A resolution memorializing Congress to overturn the United States Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, requesting that Congress clarify that the rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons and not the rights of artificial entities and that spending money to influence elections is not speech under the First Amendment, and asking that Congress propose a constitutional amendment to provide such clarification.
Summary
HF2688 is a Minnesota House resolution that memorializes Congress to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision and to pursue a constitutional amendment clarifying that constitutional rights belong only to natural persons, not artificial entities such as corporations and associations. The resolution also states that spending money to influence elections is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
The resolution asks Congress to propose an amendment that would allow federal, state, and local governments to regulate, limit, or prohibit campaign contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, in order to reduce the influence of wealth in elections. It further calls for public disclosure of any permissible political contributions and expenditures. The bill is a formal request to Congress rather than a change to Minnesota election law by itself.
Impact
HF2688 does not directly amend Minnesota statutes or create new state regulatory requirements; instead, it is a legislative memorial urging federal action. Its practical effect would be political and symbolic, expressing Minnesota’s support for overturning Citizens United and for a constitutional amendment that would permit broader regulation of campaign finance and disclosure at all levels of government. If adopted at the federal level, the proposed changes could significantly affect election law, corporate political spending, and disclosure rules nationwide, including in Minnesota.
Sentiment
The bill’s text reflects strong support for campaign finance restrictions and skepticism toward corporate political spending, framing the issue as one of democratic equality and public confidence in government. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no recorded floor or committee debate to indicate broader legislative sentiment beyond the resolution’s clear anti-Citizens United stance. The measure appears aligned with reform-oriented views that favor limiting the role of money in politics.
Contention
The central point of contention is the constitutional premise of the resolution: whether corporations and other artificial entities should have constitutional rights separate from their members, and whether money spent to influence elections should be treated as protected speech. Supporters would likely emphasize democratic fairness, disclosure, and limiting disproportionate influence by wealthy donors and entities, while opponents would likely argue that the resolution threatens First Amendment protections and lawful political participation by associations, businesses, and individuals. No specific named opponents or supporters are identified in the available record.
Similar To
A resolution memorializing Congress to overturn the United States Supreme Court Citizens United v. FEC; requesting that Congress clarify that the rights are protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons and not the rights of artificial entities and that spending money to influence elections is not speech under the First Amendment; asking that Congress propose a constitutional amendment to provide such a clarification
A resolution memorializing Congress to overturn the United States Supreme Court Citizens United v. FEC; requesting that Congress clarify that the rights are protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons and not the rights of artificial entities and that spending money to influence elections is not speech under the First Amendment; asking that Congress propose a constitutional amendment to provide such a clarification
A resolution memorializing Congress to overturn the United States Supreme Court Citizens United v. FEC; requesting that Congress clarify that the rights are protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons and not the rights of artificial entities and that spending money to influence elections is not speech under the First Amendment; asking that Congress propose a constitutional amendment to provide such a clarification
A resolution memorializing Congress to overturn the United States Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC; requesting that Congress clarify that the rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons and not the rights of artificial entities and that spending money to influence elections is not speech under the First Amendment; asking that Congress propose a constitutional amendment to provide such a clarification
A resolution memorializing Congress to overturn the United States Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, requesting that Congress clarify that the rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons and not the rights of artificial entities and that spending money to influence elections is not speech under the First Amendment, and asking that Congress propose a constitutional amendment to provide such clarification.
Urging Congress to propose and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to clarify that the states and Congress may reasonably regulate and limit the spending of money to influence campaigns, elections, or ballot measures.
Urging Congress to propose and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to clarify that the states and Congress may reasonably regulate and limit the spending of money to influence campaigns, elections, or ballot measures.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.
Applying to the United States Congress under Article V of the United States Constitution to call for a convention for proposing an amendment to the constitution establishing congressional term limits.