influence of money in politics. This comes 50 years after the Supreme Court's Buckley v. Valeo decision equated campaign spending with free speech, and 16 years after Citizens United extended similar rights to corporations and unions, leading to an explosion of campaign spending.

Why it matters

Polling shows broad, bipartisan agreement that money has too much influence in politics, especially in California where outside money plays an outsized role, making elections among the most expensive in the nation. Voters want the rules around campaign spending to be set by themselves and their elected representatives, not the courts.

The details

The author argues that a constitutional amendment is needed to restore the authority of Congress and the states to regulate campaign spending, in order to put 'We the People' back in charge of the political process. They note that the Constitution has been amended before to correct the nation's course, and it's time to do so again to address the growing concern that democracy is being dominated by a small, wealthy few.

  • This year marks the 50th anniversary of the Buckley v. Valeo Supreme Court ruling.
  • Citizens United was decided 16 years ago.

The players

Rosalind Hirst

A resident of Normal Heights, California who wrote the letter to the editor.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“Voters and elected officials — not the courts — to set the rules.”

— Rosalind Hirst, Normal Heights Resident

The takeaway

This case highlights the growing bipartisan consensus that money has too much influence in politics, and the desire among voters to have Congress and state legislatures, not the courts, set the rules around campaign spending through a constitutional amendment.