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
Summary
SF1033 is a Minnesota Senate resolution that memorializes Congress to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision and to advance a constitutional amendment clarifying that constitutional rights belong only to natural persons, not corporations or other artificial entities. The resolution also states that spending money to influence elections should not be treated as speech under the First Amendment.
The resolution further proposes language for a constitutional amendment that would allow federal, state, and local governments to regulate, limit, or prohibit political contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, in order to reduce the influence of wealth in elections. It also calls for mandatory public disclosure of any permissible political contributions and expenditures. Finally, it directs the Minnesota Secretary of State to transmit the resolution to Congress, the President, the U.S. Secretary of State, and Minnesota’s congressional delegation.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution would not directly change Minnesota statutory law, but it would formally urge Congress to pursue a constitutional amendment and related federal action affecting campaign finance and corporate political rights. Its practical effect is symbolic and political: it places Minnesota on record supporting limits on corporate personhood in the election context, stronger regulation of campaign spending, and expanded disclosure requirements for political money.
Sentiment
The bill appears to reflect a strongly reform-oriented and critical view of the Citizens United framework, with the stated purpose of restoring greater democratic control over elections and reducing the influence of money in politics. Because there are no recorded committee transcripts or votes provided, the available context suggests support from the authors and an advocacy-oriented posture, but no documented opposition or debate in the supplied materials.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be constitutional and ideological. Supporters of the resolution argue that corporations and other artificial entities should not have constitutional rights equivalent to natural persons and that money in elections should be tightly regulated to protect democratic equality. Opponents would likely object that the resolution conflicts with existing First Amendment doctrine, could burden political speech and association, and would expand government authority over campaign spending. The most disputed issues are corporate personhood, whether spending money is protected speech, and whether limits on contributions and expenditures should be imposed to equalize political influence.
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, and asking that Congress propose a constitutional amendment to provide such 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.