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

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Liz Boldon and 4 co-sponsors

Minnesota SF 1033 asks Congress to overturn Citizens United and define rights as natural persons, stating money spent to influence elections is not First Amendment speech.

Author added Cwodzinski

#government-federal #resolutions

Overview

SF 1033 is a Minnesota Senate resolution that memorializes Congress to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision. It seeks to clarify that constitutional rights are the rights of natural persons, not artificial entities, and to hold that spending money to influence elections is not “speech” protected by the First Amendment. The resolution additionally requests Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to enact that clarification.

Purpose and Intent

Reversing Citizens United v. FEC: The bill aims to encourage federal action to overturn or limit the Citizens United ruling, which held that corporate political spending constitutes protected speech.

Clarify who has First Amendment rights: The resolution asserts that constitutional rights are held by natural persons, not corporations or other artificial entities.

Redefine political spending and speech: It contends that spending money to influence elections should not be treated as protected First Amendment speech.

Seek federal constitutional amendment: The resolution requests that Congress propose a constitutional amendment reflecting the above clarifications.

Key Provisions

Memorialize Congress to overturn Citizens United v. FEC.

Request clarification in the Constitution that rights protected by the Constitution are natural-person rights, not rights of corporations or artificial entities.

State that spending money to influence elections is not speech under the First Amendment.

Petition Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to codify this clarification.

Affected Parties and Impacts

Primary focus: Public perception and federal policy discussions around campaign finance and corporate political spending.

Affected at the federal level: Corporations and other artificial entities (in terms of potential future constitutional treatment), as the measure seeks to narrow or redefine First Amendment protections.

State-level impact: The resolution is non-binding and does not change Minnesota law; it expresses the legislature’s position and aims to influence federal action.

Procedural History and Timeline

Introduced: February 6, 2025

Referred to: Elections (initial committee)

Legislative actions:

February 6, 2025: Introduction and first reading
February 10, 2025: Author added Mitchell
February 20, 2025: Author added Cwodzinski

Classification: Resolution (non-binding); subject area includes Government-Federal and Resolutions

Note: As a memorial resolution, passage reflects the Minnesota Legislature’s formal stance and request to Congress; it does not create state law or trigger changes in Minnesota statutes.

Potential Implications

If adopted, Minnesota’s resolution could add to federal pressure on Congress to consider a constitutional amendment addressing corporate political spending and the scope of First Amendment rights.

The document signals the Legislature’s position on campaign finance reform and the role of money in elections.

Ultimate impact depends on federal action, including any constitutional amendment process and potential Supreme Court reconsiderations.

Bill