HJR 54 2

These industries may sell different products, but they have discovered the same political strategy: spend enormous amounts of money to help elect the lawmakers who will decide their futures.

Buying influence before the rules are written

AI is developing faster than lawmakers can address its consequences. Congress must decide how these systems will use personal data and copyrighted work, whether algorithms may replace human decision-makers, who will be liable when AI causes harm and how much electricity and water data centers may consume.

Crypto corporations want favorable financial rules, limited oversight and legislation that gives their products greater legitimacy. Online-gambling companies want access to new markets while resisting restrictions intended to address addiction, financial exploitation and harm to young people.

These industries have billions of dollars at stake. Instead of simply making their case to the public, they are using political spending to help determine who writes the rules.

Super PACs allow corporations and billionaires to spend unlimited amounts supporting or opposing candidates, provided that their spending remains legally “independent” of the candidates’ campaigns. Dark-money organizations can conceal the original sources of political funding. Money can travel through several organizations before reaching voters through advertisements, making the true sponsor difficult—or sometimes impossible—to identify before Election Day.

Corporations can therefore influence elections without appearing on the ballot and, in many cases, without voters knowing who is behind the message.

This is not about one industry or party

Corporate political spending crosses party lines. Industries often support candidates from both parties, rewarding those who advance their interests and threatening those who do not.

That is what makes this system so powerful.

A corporation does not need to win every election. It only needs lawmakers in both parties to believe that supporting stronger regulation could trigger millions of dollars in opposition spending.

The influence begins before a vote is cast. Candidates may soften their positions to attract industry support or avoid becoming a Super PAC’s next target. Elected officials learn which investigations, appointments and regulations could bring financial consequences during their next campaign.

The result is a system in which industries do not merely lobby government after an election. They help construct the government that will regulate them.

Disclosure is necessary—but insufficient

Voters have a right to know who is attempting to influence their decisions. Stronger disclosure laws could expose more of the money flowing through Super PACs, shell organizations and temporary “pop-up” PACs.

But disclosure alone does not create political equality.

Knowing that an AI corporation, crypto billionaire or gambling company spent $20 million influencing an election does not restore the voice that spending overwhelmed. Transparency can tell us who purchased the megaphone; it does not prevent them from drowning everyone else out.

Contribution limits and other reforms also remain vulnerable because the Supreme Court has repeatedly treated political spending as protected speech. Under that doctrine, restricting how much wealth can be used to influence elections is portrayed as restricting speech itself.

But money is not speech. Money purchases access to speech, distribution for speech and the power to make one message virtually unavoidable. When wealth determines who can be heard, political equality becomes impossible.

Constitutional rights as a shield against accountability

Corporate influence does not end when an election is over. Corporations can also invoke constitutional rights to challenge the laws and enforcement actions intended to hold them accountable.

They may use the First Amendment to attack disclosure requirements, advertising restrictions and rules governing how companies communicate with consumers. They can invoke Fourth Amendment protections against government searches and investigations, Fifth Amendment due-process and property claims against regulation, and Fourteenth Amendment protections to challenge laws that distinguish between corporations and human beings. Artificial entities should not possess inherent constitutional rights intended to protect human dignity and liberty.

This creates a two-sided system of corporate power: corporations use money as protected “speech” to influence who writes the laws, then use corporate constitutional rights to challenge the laws that threaten their profits.

The public is forced to fight corporate power twice—first in the political system and again in the courts.

The Supreme Court manufactured corporate constitutional rights and transformed political spending into protected “speech”—giving AI, crypto and gambling corporations, along with billionaires, the power to overwhelm elections, shape the rules governing their own industries and challenge public protections that threaten their profits.

We need more than another campaign-finance rule

The We the People Amendment, H.J.Res. 54, addresses this crisis at its constitutional roots.

It would establish that constitutional rights belong to natural persons, not corporations or other artificial entities. It would make clear that money spent to influence elections is not protected speech. It would also require federal, state and local governments to regulate and publicly disclose political contributions and expenditures while protecting equal access to the political process regardless of wealth.

This matters because other reforms remain trapped inside a constitutional framework created by the Supreme Court. Congress can close one loophole, only for political operatives to find another—or for a court to strike the law down.

The We the People Amendment would change the rules governing the entire system.

AI, crypto and gambling corporations should be allowed to participate in public policy discussions. They should not be allowed to purchase greater political power than the human beings our Constitution is supposed to protect.

The lawmakers regulating these industries should be chosen by voters—not manufactured by Super PACs, dark money and corporate wealth.

It is time to end the rule of the new political kingmakers and build a government accountable to We the People.