Two Texas Republicans Want to Limit Campaign Money. Again.

Two Texas Republicans filed the same resolution on the same day. It asks Congress to let states limit money in elections. They filed it last session too. It never got a vote.

Plain English summary

On November 10, 2026, Sen. Angela Paxton filed Senate Concurrent Resolution 2. The same day, Rep. Matt Shaheen filed House Concurrent Resolution 19. (FACT, Texas Legislature Online)

The two texts are word for word the same. Same drafting number, 90R 3299. (FACT, SCR 2 and HCR 19 introduced text)

Here is what they ask for.

The Texas Legislature would "respectfully urge" Congress to propose a constitutional amendment and send it to the states. That amendment would say the states and Congress "may reasonably regulate and limit the spending of money to influence campaigns, elections, or ballot measures." (FACT, SCR 2 text)

It goes one step further. It says lawmakers could treat "natural persons" differently from "artificial entities such as corporations, unions, and artificial intelligences." (FACT, SCR 2 text)

People. Versus corporations, unions, and AI.

That is the whole fight in one sentence.

Why it matters

Look at what the resolution itself says about the system we have now.

It calls it "a broken system of election spending." It says that system lets "outside influences, foreign actors, and artificial entities" spend "unlimited sums of money" to influence elections. (FACT, SCR 2 text)

It says the U.S. Supreme Court, over five decades, has "stripped power from the states and Congress" on election spending, and that the result has been to "drown out the free speech interests of constituents" and "increase the risk of systemic corruption." (FACT, SCR 2 text)

That is not a press release from the other party. That is the text of a resolution filed by two Republicans in Austin. (DOCUMENTED INFERENCE, party affiliation as reported; Washington Sun headline: "Angela Paxton Leads the Push to Overturn Citizens United")

The reporting calls it a push to overturn Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court case. The resolution itself never names that case. (DOCUMENTED INFERENCE, Washington Sun; resolution text checked)

The receipt

This is the second time.

In the last session, Paxton filed the same idea as SCR 28. It was referred to the Senate State Affairs Committee on March 10, 2025. It stayed there. (FACT, TLO history, 89R SCR 28)

The House version, HCR 79 by Rep. Leo Wilson, listed coauthors Cain, Dorazio, Harris, and Metcalf. It was referred to House State Affairs on March 5, 2025. It stayed there too. (FACT, TLO history, 89R HCR 79)

No committee vote shows on either history page. Status for both: "In committee." (FACT, TLO)

The resolving language in the 2025 Senate version and the 2026 version is the same, down to the line about artificial intelligences. (FACT, 89R SCR 28 and 90R SCR 2 text compared)

So the question is not what they want. They wrote it down twice.

The question is whether anybody in leadership lets it get a vote.

What Ryan says

I am running for office in East Texas. So I read this one closely.

A man in Gilmer or Marshall who gives fifty dollars to a candidate is a natural person. He has a name. He has a vote. He has to live with what he backs.

A corporation does not vote. A union does not vote. An AI program does not vote.

When those things can spend without limit, the man with fifty dollars gets drowned out. The resolution says that out loud. I agree with that part.

But I will tell you where I want the receipts.

"Reasonably regulate." Who decides what is reasonable? The same people who got elected with that money? That word needs guardrails, or it becomes a tool to shut up whoever is out of power.

Free speech is not the problem. Unlimited money from things that cannot vote is the problem. Keep those two straight.

I also want to know why this died in committee last time with no vote on the record. Somebody chose that. Put a name on it.

If you believe what you filed, push for the hearing. Ask for the vote. Let every member of the Texas House and Senate put their name on yes or no.

Same idea, filed twice. Show me the vote.

What this does not prove

It does not change any law. A concurrent resolution is a request to Congress. It is not binding. (FACT, resolution says "respectfully urge")

It does not limit one dollar of spending in Texas today.

It does not write the amendment. It asks Congress to propose one. Any amendment would still have to clear Congress and be ratified by the states under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.

It does not say who kept the 2025 version from a vote. The record shows it sat in committee. It does not show why. (NEEDS AUTHENTICATION, reason it was not heard)

It does not prove any lawmaker took or refused any specific donation.

What it does prove

Two sitting Republican lawmakers put in writing that the election money system is broken and that unlimited spending by outside influences and artificial entities threatens self-government. (FACT, text; party as reported)

They filed it on the second day of prefiling for the 2027 session. (FACT, TLO filing report, November 10, 2026)

The same request died without a committee vote in 2025. (FACT, TLO)

The bottom line

This is the record.

Who do our elections belong to?

The people, or whoever can write the biggest check?

Austin wrote the answer down twice. Now let us see if they will vote on it.

Do not threaten anyone. Do not harass anyone. Do not contact anyone in my name. Read it. Share it. Send receipts, evidence, witnesses. Put eyes on the record.