I'm not sure I follow. Congress and the States do regulate campaign funding as it is. SCOTUS only interprets the legislation that they enact, and determines whether or not it is constitutional. That said, this part of the amendment sounds misguided: By definition, the SCOTUS is supposed to uphold the Constitution, and rejects laws that are found to be unconstitutional. An amendment regarding campaign finance would define how SCOTUS should interpret all related legislation. Saying that some legislation is off-hands from SCOTUS would be a breach of the separation of powers, and yes, legislation that resulted in more de-regulation would be sheltered by the amendment. In short, I agree that the law could have the same bad result, but not because of the power it gives Congress and the States, but the power it removes from the SCOTUS.It would also prohibit the Supreme Court from reversing any future campaign finance legislation passed by Congress.