Minnesota Senate Bill SF2335

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/10/25
• Refer: 3/10/25

Caption

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

Impact

If enacted, SF2335 would initiate a push for a constitutional amendment that reinforces the principle that only natural persons are entitled to constitutional rights. This change would seek to restore the ability of federal, state, and local governments to regulate campaign finance more effectively, reversing the implications of the Citizens United ruling. Proponents believe this is vital for ensuring equitable participation in the democratic process, allowing all citizens to have a voice regardless of their financial capacity.

Summary

Senate File 2335 is a resolution that memorializes Congress to take action to overturn the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The bill asserts that the rights protected by the Constitution should be limited to natural persons and not extend to artificial entities, such as corporations. Additionally, it argues that the expenditure of funds to influence elections should not be classified as 'speech' under the First Amendment. This legislative effort aims to clarify the distinction between the rights of individuals and corporations in the political realm.

Contention

The bill has prompted significant discussion regarding the influence of corporate money in politics and the resulting imbalance in democratic participation. Supporters highlight the need for campaign finance reform to prevent large corporations from overshadowing the voices of ordinary citizens during elections. However, opponents may argue that limiting the rights of corporations could infringe on free speech and could have unintended consequences on political expression and advocacy. The balance between allowing corporate participation in democracy and protecting citizen rights is thus a central point of contention.