WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 2688

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.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Kristin Bahner and 15 co-sponsors

Minnesota urges Congress to overturn Citizens United and pass a constitutional amendment denying corporations First Amendment rights and redefining election spending as non-protected activity.

Author added Rehm
#resolutions
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 2688

Legislative bill overview

HF 2688 is a memorial resolution from Minnesota's legislature that urges Congress to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC and proposes a constitutional amendment clarifying that constitutional rights belong to natural persons only, not corporations, and that election spending is not protected speech under the First Amendment.

Why is this important

Citizens United currently allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on elections, fundamentally shaping campaign finance. This resolution reflects ongoing national debate about whether money equals speech and corporate political influence, with significant implications for election funding, lobbying power, and political access.

Potential points of contention

  • Constitutional interpretation: Opponents argue the First Amendment already protects corporate political speech and spending as expression; supporters contend this conflates money with speech and gives artificial entities undue power
  • Amendment feasibility: Overturning Citizens United requires a constitutional amendment (extremely difficult—needs two-thirds Congressional approval and 38 state ratification), making this largely symbolic rather than immediately actionable
  • Definition disputes: Disagreement exists over what constitutes "speech" versus "spending," and whether corporations should have constitutional protections equivalent to individuals
  • Practical enforcement: Critics question how to distinguish between legitimate corporate participation in democracy and problematic political spending influence

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

Sign in to ask a question.