WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SF 569

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 Scott Dibble and 4 co-sponsors

Minnesota urges Congress to propose a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United and limiting political spending rights to natural persons only.

Comm report: To pass and re-referred to Rules and Administration
#government-federal #resolutions
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SF 569

Legislative bill overview

SF 569 is a Minnesota state resolution that calls on Congress to overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision and propose a constitutional amendment distinguishing constitutional rights as belonging only to natural persons, not corporations or other entities. The resolution asserts that campaign spending should not be considered protected speech under the First Amendment.

Why is this important

Citizens United fundamentally reshaped campaign finance law by allowing unlimited corporate and union spending in elections. This resolution reflects ongoing national debate over whether such spending constitutes political speech or should be regulated as commerce. The outcome affects how elections are funded, which candidates can compete effectively, and the relative political influence of wealthy individuals and organizations versus average voters.

Potential points of contention

  • Constitutional interpretation disagreement: Supporters of Citizens United argue money spent on political messaging is inherently speech; opponents argue it's commerce that can be regulated without violating First Amendment rights
  • Practical feasibility: Constitutional amendments require two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress and ratification by 38 states—an extremely high bar that reflects deep national division on this issue
  • Scope ambiguity: The resolution doesn't specify whether restrictions would apply equally to all organizations (nonprofits, unions, corporations) or target particular entity types, raising fairness and enforceability questions

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.