Shawn Griffiths
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A new poll from the campaign finance reform group, American Promise, shows most Americans across the political spectrum agree: Money is not speech and unlimited political spending should not be protected as such under the First Amendment.
The poll, conducted by Ipsos on behalf of American Promise, found that voters – by a roughly three-to-one margin – say campaign finance laws should be decided by voters and their elected representatives, not by the Supreme Court.
Further, only 15% believed unlimited campaign spending should be considered protected speech.
“As the 2026 midterm campaigns heat up, Americans can see what’s coming: more outside spending, more secret money, and more ads funded by interests with no accountability,” said Jeff Clements, founder and CEO of American Promise.
And here’s the thing – we never chose this corrupt system. It was created by bad Supreme Court decisions over the last 50 years. This is a constitutional problem that needs a constitutional solution.”
The findings were released on the 50th anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo, the decision that first established the doctrine that spending money in elections is a form of political speech. Today, across party lines, Americans think election spending has gotten out of control as a result.
In fact, it is an 80-20 issue:
- 81% are concerned about the influence of money in politics, including 78% of Republicans, 90% of Democrats, and 82% of Independents
- 77% say money in politics poses a threat to elections
Similarly, a recent Independent Voter Project survey found that 91% of independent voters in California supported an initiative that reins in foreign and corporate spending in elections.
These numbers reflect something deeper than partisan frustration. They show a broad recognition that the current system tilts power away from ordinary voters and toward wealthy donors and special interests.
That perception is backed up by additional findings in the American Promise poll:
- 68% say wealthy donors have more influence than they did a decade ago
- 76% agree large donors make it harder for ordinary Americans to have their voices heard, including 76% of Republicans, 86% of Democrats, and 81% of Independents
In short: Americans believe their voices are being drowned out.
The survey also finds strong bipartisan support for restoring the authority of Congress and state legislatures to regulate campaign spending: 72% agree Congress and the states should be able to reasonably regulate and limit money in campaigns and elections.
This result cuts directly against the dominant legal framework created by Buckley and expanded by later rulings, including Citizens United v. FEC (2010), which struck down numerous federal, state, and local campaign finance laws.
Under Citizens United, corporations cannot be restricted on how much they can give in independent expenditures. These expenditures advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate or issue without coordination with a candidate, candidate committee, or political party.
It has given rise to the modern-day concept of the super PAC.
Yet, despite Supreme Court precedent, voters are still trying to implement change – even when they know it will be challenged in court. For example, in 2022, Maine voters approved Question 1, which limited contributions to groups that make independent expenditures.
The limit ($5,000 from individuals and entities) essentially banned super PACs in Maine. In July 2025, a federal judge ruled that the ballot measure was unconstitutional. The decision is currently being appealed.
“Democrats, Republicans and Independents alike are fed up – and we want change,” said Clements. “This is a constitutional problem that needs a constitutional solution.”
That solution, American Promise argues, is a constitutional amendment.
The group is leading a national campaign for the For Our Freedom Amendment, which would restore the authority of Congress and the states to decide whether and how to address political spending.
According to American Promise, momentum is already building:
- 23 states have passed resolutions calling for such an amendment
- These states include Massachusetts, Utah, Alaska, Nevada, West Virginia, and California
The amendment would not mandate specific spending limits. Instead, it would return the power to set policy back to the people and their elected representatives.
While the hyper-partisan narrative during the 2026 midterms will focus on what divides Americans, recent polling shows where most voters find common ground and that is the need for systemic change, from open primaries to campaign finance reform.