A growing movement to secure the 28th Amendment aims to block out-of-state money from local elections, with 23 states already on board to ensure representatives truly answer to their constituents rather than distant donors.
At a Glance
- External funding in local elections has reached unprecedented levels, with up to 90% of campaign funds coming from out-of-state sources
- 23 states have endorsed a potential 28th Amendment to prohibit foreign and out-of-state money in local elections
- In 2024, voters across 41 states decided on 159 statewide ballot measures, approving 93 and rejecting 53
- Campaign contributions for 2024 ballot measures totaled $1.32 billion nationwide, with California and Florida leading in spending
- The proposed amendment aims to ensure local representatives better reflect the priorities of their actual constituents
The Growing Influence of Outside Money
The 2024 election cycle has shined a spotlight on the overwhelming influence of external financial contributions in local elections across America. In many races, campaign war chests have swelled with up to 90% of funds coming from outside the district or state where the election is taking place. This flood of non-local money has raised serious questions about whether elected officials truly represent the people who live in their districts or the distant donors who fund their campaigns.
The scope of outside influence is staggering. According to Ballotpedia, campaign contributions for 2024 ballot measures alone reached $1.32 billion nationally, with California and Florida seeing the highest spending levels. This external funding doesn’t just apply to high-profile races but increasingly affects local elections that determine who governs at the community level.
With such significant financial influence coming from beyond district and state lines, many voters have begun questioning whether their local representatives are truly accountable to them or to wealthy contributors from elsewhere. The concern extends beyond partisan politics, touching on fundamental questions about representation and democracy at the local level.
— Bennetta Elliott (@belliott123) April 23, 2025
The Push for a Constitutional Solution
In response to growing concerns about external financial influence in local politics, a movement has gained significant momentum to create a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This proposed amendment would block both foreign and out-of-state monetary involvement in local elections. The measure aims to ensure elected officials primarily answer to their actual constituents rather than distant donors with potentially different priorities and values.
The effort has already gained substantial traction, with 23 states endorsing the proposed amendment. This represents significant progress toward the two-thirds of states (34) required to call a constitutional convention or the three-fourths (38) needed for ratification if Congress initiates the amendment process. Unlike recent failed attempts to change state constitutions in Arizona and North Dakota, this multi-state effort demonstrates broader appeal.
The State-Level Constitutional Amendment Landscape
The push for this federal amendment comes amid significant activity at the state constitutional level. State constitutions prove much easier to amend than the federal Constitution, with state constitutions having been amended approximately a staggering 7,000 times compared to just 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution throughout American history. This discrepancy highlights both the difficulty of amending the federal Constitution and the significance of the growing momentum behind the proposed 28th Amendment.
The methods for amending state constitutions vary widely. Legislature-crafted amendments account for over 80% of all state constitutional amendments and typically require varying levels of legislative support followed by voter approval. Meanwhile, seventeen states allow citizen-initiated amendments, requiring signature collection and often a simple majority vote for ratification. This diversity in amendment processes demonstrates Americans’ ongoing engagement with constitutional governance at various levels.
Protecting Local Representation
Supporters of the proposed 28th Amendment argue that local elections should reflect local priorities and values. When the vast majority of campaign funds come from outside sources, they contend this undermines genuine local representation. By restricting outside money’s influence, the amendment aims to ensure elected officials remain primarily accountable to the people actually living in their districts rather than distant donors with potentially different interests.
The movement reflects growing bipartisan concern about election integrity and the genuine representation of local communities. While money in politics has long been controversial, the focus on specifically restricting out-of-state funding represents a targeted approach that appeals to Americans concerned about preserving local control and accountability without necessarily addressing broader campaign finance reform.
The Road Ahead
With 23 states already supporting the proposed amendment, advocates face the challenge of securing additional states’ support to reach the constitutional threshold. The amendment process itself remains difficult by design, requiring either two-thirds of state legislatures to call a constitutional convention or a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress followed by ratification by three-fourths of states.
The 2024 election cycle has demonstrated American voters’ ongoing engagement with constitutional matters. Voters in 41 states considered 159 ballot measures, many of which involved constitutional questions ranging from abortion rights to electoral systems. This level of civic participation suggests Americans remain deeply invested in the constitutional principles that govern their democracy, making the proposed 28th Amendment part of a broader national conversation about representation and governance.
