Missouri Amendment 7 (2026): What the Show-Me Prosperity Fund Would Do

Missouri Amendment 7 would create a permanent state investment fund designed to grow over many years. Its long-term goal is to replace state taxes with investment earnings.

Passage would establish the fund and the rules for investing and protecting it. Future lawmakers would decide how much state money to contribute. Tax rates would remain unchanged until the fund generates enough net investment earnings, the state treasurer determines that it has met the threshold, and lawmakers approve and implement the reductions.

Missouri voters will decide Amendment 7 at the November 3, 2026, general election.

Quick facts

Election: November 3, 2026

Ballot designation: Amendment 7

Fund name: Show-Me Prosperity Fund

Proposal: Create a permanent public endowment in the Missouri Constitution

Funding: Money appropriated by the General Assembly, plus gifts, donations, grants and bequests

Investment: Exchange-traded funds tracking the S&P 500 or a comparable successor index

Long-term goal: Replace revenue from state-imposed taxes with investment earnings

Immediate tax cut: None

Local taxes: Amendment 7 would not eliminate taxes imposed by cities, counties, school districts or other local governments

What is Missouri Amendment 7?

Amendment 7 is a proposed amendment to Article IV of the Missouri Constitution. The General Assembly placed it on the ballot through Senate Joint Resolution 95, sponsored by state Sen. Adam Schnelting.

The amendment would establish the Show-Me Prosperity Fund as a permanent public endowment in the state treasury. The state would invest money in the fund and allow it to grow over time. Its long-term goal is to generate enough earnings to replace revenue from state-imposed taxes while preserving the fund’s principal.

The official ballot title asks voters whether Missouri should create the fund to support state government instead of taxing residents once it generates sufficient revenue.

This type of government-owned investment account is often called a sovereign wealth fund. Other governments have used similar funds to save and invest public money for future needs.

How would the Show-Me Prosperity Fund receive money?

The General Assembly would decide how much state money to put into the fund. It could also receive gifts, donations, grants and bequests from other sources.

Amendment 7 does not make an initial deposit, require annual contributions or dedicate an existing source of revenue to the fund. Passage would create the account and its constitutional rules. Building the fund would depend largely on decisions made by future lawmakers.

The General Assembly could contribute substantial amounts, make occasional deposits or provide no money in a given year. The final fiscal note says the timing and amount of future appropriations cannot be estimated. As a result, the amendment’s near-term cost to state general revenue is unknown.

Amendment 7 itself does not specify how donors would be disclosed or whether businesses seeking state contracts, grants or other official action could contribute. Any agreement to exchange a donation for official action would remain subject to Missouri’s bribery law. State procurement rules would continue to govern the award of contracts.

How would Missouri invest the money?

The state treasurer would invest the fund in exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that track the S&P 500. State law could designate a comparable successor index if the S&P 500 is replaced in the future.

An S&P 500 fund follows the performance of about 500 large publicly traded American companies.

The treasurer would be required to follow the fiduciary standards that apply to public trust funds. Investment income and realized gains would remain in the fund after management fees and expenses.

Returns would vary with the stock market. Amendment 7 relies on investment growth over many years and does not guarantee an annual rate of return.

When could the fund begin replacing state taxes?

The fund could not be used to replace taxes immediately. The state treasurer would first have to determine that its net investment earnings during the previous fiscal year were sufficient to replace the revenue generated by all state-imposed taxes covered by the amendment.

The treasurer would then notify the General Assembly. Lawmakers would have to approve that determination through a concurrent resolution within the first 60 days of the following regular legislative session.

Even after the fund reached that threshold, no more than 3% of its average market value over the previous five fiscal years could be withdrawn in one year. Lawmakers could choose to withdraw less.

Tax reductions would also require implementing legislation. Amendment 7 creates the constitutional process for eventually eliminating state taxes. Passage would not automatically change any tax rate.

Which taxes could be eliminated?

Once the fund met the required threshold, its earnings could be used only to eliminate state-imposed taxes. Amendment 7 specifically names:

• The individual income tax
• The state sales and use tax
• The corporate income tax
• Other state-imposed taxes, in an order determined by future legislation

The amendment would not eliminate taxes imposed by cities, counties, school districts or other local governments. Local sales taxes and property taxes would remain unless changed separately.

Amendment 7 does not set the order in which the three named taxes would be eliminated or require them all to disappear at once. Those details would be decided through future legislation after the fund qualified for withdrawals.

How large would the fund need to become?

Amendment 7 does not set a dollar target. The amount required would change with state tax collections and investment performance.

Missouri collected $13.43 billion in net general revenue during fiscal year 2025. To produce that amount through the amendment’s 3% annual withdrawal limit, the fund would need a five-year average market value of about $448 billion.

General revenue does not include every state-imposed tax covered by Amendment 7. Future collections will also differ from the 2025 total. The amount needed to replace all covered taxes could therefore be higher.

There is no reliable timeline for reaching the threshold. Amendment 7 supplies no starting balance or required annual contribution. Sen. Adam Schnelting has described it as a project that could take 100 to 125 years.

Would the principal be protected?

Yes. Amendment 7 says the fund’s principal could not be spent, pledged as security or borrowed against.

The amendment also includes several safeguards:

• Annual withdrawals could not exceed 3% of the fund’s average market value over the previous five fiscal years
• The state auditor would audit the fund at least once every three fiscal years
• The fund’s balance and investment performance would be published at least quarterly
• The state treasurer would have to follow fiduciary standards when investing the money

These rules are designed to preserve the fund’s value so it can continue generating earnings over time.

What would happen after all state-imposed taxes were eliminated?

After all covered state taxes were eliminated, the General Assembly could use additional investment earnings for either of two purposes:

• Replacing federal money received by the state
• Issuing dividend payments to Missouri residents

Lawmakers could use the earnings for either purpose or divide them between both. Amendment 7 does not guarantee dividend payments or specify how much residents would receive.

The eliminated taxes generally could not be enacted again. An exception would apply if the fund became unable to meet its obligations because of insolvency, a revenue shortfall or program failure. In that situation, the General Assembly could establish or increase taxes and use other lawful revenue to keep state programs operating.

How does Amendment 7 compare with investment funds in other states?

Roughly two dozen states operate permanent public investment funds, although their funding sources and purposes vary. Many were created to convert natural-resource wealth or state-owned land revenue into lasting public assets.

Some major examples include:

• Alaska: The Permanent Fund receives a constitutionally dedicated share of mineral revenue. Its earnings support state services and annual dividends to residents.
• North Dakota: The Legacy Fund receives 30% of state oil and gas tax revenue. Its earnings support public programs, including property-tax relief.
• New Mexico: Its permanent funds receive oil, gas and mineral revenue. The state uses their earnings to support schools, universities and other public institutions.
• Texas: The Permanent School Fund and Permanent University Fund invest public land and mineral revenue to support education.
• Wyoming: The Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund receives mineral severance taxes. Its investment earnings help support state government.

Missouri’s proposal would rely largely on appropriations made by future General Assemblies. Its ultimate goal is also broad: generating enough earnings to replace every state-imposed tax.

What does a yes vote on Amendment 7 mean?

A yes vote would amend the Missouri Constitution to create the Show-Me Prosperity Fund. Future lawmakers could contribute state money, and the state treasurer would invest it under the rules established by the amendment.

Investment earnings could eventually replace state tax revenue once the fund met the constitutional threshold and lawmakers approved the necessary legislation.

What does a no vote on Amendment 7 mean?

A no vote would leave the Missouri Constitution unchanged. The Show-Me Prosperity Fund would not be created.

Frequently asked questions