Section 1 [A corporation is not a person and can be regulated]
The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only.
Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other entities, established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.
The privileges of artificial entities shall be determined by the People, through Federal, State, or local law, and shall not be construed to be inherent or inalienable.
Section 2 [Money is not speech and can be regulated]
Federal, State and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, for the purpose of influencing in any way the election of any candidate for public office or any ballot measure.
Federal, State and local government shall require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
The judiciary shall not construe the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.
Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.
The Move To Amend coalition is the most focused and active group in the movement to overturn Citizens United. Their language is totally non-partisan and, by far, the most effective of the proposals with any significant backing. Some critics argue that the nature of Congressional legislation makes endorsing any language now a fool’s errand and that position has some merit.
But numerous proposals have already been introduced in Congress and several more are gathering signatures around the country. And a Constitutional amendment isn’t anything like legislation — for instance, nobody would dream of introducing a 2,000-page bill as a proposal to amend the Constitution. If we leave the job to Congress, whether by amendment or by invoking Article III, Section 2, they’ll give us a solution that will be just as ineffective as any of their previous attempts at campaign finance reform.
The purpose of this website is to provide a place to have these debates about the two aspects of any amendment — the impact the language has on resolving the constitutional problem, and the likelihood that the language will be acceptable to a cross-partisan super-majority of the American public. In many ways, the latter is far more difficult than the former. This language is both effective and most likely to garner the most support in the general public of all the options on the table now.