Urging Congress to propose and submit to the states an amendment to the U.S. 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.
The proposed amendment seeks to clarify that only natural persons should be entitled to constitutional rights related to speech, particularly in the context of influencing electoral outcomes. By eliminating the perception that money spent to influence elections constitutes free speech, HCR49 aims to establish a framework where spending in politics can be regulated by federal, state, and local governments. This would significantly change how campaign financing is approached in the United States, placing restrictions on corporate spending and thereby addressing concerns over the overwhelming influence of money in politics.
HCR49 is a concurrent resolution introduced in the 84th Legislature of the State of Texas, urging the United States Congress to propose and submit an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would overturn the landmark Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. This resolution argues that the decision, which allows unlimited corporate spending in elections by classifying political spending as a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, undermines the democratic principle of individual representation in the electoral process.
The passage of HCR49 would represent a significant push towards reforming campaign finance laws at a national level, potentially aligning state laws with a vision of governance that prioritizes individual citizen rights over corporate interests. The resolution emphasizes the need for legislative action to counteract decisions that, in the view of its supporters, threaten the essence of democracy and fair electoral competition.
There are several points of contention surrounding HCR49. Proponents assert that overturning Citizens United is crucial for restoring individual voices in the political arena and preventing the erosion of democratic processes by corporate interests. They argue that the existing privileges afforded to corporations allow them to exert disproportionate influence over elections and policy-making, ultimately sidelining voters. Conversely, opponents of such amendments often raise concerns about the implications for free speech and the ability of organizations, including non-profits and unions, to engage in political advocacy.