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
SF569 is a Minnesota Senate resolution urging 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 is not protected speech under the First Amendment and asks Congress to make that principle explicit.
The proposed amendment language would bar artificial entities from having constitutional rights separate from their members, affirm the authority of federal, state, and local governments to regulate political spending, and require public disclosure of permissible contributions and expenditures. It further emphasizes that regulation may include limits on candidates’ own spending and contributions, with the stated goal of ensuring equal access to the political process regardless of economic status.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution would not directly change Minnesota statutes, but it would formally instruct the Secretary of State to transmit Minnesota’s request to Congress and federal leaders. Its practical effect is political and advocacy-oriented: it adds Minnesota’s support to a national campaign for a constitutional amendment and for federal action reversing Citizens United and related campaign-finance doctrine. The resolution targets campaign finance law, corporate constitutional rights, election spending, and disclosure requirements, but any legal change would depend on Congress and the states acting under Article V.
Sentiment
The bill appears to be strongly supportive of campaign-finance reform and critical of corporate influence in elections. The text reflects a clear belief that Citizens United and related Supreme Court decisions have weakened democratic participation and public confidence by allowing large political spending by corporations and other entities. No committee testimony or vote record is provided, so the available context shows the sponsor’s and resolution’s sentiment, but not broader legislative debate or final chamber support.
Contention
The central point of contention is the premise that corporations and other artificial entities should not enjoy constitutional rights separate from natural persons, and that political spending should be treated as regulable conduct rather than protected speech. Supporters of the resolution would favor stronger limits and disclosure rules to reduce the influence of wealth in elections, while opponents would likely argue that such changes would restrict First Amendment protections, political participation, and the rights of associations and businesses. Because no committee transcript or vote history is included, specific legislators’ objections or amendments are not available.
Similar To
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.