Urging Congress to propose and submit to the states for ratification an amendment to the United States Constitution that provides that corporations are not persons under the laws of the United States.
The resolution emphasizes the potential negative consequences of corporate influence on elections, asserting that the current legal status of corporations undermines the democratic process. It highlights that corporate money can divert the attention of candidates from the needs of their constituents, potentially eroding public trust in government. If adopted, the proposed amendment would fundamentally alter how corporations are treated under election laws, reaffirming that only human beings enjoy the personal rights protected under the Constitution.
HCR91 is a concurrent resolution aiming to urge Congress to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution that would clarify that corporations are not 'persons' under the law. This initiative responds to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allows unlimited corporate spending in elections, equating such expenditures to free speech. By advocating for a constitutional amendment, HCR91 seeks to address the concerns about the power of corporate money in political processes and its implications for democratic governance.
The sentiment surrounding HCR91 appears to be in favor of reducing corporate influence in politics. Supporters likely view the resolution as a necessary step toward restoring democratic integrity and ensuring that elections more accurately reflect the will of the people, rather than the interests of large corporations. However, there may be opposition from business sectors and those who argue that limiting corporate speech infringes on First Amendment rights, indicating a polarized debate on this issue.
A notable point of contention regarding HCR91 is the interpretation of the First Amendment. Proponents of the resolution contend that the Citizens United decision distorts the amendment's intent by granting disproportionate influence to corporate entities in elections. Critics, however, may raise concerns about free speech implications and the role of corporations in advocating for their interests. This debate touches on broader themes of governmental regulation, corporate rights, and the balance of power between different entities in a democratic society.