Urging the United States Congress to propose and submit to the states for ratification an amendment to the United States Constitution that overturns Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, establishing that the spending of money to influence elections shall not be construed as speech under the First Amendment, and clarifying that only natural persons are protected by constitutional rights.
If passed, HCR21 could significantly alter the landscape of campaign finance in the U.S., reinstating tighter regulations on corporate contributions to political campaigns. The resolution's focus on amending the Constitution underscores the need for reform in the view of its supporters, who believe that unchecked corporate spending has undermined democratic processes. By reaffirming the distinction between corporations and individuals regarding political rights, HCR21 aims to reinforce the principle that democratic governance should be determined by the will of the people, not by the financial capabilities of corporations.
HCR21 is a concurrent resolution urging the United States Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution that would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The resolution argues that the ruling has stripped away long-standing campaign finance regulations and has allowed for unlimited corporate spending in elections. Proponents of HCR21 claim that political spending should not be considered free speech under the First Amendment and emphasize that constitutional rights should only apply to natural persons, not corporations. The bill seeks to clarify the role of corporations and enhance the ability of government entities to regulate political contributions and expenditures.
The sentiment surrounding HCR21 is largely favorable among those who advocate for campaign finance reform and oppose the influence of money in politics. Supporters argue that the current system allows corporations to dominate electoral processes at the expense of individual voters, thus eroding the foundational principles of democracy. However, there are concerns among some groups that such a constitutional amendment could lead to unintended consequences and restrict the free speech rights of organizations and corporations. Thus, while the proposal garners support from reform-minded legislators and citizens, it also raises apprehensions about broader implications for political expression.
The main points of contention related to HCR21 center around the interpretation of free speech and the rights of corporations in political contexts. Proponents assert that the amendment is necessary to counteract an overreach by the Supreme Court which prioritized corporate rights over the voices of individual voters. Conversely, opponents may argue that restricting corporate spending could hinder the ability of organizations to participate in the political arena, and the debate frames a larger conversation about the nature of democracy, the influence of money, and the balance of power between states and the federal government.