Minnesota House Bill HF1064

Minnesota 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/30/23
• Refer: 1/30/23
• Report Pass: 2/19/24

Caption

Citizens United; 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 clarification.

Impact

If enacted, HF1064 would have significant implications on campaign finance laws, potentially restricting the financial power that corporations and other entities currently hold in the electoral process. The resolution’s request for a constitutional amendment would aim to limit the extent to which money can influence elections, thereby promoting a more equitable political landscape where all citizens can participate meaningfully without the overwhelming influence of corporate money. This change is seen as a direct response to growing concerns over electoral integrity and the perception of corruption due to disproportionately large contributions from wealthy entities.

Summary

House File 1064 is a resolution that seeks to address issues stemming from the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The resolution calls on Congress to propose a constitutional amendment clarifying that the rights protected by the Constitution are meant solely for natural persons and not for artificial entities such as corporations. It emphasizes that spending money to influence elections should not be considered speech under the First Amendment, aiming to overturn the current interpretation which allows for considerable corporate influence in political matters.

Contention

The introduction of HF1064 may spark contentious debates regarding the balance between free speech and regulation in political contributions. Proponents of the bill argue that curtailing corporate influence is essential for preserving democracy, emphasizing that the current system undermines the voices of ordinary citizens. Conversely, opponents might contend that limiting contributions infringes on free speech rights, arguing that corporations, like individuals, should have the right to participate in the political process. This tension between free speech and electoral fairness will likely remain a central theme in discussions surrounding the bill.