Relating to: an advisory referendum on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Summary
AJR42 proposes to place an advisory referendum on the November 2026 ballot asking Wisconsin voters whether Congress should propose, and the Wisconsin Legislature should ratify, a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. F.E.C. The resolution states that Citizens United and related cases allow unlimited spending to influence elections and frames the proposed amendment as a way to ensure all Americans have an equal voice in democracy.
The referendum question would ask voters to endorse an amendment declaring that only human beings have constitutional rights, not corporations, unions, nonprofit organizations, or other artificial entities, and that money is not speech. The measure is advisory only; it would not itself change Wisconsin election law or the U.S. Constitution, but would express the state’s position on a federal constitutional amendment and direct the question to voters for nonbinding guidance.
Impact
Because AJR42 is an advisory referendum, it would not directly amend state statutes, regulate campaign finance, or alter election administration by itself. Its legal effect would be limited to placing a nonbinding question before Wisconsin voters in the 2026 general election and, if approved, signaling support for a federal constitutional amendment through Wisconsin’s congressional delegation and Legislature. The resolution is aimed at federal constitutional change rather than immediate state-law changes, though it concerns campaign finance, political spending, and corporate personhood.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been introduced by a large group of Democratic legislators and cosponsored by Democratic senators, indicating strong support among its sponsors for campaign finance reform and overturning Citizens United. The text itself uses affirmative language about equal political voice and limiting the influence of money in elections, suggesting a reform-oriented and anti-Citizens United sentiment. However, the bill ultimately failed to adopt pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not secure final legislative approval.
Contention
The central point of contention is the underlying constitutional and policy debate over Citizens United and the role of money in politics. Supporters view the proposal as a way to curb unlimited election spending and reduce the influence of corporations and other entities, while opponents would likely object to the proposed amendment’s rejection of corporate and organizational constitutional rights and its premise that money is not speech. The resolution’s advisory nature may also be a point of debate, since it asks voters for guidance on a federal constitutional amendment rather than enacting a direct state policy change.