Fact check: Which modern political organizations are actively working to reform constitutional powers?

1. Sharp claim extraction: who says what and why it matters

The documentation surfaces three core claims: first, the Center for American Progress advocates a "Corporate Power Reset" to blunt Citizens United-style corporate political influence, potentially via state legislation or ballot measures to sidestep constitutional obstacles ^[1]. Second, Senator Adam Schiff is proposing targeted reforms to curb presidential powers, including pardon limits and stronger congressional subpoena enforcement as checks on executive authority ^[2]. Third, Citizens for Self-Governance leads an Article V Convention of States campaign aimed at fiscal restraints, limiting federal authority, and term limits—allegedly to reclaim power for states and voters ^[3]. Each claim frames constitutional reform as a response to perceived institutional imbalances, but the proposed solutions differ sharply in mechanism and political aim.

2. Progressive pathway: rolling back corporate political power at state and federal levels

The CAP proposal frames corporate political power as the central constitutional problem and suggests state-level or ballot-based remedies that could make Citizens United effectively irrelevant without immediately overturning Supreme Court precedent ^[1]. This approach relies on a mix of statutory innovation and democratic pressure—favoring decentralized, state-by-state strategies to change how corporate speech and money are treated in the political sphere. The proposal signals an emphasis on practical, incremental reform tactics rather than a single federal constitutional amendment, highlighting a strategic effort to use state authority and popular votes to reconfigure power in national politics ^[1].

3. Institutional checks: congressional initiatives to rein in the presidency

Senator Schiff’s proposals represent a more traditional, federal-institutional approach focused on legal and procedural constraints on the presidency—expanding limits on pardon power and strengthening enforcement of congressional subpoenas ^[2]. These reforms use congressional legislation and oversight mechanisms to adjust the practical scope of executive authority without amending the Constitution directly. The aim is to rebalance power among branches through statutes and enforcement reforms, though such measures can face judicial review or executive resistance, meaning their durability depends on political consensus and potential litigation ^[2].

4. Article V conservatism: the Convention of States surge and its ambition

Citizens for Self-Governance’s Convention of States movement is mobilizing state legislatures to trigger an Article V convention that would propose amendments for fiscal restraint, reduced federal scope, and term limits ^[3]. Organizers portray this route as a direct constitutional reset driven by states rather than Congress. The movement’s growth is framed as a grassroots surge responding to perceived federal overreach, yet its use of Article V introduces legal and political uncertainty about scope and safeguards—questions opponents highlight as potential avenues for unexpected or broad changes to the Constitution ^[3].

5. Organized opposition and civic concerns: who’s pushing back and why

The League of Women Voters and allied organizations oppose a Constitutional Convention, warning that a convention—even narrowly called—could spiral beyond its intended scope and unleash unintended consequences, urging rescinding open calls for Article V conventions ^[4]. These civic groups argue for caution, preferring targeted reforms or conventional amendment procedures with clearer guardrails. Their stance frames the convention movement as risky and unpredictable, prioritizing stability of constitutional protections over rapid structural change. The opposition emphasizes democratic safeguards and the unpredictable institutional dynamics of a live constitutional convention ^[4].

6. State-level activity and issue breadth beyond the headlines

Beyond national debates, several state efforts touch constitutional change in targeted ways, such as ballot measures on fiscal rules, bail reform, and voting eligibility; some analyses note state bills addressing noncitizen voting or bail rules but do not tie them directly to national constitutional movements ^{[5] [6]}. These state-level initiatives illustrate how constitutional power disputes often play out locally—either as stopgap fixes or as laboratories for broader reform ideas. State campaigns can be co-opted or amplified by national groups, meaning local constitutional tinkering may feed into larger amendment discussions or Article V mobilization ^{[5] [6]}.

7. Timeline, partisan tilt, and tactical divergence in recent months

All cited items are from late 2025, showing concurrent activity: CAP’s proposal (Sept 15), Schiff’s legislative pushes (Sept 17), Convention of States momentum (Sept 21), and League of Women Voters responses (Nov 3) reflect a compressed period of intensified debate ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. Progressive institutional proposals and conservative Article V activism proceeded in parallel during fall 2025, producing immediate counter-responses from civic groups. The close clustering of dates demonstrates how reform proposals produce rapid organizing and countermobilization across ideological lines, intensifying public discussion about constitutional change.

8. Bottom line: active reforms are numerous, but varied in goals and risks

Contemporary efforts to reform constitutional powers are active and ideologically diverse: progressives pursue statutory and state-level strategies to curb corporate influence and reinforce congressional checks, while conservative grassroots groups push Article V amendments for fiscal limits and term caps. Civic organizations warn of convention risks and urge restraint. The result is a multi-front contest over constitutional structure, with each pathway offering different legal complexities, political risks, and chances of success depending on state-level traction, congressional action, and potential judicial review ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.