State & Local Support | United For The P

State & Local Support | United For The People
Constitutional Amendments
Congress
State & Local Support
State & Local Support
To date,
24 states
(and hundreds of localities) have gone on record in support of an amendment to the United States Constitution that would restore our power to decide whether and how to regulate the influence of money in politics:
AL
AK
AZ
AR
CA
CO
CT
DE
DC
FL
GA
HI
ID
IL
IN
IA
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MA
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ
NM
NY
NC
ND
OH
OK
OR
PA
RI
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VT
VA
WA
WV
WI
WY
States
Alabama
State
Local
Return to
Contents
Alaska
State
On November 3, 2020, Alaskans
voted 51% to 49% in favor of
Ballot Measure No. 2 – 19AKBE
. Included among
its legislative findings
is this call for a constitutional amendment:
“These mistaken Supreme Court decisions have invalidated longstanding anti-corruption laws in Alaska. Alaska shall now affirm the rights and powers of its citizens by prohibiting the use of dark money in its candidate elections and by supporting an amendment to the United States Constitution allowing citizens to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections.”
Other attempts include:
31st Legislature (2019-2020):
HJR 24
SJR 16
; 30th Legislature (2017-2018):
HJR 11
SJR 6
; 29th Legislature (2015-2016):
HJR 11
SJR 6
; 28th Legislature (2013-2014):
HJR 8
SJR 7
; 27th Legislature (2011-2012):
HJR 33
SJR 13
Local | 3
On December 18, 2018, the
Anchorage Municipal Assembly
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations and other artificial entities do not have constitutional rights, and that money is not speech, and therefore the government can enact statutes and regulations concerning election spending and political decision-making to the end that the people are heard.
On September 22, 2014, the
Homer City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On July 10, 2012, the
Sitka City and Borough Assembly
passed
a resolution
condemning
Citizens United
and supporting a constitutional amendment to limit corporate influence and restore democracy in our elections.
Return to
Contents
Arizona
State
2026
SCM1003
introduced on 01/12/2026. Considered by the Senate Federalism Committee on 1/26/2026 and passed unanimously (7-0-0-0). Considered by full Senate on third reading on 2/19/2026 and passed (25-2-3-0).
HCM2003
introduced on 01/12/2026.
2025
SCR1012
introduced on 1/27/2025. Considered by Senate Federalism Committee on 2/10/2025 and passed (6-1-0-0). Considered by Senate Rules Committee on 2/17/2025 and deemed proper for consideration.
Attempts include:
2015 – Fifty-second Legislature – First Regular Session:
HCR 2031
; 2014 – Fifty-first Legislature – Second Regular Session:
HCR 2026
; 2013 – Fifty-first Legislature – First Regular Session:
HCR 2018
; 2012 – Fiftieth Legislature – Second Regular Session:
HCR 2049
SCR 1040
Local | 2
On June 12, 2012, the
Tucson City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance.
On May 1, 2012, the
Flagstaff City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to affirm federal and state authority to regulate corporations and election contributions and expenditures, and to provide that corporations and similar entities are not people.
Return to
Contents
Arkansas
State
Local | 5
On January 22, 2013, the
Conway City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations people, and to affirm the constitutional rights of natural persons. (Click
here
for more information.)
On October 1, 2012, the
Pine Bluff City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to ensure that only human beings have constitutionally protected free speech rights, and to reject the notion that money is speech.
On August 13, 2012, the
North Little Rock City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to ensure that freedom of speech is protected for real people, rather than corporations and similar entities. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 5, 2012, the
Fayetteville City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to ensure that freedom of speech is protected for real people, rather than corporations and similar entities. (Click
here
for more information.)
On May 14, 2012, the
Eureka Springs City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
Return to
Contents
California
State
On November 8, 2016, Californians
voted 53% to 47% in favor
when asked
, “Shall California’s elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings?” (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
This followed Assembly Member Bob Weickowski’s [25]
AJR 22
that passed the California State Assembly on March 22, 2012 and the State Senate on July 5, 2012.
It disagreed with
Citizens United
and called for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
Other attempts include:
2013-2014:
AB 644
HR 37
SB 1272
Local | 51
On October 8, 2019, the
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech; campaign contributions and expenditures may be reasonably limited and regulated; and constitutional rights are for natural persons only, not corporations or other artificial entities whose rights and privileges are determined by law. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On October 18, 2016, the
Oakland City Council
passed a resolution
affirming its opposition to
Citizens United
and its support for a constitutional amendment to overturn it, by officially supporting
passage of
Prop 59
at the state level. (Click
here
for more information.) This followed the December 20, 2011
passage of a resolution
by the
Council
more generally opposing
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn it and limit corporate influence in our elections.
On June 16, 2015, the
San Jose City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that constitutional rights are the rights of only natural persons and not of artificial entities, and that artificial entities’ rights shall be determined by the people and not construed as inherent or inalienable except where absolutely essential. This followed the Council’s May 7, 2013
passage of
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, and that federal and state governments may reasonably limit and regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.
On January 20, 2015, the
Del Mar City Council
passed
a resolution
disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens Unite
d of the constitutional rights of corporations, associations, and labor unions and calling for a constitutional amendment to correct that interpretation, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Berkeley
voted 85% to 15% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
“to abolish the legal concept that corporations are persons that are entitled to constitutional rights, and the doctrine that the expenditure of money may be treated as speech[.]” This followed the March 6, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Berkeley City Council
to affirm its belief that corporations are not entitled to the rights of persons, nor are corporate expenditures a form of constitutionally protected speech. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and registered its support for
California’s AJR 22
and the
US Senate’s S.J.Res. 33
. (Click
here
for more information.) This followed the April 27, 2010
passage of a similar resolution
by the
Berkeley City Council
that registered its support for the
US House’s H.J.Res. 74
. (Click
here
for more information)
On May 14, 2014, the
Solana Beach City Council
passed a resolution
disagreeing with
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations, associations, and labor unions are not entitled to the rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On May 14, 2014, the
Willits City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that only human beings have constitutional rights and that money does not equal speech, and to reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance.
On March 12, 2014, the
Encinitas City Council
passed a resolution
disagreeing with
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On October 14, 2013, the
Upland City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and enable the people to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures in all elections.
On August 27, 2013, the
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore political contributions can be regulated. The resolution also encouraged consideration of
US H.J.Res. 29
, which was introduced by US Representative Rick Nolan [MN-8] during the 113th US Congress to provide that constitutional rights belong to natural persons only. (Click
here
for more information.) This action was a direct response to the November 6, 2012 election, during which the
citizens of Mendocino County
voted 75% to 25% in favor of
calling for such an amendment
On August 6, 2013, the
Chula Vista City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that only natural persons have the ability to make contributions and expenditures to influence elections, and that such ability is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech for corporations.
On July 16, 2013, the
Lemon Grove City Council
passed a resolution
disagreeing with the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of the constitutional rights of corporations, associations, and labor unions and calling on Congress to ensure an orderly political forum, thereby protecting effective individual expression. While the final call to Congress does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, doing so only in
its draft form
, it is considered constitutional amendment advocacy.
On May 21, 2013, the
citizens of Los Angeles
voted 77% to 23% in favor of
Proposition C
, calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn all portions of
Buckley
and
Citizens United
that conflict with these objectives: “(1) Corporations do not have the constitutional rights of human beings; and (2) Corporations do not engage in constitutionally protected speech when spending corporate money to influence the electoral process; and (3) limits on political spending that promote the goals of the First Amendment, by ensuring that all citizens—regardless of wealth—have an opportunity to have their political views heard are permissible.” This followed the December 6, 2011
passage of
a resolution
by the
Los Angeles City Council
supporting legislative actions, including a constitutional amendment, ensuring that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of human beings, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On May 14, 2013, the
Santa Monica City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats. This followed the Council’s March 27, 2012
passage of
a resolution
supporting efforts to reduce the influence of money upon elections, calling for legislative safeguards, including but not limited to a constitutional amendment, and supporting public education on the democratic risks posed by the unfettered campaign spending of certain entities.
On December 4, 2012, the
San Diego City Council
passed
a resolution
disagreeing with
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations do not possess the entirety of rights of natural persons and thus corporate election expenditures are not constitutionally protected speech.
On November 20, 2012, the
Napa City Council
passed
a resolution
opposing corporate personhood and supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
On November 7, 2012, the
Pacific Grove City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Arcata
voted 83% to 17% in favor of
ordaining that corporations shall not have the rights of persons within their city. The full text of the measure (verified, link unavailable) included a support statement for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not natural persons, and only they have constitutional rights; nor is money speech, and election spending is not protected speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Chico
voted 59% to 41% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the People of the City of Chico as follows: The ability of corporations to expend money on political campaigns should be regulated and, to the extent that such regulation is currently impermissible, the United States Constitution should be amended to allow such regulation and to establish that: 1. Corporations are not entitled to a constitutional right to political free speech; and 2. The expenditure of money by corporations to support or oppose political campaigns is not entitled to the free speech protections of the First Amendment and should be regulated, limited and clearly disclosed.” This followed the May 15, 2012
passage of
a resolution
by the
Chico City Council
calling for the regulation of corporate political expenditures and for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not entitled to a constitutional right to political free speech, nor are corporate political expenditures protected by the First Amendment and thus should be regulated, limited, and clearly disclosed. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Richmond
voted 73% to 27% in favor
when asked
, “Should Richmond’s congressional representatives be instructed to propose, and Richmond’s state legislators instructed to ratify, an amendment to the United States Constitution to provide that corporations are not entitled to the Constitutional rights of real people, and that there should be limits on all spending in political campaigns, including ballot measures and “independent” expenditures”?”
On November 6, 2012,
San Franciscans
voted 81% to 19% in favor of
Local Measure G
, calling for a constitutional amendment and declaring that corporations are not natural persons, that
Citizens United
threatens democracy, and that corporate expenditures are not constitutionally-protected speech. This followed the January 31, 2012
passage of
a resolution
by the
San Francisco Board of Supervisors
that opposed
Citizens United
and called for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not entitled to the same rights as natural persons.
On October 22, 2012, the
Palo Alto City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore money spent to influence the electoral process does not constitute constitutionally protected speech and may be regulated. (Click
here
for more information.)
On October 3, 2012, the
Ukiah City Council
passed a resolution supporting
the Mendocino County ballot measure
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore political contributions can be regulated. The county measure later passed with
75% to 25% voting in favor
, and the county subsequently
enacted a resolution
. (Click
here
for more information.)
On September 5, 2012, the
Sonoma City Council
passed
a resolution
calling on the US Congress to support
S.J.Res. 33
, a constitutional amendment abolishing corporate personhood.
On August 8, 2012, the
Coachella City Council
passed
a resolution
positing that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of natural persons, expressing the need to address
Citizens United
by stopping unlimited independent expenditures by corporations, and calling for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles, including but not limited to
S.J.Res. 29
and
H.J.Res. 72
as introduced in the US Congress. The Council also called for a legal review of putting the question of corporate personhood before the citizens of Coachella. (We know of no such vote having taken place.)
On August 7, 2012, the
Campbell City Council
passed
a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same legal rights as natural persons and calling for action to reverse the impacts of
Citizens United
. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered
constitutional amendment advocacy
. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On July 10, 2012, the
Claremont City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles: “1. Only people are citizens corporations unions and other entities do not have the same rights as citizens to political speech; 2. Money is not speech and the right to spend money is not equivalent to the right of free speech; 3. The people as citizens working through their governments at every level have the right to regulate the amount of money that is contributed directly or indirectly to electoral campaigns by individuals corporations unions and all other organizations; and 4. The people as citizens have the right to require that all such contributions are publicly reported in a timely manner and are on the record to insure the transparency required for a democracy to function properly.”
On June 26, 2012, the
Oxnard City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.
On June 12, 2012, the
Ventura County Board of Supervisors
passed
a resolution
calling for legislation and a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood by establishing that constitutional rights belong to human beings, to hold that money isn’t speech, and to authorize the regulation of campaign contributions and expenditures.
On May 15, 2012, the
Plumas County Board of Supervisors
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Board also supported public education concerning the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood.
On May 1, 2012, the
Redlands City Council
passed
a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and because money is not speech, political spending limits promote First Amendment goals by ensuring that all citizens’ political opinions are heard. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles and pledged the city’s future attention to municipal campaign finance reform. Substitute language was
adopted
after the
original agenda
was released.
On April 24, 2012, the
Marin County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution
supporting proposed and passed legislation nationwide, including California’s
AJR 22
, calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
On April 24, 2012, the
Thousand Oaks City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood. (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 9, 2012, the
Malibu City Council
passed a resolution
supporting a constitutional amendment or legislative actions to ensure that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On April 4, 2012, the
Windsor Town Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are human beings corporations; only people are entitled to constitutional rights; and never again shall such rights be granted to fictitious entities or property. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On March 27, 2012, the
Point Arena City Council
passed a resolution supporting
the Mendocino County ballot measure
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore political contributions can be regulated. The county measure later passed with
75% to 25% voting in favor
, and the county subsequently
enacted a resolution
. The
Point Arena City Council
also
reaffirmed its April 25, 2000 resolution
opposing corporate personhood and supporting public discussion on the role of corporations in public life.
n March 20, 2012, the
Mountain View City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On March 20, 2012, the
Sonoma County Board of Supervisors
passed
a resolution
supporting
S.J.Res. 33
in the US Congress, which proposes a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.
On March 14, 2012, the
Nevada City Council
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment against corporations as people and money as speech.
On March 13, 2012, the
Ojai City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood.
On February 21, 2012, the
Davis City Council
passed
a resolution
supporting California’s
AJR 22
and calling for the overturning of
Citizens United
by constitutional amendment.
On February 21, 2012, the
Sebastopol City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money isn’t speech nor are human beings corporations, and that only people are entitled to constitutional rights that will never again be granted to fictitious entities or property.
On February 16, 2012, the
Los Altos Hills City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On February 6, 2012, the
Albany City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are corporations natural persons entitled to constitutional rights.
On January 24, 2012, the
Santa Cruz City Council
passed
a resolution
that, among several provisions, calls for approval of both a constitutional amendment to remedy the negative impacts of corporate political spending and a California disclosure bill,
AB 1148
On January 17, 2012, the
West Hollywood City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.
On January 11, 2012, the
Fairfax Town Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On January 9, 2012, the
Petaluma City Council
passed
a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and because money is not speech, political spending limits promote First Amendment goals by ensuring that all citizens’ political opinions are heard. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles.
On October 18, 2011, the
Marina City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations should not be exempt from campaign finance restrictions, nor should they be considered natural persons; or to include these principles in related constitutional amendments.
On July 21, 2011, the
South Robertson Neighborhoods Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to deny corporate personhood and state that money is not speech. The Council also
moved in favor of
sending amendment support letters
to elected officials.
On March 28, 2011, the
Fort Bragg City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance.
Return to
Contents
Colorado
State
On November 6, 2012, Coloradans
voted 74% to 26% in favor of
Amendment 65
which called for a constitutional amendment to limit campaign contributions and spending.
Local | 5
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Pueblo County
voted 66% to 34% in favor of
calling for
“an Amendment to the United States Constitution to establish that: The inherent rights of mankind recognized under the United States Constitution belong to natural human beings only, and not to legally created entities, such as corporations; and Money is not speech, and therefore, limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.” This followed the January 3, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Board of Pueblo County Commissioners
positing that corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and because money is not speech, imposing political spending limits on corporations will promote First Amendment goals by ensuring that all citizens’ views are heard. The Board also called for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles.
On October 2, 2012, the
Fort Collins City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On April 3, 2012, the
Telluride Town Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that neither corporations nor other legal entities are entitled to constitutional rights and protections, nor is money speech.
On November 1, 2011, the
citizens of the City of Boulder
voted 74% to 26% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On September 12, 2011, the
Jamestown Board of Trustees
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor does the First Amendment protect unlimited political spending.
Return to
Contents
Connecticut
State
On September 12, 2012, Senator Gayle Slossberg [S14] and 21 other senators and Representative Russell A. Morin [028] and 87 other representatives—a majority of the General Assembly—
called for a constitutional amendment
to overturn
Citizens United
and restore elections to the people, firmly establishing that money is not speech nor are corporations entitled to constitutional rights.
Other attempts include:
Session Year 2015:
HJ 33
; Session Year 2013:
HJ 3
Local | 8
On October 16, 2012, the
Windham Town Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that constitutional rights belong to natural persons, and that election spending by corporations and other artificial entities is not constitutionally protected speech. The Council also called for other action within the power of the US Congress to overturn
Citizens United
On July 9, 2012, the
Stamford Board of Representatives
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment and other legislative actions to overturn Supreme Court decisions that have established the principles of money as speech and corporate personhood. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 11, 2012, the
Ashford Board of Selectmen
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to nullify
Citizens United
On June 11, 2012, the
West Haven City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and clarify that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of natural persons, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating election spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On June 4, 2012, the
Middletown Common Council
passed a resolution
joining efforts to remove the overt influence of money in politics and standing with those who support public financing, cutting the time it takes to select candidates and conduct elections, and making political spending open and transparent. The Common Council then instructed their state and federal representatives to advance these principles by enacting resolutions, legislation, and constitutional amendments.
On June 4, 2012, the
New Haven Board of Aldermen
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations do not possess the entirety of rights of natural persons. The Board also encouraged public discussion on the role of corporations in public life.
On June 4, 2012, the
New London City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On May 14, 2012, the
Hartford Court of Common Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment and other legislative actions to overturn
Buckley
and
Citizens United
, which together established the principles money is speech and corporations are people.
Return to
Contents
Delaware
State
On June 10, 2013, 11 senators and 24 representatives—a majority of the General Assembly—
called for a constitutional amendment
to reverse
Citizens United,
making clear the right of the American people and their elected representatives to steadfastly pursue fair elections and democratic sovereignty.
Other attempts include:
151st General Assembly (2020-2022):
SCR 16
Local
Return to
Contents
District of Columbia
Local | 1
On February 5, 2013, the
Council of the District of Columbia
passed a resolution
disagreeing with
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision with regard to corporate influence in elections, making clear that the First Amendment speech of corporations may be limited. (Click
here
for more information.)
Return to
Contents
Florida
State
Attempts include:
Regular Session 2016:
HM 457
SM 694
; Regular Session 2015:
HM 1321
; Regular Session 2012:
HM 1275
SM 1576
Local | 14
On July 10, 2018, the
Quincy City Commission
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that federal and state governments have the power to regulate and limit election contributions and expenditures; constitutional rights are for natural persons; and corporations are subject to regulation through the legislative process. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 12, 2018, the
Havana Town Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that federal and state governments have the power to regulate and limit election contributions and expenditures; constitutional rights are for natural persons; and corporations are subject to regulation through the legislative process.
On March 10, 2016, the
Anna Maria City Commission
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On October 8, 2015, the
Board of County Commissioners of Escambia County
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment pertaining to elections to reverse
Citizens United
and the doctrine that corporations are people.
On July 21, 2015, the
Gadsden County Board of County Commissioners
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 15, 2015, the
Sarasota City Commission
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and political contributions and spending do not constitute protected political speech (they can be regulated).
On March 26, 2015, the
Pensacola City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that money is not speech, and that corporations and other artificial entities or legal creations do enjoy the same inalienable rights as human beings, thereby restoring congressional authority to prohibit unlimited independent campaign expenditures.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Alachua County
voted 72% to 28% in favor
when asked
, “Should the Constitution of the United States of America be amended to provide that only human beings, and not corporations, labor unions and other artificial entities, are endowed with constitutional rights, and that money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech?”
On January 15, 2013, the
Lake Worth Beach City Commission
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
, in addition to appropriate corrective legislation clarifying that constitutional rights are not extended to corporations. (Note that Lake Worth Beach was known as Lake Worth until 2019 when
its people voted for the name change
.)
On January 3, 2013, the
Gainesville City Commission
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech. The Commission also called for putting this question before the citizens of Alachua County. (Click
here
for more information. See also above November 4, 2014 entry for Alachua County.)
On March 20, 2012, the
Key West City Commission
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Commission also supported public education concerning the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On March 15, 2012, the
Tampa City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On November 16, 2011, the
Cutler Bay Town Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to define the word “person” as a human being and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate constitutional rights, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On October 4, 2011, the
South Miami City Commission
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to define the word “person” as a human being and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Commission also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate constitutional rights, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
Return to
Contents
Georgia
State
Attempts include:
2015-2016 Regular Session:
HR 126
SR 44
; 2013-2014 Regular Session:
SR 410
; 2011-2012 Regular Session:
HR 1377
Local | 2
On September 15, 2014, the
Atlanta City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that the US Congress has the authority to set campaign finance limits, and that corporations are not people, nor is money speech. The resolution proposed specific amendment language. (Click
here
for more information.)
On March 21, 2013, the
Savannah City Council
passed a resolution
supporting legislative actions, including a constitutional amendment, ensuring that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of human beings, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
Return to
Contents
Hawaii
State
Introduced on February 3, 2016 by Representative Nicole E. Lowen [6],
HCR 29
passed the Hawaii State House on April 7 and the Senate on April 25.
It called for a constitutional amendment to clarify that corporations are not people with constitutional rights, and that unlimited campaign spending is not free speech.
This followed Representative Robert N. Herkes’s [5]
HCR 282
that passed the Hawaii State House on April 9, 2010 and the State Senate on April 28, 2010.
It called for a constitutional amendment to clarify the distinction between natural persons’ rights and corporations’ rights, thereby preserving federal and state government authority to limit the electoral influence of corporations.
Other attempts include:
29th Legislature (2017):
HCR 100
SCR 2
SR 3
; 28th Legislature (2016):
HCR 33
SCR 22
SCR 36
; 28th Legislature (2015):
HCR 36
; 27th Legislature (2014):
HCR 142
; 27th Legislature (2013):
HCR 10
; 26th Legislature (2012):
HCR 5
HCR 49
HR 5
HR 30
SR 68
; 26th Legislature (2011):
HCR 51
HR 44
SCR 38
SR 16
; 25th Legislature (2010):
HR 204
SCR 225
SR 116
Local | 4
On October 6, 2015, the
Council of the County of Maui
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify the distinction between natural persons’ rights and corporations’ rights in order to overturn
Citizens United
and restore congressional and state authority to regulate corporate political influence.
On July 1, 2015, the
Council of the County of Kaua’i
passed a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and because money is not speech, political spending limits should be allowed in order to protect the First Amendment and ensure fairness in politics and public decision-making. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles.
On September 12, 2012, the
Council of the City and County of Honolulu
passed
a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and because money is not speech, political spending limits promote First Amendment goals by ensuring that all citizens’ voices are heard. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles, and supported related citizen advocacy for a constitutional amendment.
On July 3, 2012, the
Council of the County of Hawaii
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and clarify that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of natural persons.
Return to
Contents
Idaho
State
2026
On March 25, 2026, Idaho became the 25th state to formally urge Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that returns the power to regulate election spending to the states.
SJM109
introduced on 2/11/2026. Considered by full Senate on 2/17/2026 and adopted via voice vote. Considered by full House on 3/25/2026 and adopted unanimously via voice vote.
Other attempts include:
60th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session (2010):
HJM 12
Local | 1
On August 13, 2012, the
Teton County Board of Commissioners
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations are not human beings, and only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights; political contributions and spending are not constitutionally protected speech; and federal and state governments shall have the power to regulate them and require disclosure of their sources.
Return to
Contents
Illinois
State
Introduced on March 13, 2013 by Senator Heather A. Steans [7] et al.,
SJR 27
passed the Senate on May 14 and the House on May 31.
It disagreed with
Citizens United
and related cases and called for a constitutional amendment to overturn them and make clear that constitutional rights belong to natural persons; the use of money is not First Amendment speech and can be regulated; corporations and other artificial entities are subject to legislative regulation; and federal, state, and local governments have the power to require disclosure of, limit, and regulate all election contributions and expenditures.
Other attempts include:
98th General Assembly (2013-2014):
SR 85
Local | 14
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Edwardsville
voted 77% to 23% in favor
when asked
, “Shall the U.S. Constitution be amended to clearly state that the rights of persons protected by the U.S. Constitution are the rights of natural persons and not those of corporations or other artificial entities and that money is not speech within the meaning of the First Amendment?”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Avon Township
voted 75% to 25% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
“to limit the use of corporate, special interests, and private money in any political activity[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Carbondale Township
voted 70% to 30% in favor
when asked
“whether the Constitution of the United States be amended to reflect that 1) A corporation is not a person and can be regulated; 2) Money is not speech and can be regulated; and 3) Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Champaign Township
voted 72% to 28% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “The U.S. Supreme Court held, in “Citizens United v. FEC”, that corporations have the rights of real human citizens and are entitled to spend unlimited amounts of money in support of political campaigns. To undo that decision, the people of the City of Champaign Township support an Amendment to the United States Constitution to establish that: 1. A corporation does not have the same rights as an actual person, and 2. Money is not speech and, therefore, regulating political spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. We further request that our city, state and federal representatives enact resolutions and legislation to advance the two positions proposed as part of the Amendment, with reference to the need for an Amendment.”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Chicago
voted 74% to 26% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
“empowering the federal government and the states to regulate and limit political contributions from corporations[.]” This followed the July 25, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Chicago City Council
disagreeing with
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn it that makes clear that constitutional rights do not extend to corporations; corporations are subject to regulation; and federal and state governments have the power to regulate and limit election contributions and expenditures. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Cunningham Township
voted 72% to 28% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations do not have the same rights as actual persons, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Kane County
voted 73% to 27% in favor when asked
, “Should the United States Constitution be amended to limit the use of corporate, special interest, and private money in any political activity, including influencing the election of any candidate for public office?” (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Lisle Township
voted 63% to 37% in favor
when asked
, “Should the United States Constitution be amended to clearly state that only individual persons, and not corporations, associations, or any other organizational entities, are entitled to the rights enumerated in the Constitution?”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Northfield Township
voted 75% to 25% in favor
when asked
, “Should the United States Constitution be amended to limit the use of corporate, special interest and private money in any political activity, including influencing the election of any candidate for public office?”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Oak Park Township
voted 86% to 14% in favor
when asked
, “Shall the people of Oak Park stand with communities across the country in requesting that our village, county, state and federal representatives enact resolutions and legislation, including consideration for amending the Constitution of the United States to establish that: a) Political money is not the same as speech, and therefore that money shall be regulated; and b) The rights guaranteed by the Constitution were and are primarily intended for human beings, not corporations?”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Warren Township
voted 66% to 34% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that only individual persons are entitled to constitutional rights.
One November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Warrenville
voted 65% to 35% in favor
when asked
, “Should the United States Constitution be amended to clearly state that only individual persons, and not corporations, associations, or any other organizational entities, are entitled to the rights enumerated in the Constitution?”
On June 4, 2012, the
Galesburg City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment and other legislative actions to ensure that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On May 14, 2012, the
Evanston City Council
passed
a resolution
supporting the effective overturning of
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to permit state and federal governments to regulate electoral expenditures by corporations and special interest groups.
Return to
Contents
Indiana
State
2026
SR5
introduced on 1/22/2026. Considered by Senate Committee on Elections on 1/27/2026 and passed unanimously (8-0). Considered by full Senate on second reading on 1/28/2026 and adopted via voice vote.
2025
SR 65
introduced on 4/21/2025.
Attempts include:
2015 Session:
HCR 88
; 2014 Session:
HCR 13
Local | 1
On June 20, 2012, the
Bloomington City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not people, nor is money speech, and federal and state governments shall have the authority to regulate political expenditures and contributions.
Return to
Contents
Iowa
State
Attempts include:
85th General Assembly (1/14/2013-1/11/2015):
HCR 107
SSB 1187
; 84th General Assembly (1/10/2011-1/13/2013):
SR 113
Local | 10
On June 15, 2015, the
Windsor Heights City Council
passed a resolution
supporting a fair elections constitutional amendment and encouraging Windsor Heights residents to continue championing government of, by, and for the people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 9, 2015, the
Cedar Rapids City Council
passed
a resolution
positing that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and political spending limits promote First Amendment goals by ensuring that all citizens’ political views are heard. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles.
On May 7, 2015, the
Johnson County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to ensure that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as natural persons and allowing governments to reasonably limit the political activities of artificial entities. (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 20, 2015, the
Altoona City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to make elections fair for all citizens, and calling on Altoona residents to continue championing a government of, by and for the people.
On April 7, 2015, the
Lee County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution
positing that corporations do not have the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and because money is not speech, political spending limits promote First Amendment goals by ensuring that all citizens’ political views are heard. The Board also called for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles and for a state law on campaign disclosures.
On March 9, 2015, the
Des Moines City Council
passed a resolution
supporting the movement for a constitutional amendment to address
Citizens United
on issues including corporate personhood and money as speech, thus making elections fair for all citizens, and calling on Des Moines residents to champion the cause of a people’s government.
On February 17, 2015, the
Black Hawk County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment related to campaign finance reform and the full and timely disclosure of certain campaign contributions in Iowa.
On May 19, 2014, the
Blue Grass City Council
passed
a resolution
positing that money is not speech, and regulating election spending is not the same as limiting political speech; calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and
McCutcheon
; and calling for new disclosure laws in Iowa. (Click
here
for more information.)
On March 3, 2014, the
Buffalo City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and clarify that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of natural persons, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating election-related spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Mayor Doug Anderson refused to sign the resolution.)
On February 3, 2014, the
Dubuque City Council
passed
a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and because money is not speech, political spending limits promote First Amendment goals by ensuring that all citizens’ political views are heard. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles.
Return to
Contents
Kansas
State
Attempts include:
Session of 2015:
SCR 1602
; Session of 2013:
SCR 1607
; Session of 2012:
SCR 1617
Local
Return to
Contents
Kentucky
State
Attempts include:
2017 Regular Session:
HCR46
HR87
; 2016 Regular Session:
HCR14
SCR152
; 2013 Regular Session:
HCR6
; 2012 Regular Session:
SR124
; 2011 Regular Session:
HR14
SR107
Local | 1
On October 5, 2015, the
Midway City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and related cases that gave human rights to corporations and declared money to be speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
Return to
Contents
Louisiana
State
Local
Return to
Contents
Maine
State
Introduced on April 30, 2013 by Senator Richard G. Woodbury [11] et al.,
SP 548
passed the Senate and House that same day.
It called for a constitutional amendment to reaffirm the power to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections.
Local | 27
On April 6, 2013, the
Brooklin Town Meeting
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment “that would effectively limit the influence of ‘big money’ in elections.”
On March 21, 2013, the
Friendship Town Meeting
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
, thus limiting the influence of and controlling political spending by corporations and unions.
On March 6, 2013, the
Bath City Council
passed
a resolution supporting Bath citizens who reject
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not free speech, nor are legal entities like corporations people entitled to constitutional rights.
On February 11, 2013, the
Orono Town Council
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to empower federal and state governments to regulate and limit election fundraising and spending, clarify the role corporations in the political process, clarify the same for unions and other special interest groups, and provide regulatory and limiting authority over political participation by such entities.
On February 4, 2013, the
Brunswick Town Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is not a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On January 28, 2013, the
Thomaston Select Board
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse rulings equating corporations with people and money with speech, and for immediate legislation to establish rules of disclosure and public financing of elections.
On January 8, 2013, the
Camden Select Board
supported
a constitutional amendment to state that money is not speech, nor are corporations people, thus overturning
Citizens United
On November 7, 2012, the
Scarborough Town Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations are not human beings and do not have the same rights as citizens.
On September 4, 2012, the
Lewiston City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment that would differentiate elections spending and First Amendment activities, empower state and federal governments to regulate election fundraising and spending, and clarify that only human beings are endowed with constitutional free speech rights.
On August 2, 2012, the
Roque Bluffs Board of Selectmen
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
, and to clarify that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of natural persons, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating election spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 26, 2012, the
Southwest Harbor Board of Selectmen
issued an
official letter
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not entitled to the rights of natural persons, nor is money speech.
On June 18, 2012, the
Newcastle Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On June 13, 2012, the
Arrowsic Town Meeting
declared
, “We, the residents of Arrowsic, Maine, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” ruling, and move to amend our Constitution to firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to Constitutional rights.”
On June 13, 2012, the
Bethel Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the U.S. Constitution.
On June 11, 2012, the
Vassalboro Town Meeting
considered
and
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that, with regard to election spending, corporations are not entitled to the rights of natural persons.
On June 5, 2012, the
Freeport Town Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 4, 2012, the
Mount Desert Board of Selectmen
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of natural persons, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 2, 2012, the
Leeds Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment in response to
Citizens United
, and for new laws to regulate the negative impact on democracy of excessive campaign spending, thus eliminating undue influence and distraction faced by elected officials based on the current system of raising and spending of money for future elections.
On May 15, 2012, the
Bar Harbor City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of natural persons, nor is money speech. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On May 14, 2012, the
Winslow Town Council
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons. During debate,
an amendment was made
to also apply such an amendment to special-interest groups and political action committees.
On April 11, 2012, the
Fairfield Town Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations are not human beings and do not have the same rights as citizens.
On March 31, 2012, the
Liberty Town Meeting
passed a resolution
to abolish corporate personhood and restore democracy.
On March 26, 2012, the
Bangor City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is not a form of constitutionally protected speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On March 10, 2012, the
Freedom Town Meeting
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations do not have the same rights as people. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On March 10, 2012, the
Vienna Town Meeting
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood. On March 27, 2012, the
Vienna Board of Selectmen
signed
a supportive letter.
On February 21, 2012, the
Waterville City Council
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations are not human beings.
On January 18, 2012, the
Portland City Council
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood. (Click
here
for more information.)
Return to
Contents
Maryland
State
On January 19, 2012, State Senator Jamie Raskin [20]
launched a campaign
to gather signatures from his colleagues to
call for a constitutional amendment
to reverse
Citizens United
restoring fair elections and democratic sovereignty. At its completion, 29 other senators and 77 delegates—a majority of the General Assembly—had joined the campaign. (Click
here
for more information.)
Other attempts include:
2015 Regular Session:
HJ 2
Local | 7
On July 23, 2012, the
Annapolis City Council
sent a letter, signed by the mayor and all but one alderman, to the US Congress calling for a constitutional amendment to authorize federal and state governments to regulate political contributions and expenditures. (The letter was detailed in a
Capital Gazette
report, but the link is no longer available.)
On May 14, 2012, the
Baltimore City Council
passed
a resolution
opposing
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision and remove corporate money from the electoral process. (Click
here
for more information.)
On March 6, 2012, the
Mount Rainier City Council
passed a resolution
establishing that campaign financing and spending should be structured to prevent undue influence, and that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings. The Mayor and Council then instructed their state and federal representatives to advance these principles through resolutions, legislation, and constitutional amendments.
On February 21, 2012, the
Prince George’s County Council
passed
a resolution
supporting the
letter signed by members of the Maryland General Assembly
that disagreed with
Citizens United
and called for a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision and restore fair elections and democratic sovereignty to the states and to the people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On February 6, 2012, the
Takoma Park City Council
passed
a resolution
supporting efforts to reverse
Citizens United
and open the electoral process to more citizen participation, including by constitutional amendment.
On February 2, 2012,
Greenbelt Mayor Judith Davis and the Greenbelt City Council
issued official support letters (one of them is posted
here
) for the constitutional amendment approach to reversing
Citizens United
, calling the decision wrong and pointing out the need to reduce undue corporate influence in our democratic process. The meeting in which the Council agreed to take this action was held on
January 23
. The Council decided on February 13 not to endorse specific amendment language (click
here
and
here
). This was a conversation formally started on
July 11, 2011
On January 24, 2012,
College Park Mayor Andrew Fellows and the College Park City Council
issued an
official support letter
for the constitutional amendment approach to reversing
Citizens United
, citing the decision’s impact on all levels of government and expressing thanks for those who participate in taking back our democracy.
Return to
Contents
Massachusetts
State
On January 21, 2011,
S772
, introduced by State Senator Jamie Eldridge, passed the Senate on July 26, 2012, and the House on July 31, 2012.
The resolution called for action to “restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.”
On November 6, 2018, the citizens of Massachusetts followed by voting 71% to 29% in favor of
creating a citizens commission
to consider and recommend potential constitutional amendments. The commission’s work continues (193
H3819
, 192
H3657
, 191
H4908
) as of 2023.
Other attempts include:
193rd (2023-2024):
H3768
; 187th (2011-2012):
H4361
Local | 207
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Ashby
voted 76% to 24% in favor
when asked
, “Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Ashland
voted 75% to 25% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Avon
voted 72% to 28% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Bedford
voted 75% to 25% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed a November 6, 2012 vote by the
citizens of Bedford
79% to 21% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Burlington
voted 73% to 27% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 20, 2013
passage of a resolution
by the
Burlington Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to affirm that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and that federal, state, and local governments may limit political contributions and expenditures from any source.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Canton
voted 74% to 26% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Danvers
voted 75% to 25% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Dunstable
voted 75% to 25% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Fairhaven
voted 74% to 26% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Fitchburg
voted 70% to 30% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Framingham
voted in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” The vote in the seventeen of eighteen precincts in which this question was on the ballot was 72% to 28%, and the more than 10,000 votes cast in favor would also have been enough to pass the question townwide. This followed the April 24, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Framingham Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to give federal and state governments the power to regulate and reasonably limit all election contributions and expenditures, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive and spend them and publicly disclose their sources.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Franklin
voted 71% to 29% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Groton
voted 75% to 25% in favor when asked
, “Shall the state representative form this district be instructed to vote for a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment affirming that 1.) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2.) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Holliston
voted 74% to 26% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Hopedale
voted 75% to 25% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Hopkinton
voted 74% to 26% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Malden
voted in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” The vote in the fifteen of sixteen precincts in which this question was on the ballot was 72% to 28%, and the more than 7,000 votes cast in favor would also have been enough to pass the question citywide.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Marion
voted 72% to 28% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Mattapoisett
voted 73% to 27% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Medway
voted 74% to 26% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 14, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Medway Town Meeting
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to correct that interpretation, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech. The resolution also urged adoption of
S772
, the state’s call for a constitutional amendment.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Mendon
voted 73% to 27% in favor when asked
, “Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Milford
voted 73% to 27% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Peabody
voted 72% to 28% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Pepperell
voted 75% to 25% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Rochester
voted 73% to 27% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Sharon
voted 75% to 25% in favor when asked
, “Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution affirming that 1)rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2)both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?” This followed the December 3, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Sharon Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that artificial entities such as corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights and privileges, nor is election spending free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Southborough
voted 73% to 27% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed a November 6, 2012 vote by the
citizens of Southborough
77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Townsend
voted 74% to 26% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of West Bridgewater
voted 72% to 28% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that 1) rights protected under the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only and 2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On May 20, 2014, the
North Andover Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that entities created by law, including corporations, are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings. (Click
here
for more information.)
On May 13, 2014, the
Andover Town Meeting
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to affirm that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and that federal and state governments may limit, or take other related action, political contributions and spending from any source.
On June 26, 2013, the
Hawley Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people, nor is money speech for the purposes of campaign expenditures and contributions. (Click
here
for information about an earlier attempt at similar action.) This followed a successful ballot question. On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Hawley
voted 73% to 27% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On May 21, 2013, just after midnight, the
Brimfield Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
On May 13, 2013, the
Monson Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment and proposing specific language to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people, nor is money speech for purposes of campaign-related expenditures and contributions.
On May 8, 2013, the
Oxford Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to affirm that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and that federal, state, and local governments may limit political contributions and expenditures from any source.
On May 7, 2013, the
Essex Town Meeting
carried a motion
calling for a constitutional amendment to affirm that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and that Congress and the states may limit both political contributions and political spending. This followed a successful ballot question. On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Essex
voted 79% to 21% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On May 6, 2013, the
Sandwich Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and restore the First Amendment and fair elections to we the people.
On May 6, 2013, the
Saugus Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to affirm that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, nor is money speech, and therefore federal, state, and local governments may limit political
contributions and expenditures from any source.
On May 4, 2013, the
Ashburnham Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people, nor is money speech.
On April 27, 2013, the
Nahant Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not people, nor is money speech, and both can be regulated. This followed a successful ballot question. On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Nahant
voted 81% to 19% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 28, 2012
passage of another resolution
by the
Nahant Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment. (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 10, 2013, the
Scituate Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to affirm that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and that federal, state, and local governments may limit political contributions and spending from any source. (External evidence suggests that this resolution passed on the second night, April 10, of the meeting.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Acton
voted 81% to 19% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” (No action was taken on
a similar resolution
at the Acton Town Meeting on April 2, 2012.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Adams
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Alford
voted 84% to 16% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Amesbury
voted 79% to 21% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Amherst
voted 88% to 12% in favor
when asked
, “Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?” This followed the May 7, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Amherst Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Aquinnah
voted in favor of instructing their
state representative
and
state senator
to call for a constitutional amendment “affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 8, 2012
passage of
a resolution
by the
Aquinnah Town Meeting
officially supporting
S772
, the state’s call for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Arlington
voted 83% to 17% in favor when asked
, “Shall the State Representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the US Constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the Constitutional Rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the States may place limits on political contributions and political spending?” (Click
here
for more information). This followed the May 16, 2012
passage of
a resolution
by the
Arlington Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people, and for other appropriate action to reverse the decision or ameliorate its detrimental effects.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Ashfield
voted 89% to 11% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 5, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Ashfield Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people, nor is money speech for purposes of campaign-related expenditures and contributions.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Ayer
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Barnstable
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Becket
voted 84% to 16% in favor when asked
, “Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and States my place limits on [political contributions] and political spending?”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Belmont
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Bernardston
voted 83% to 17% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the June 7, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Bernardston Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people, nor is money speech for purposes of campaign-related expenditures and contributions. The resolution proposed specific amendment language.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Beverly
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Blandford
voted 69% to 31% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Boxborough
voted 79% to 21% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 17, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Boxborough Town Meeting
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to correct that interpretation, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Brewster
voted 79% to 21% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 3, 2011
passage of a resolution
by the
Brewster Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Brookline
voted in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” The vote in the twelve of sixteen precincts in which this question was on the ballot was 85% to 15%, and the more than 15,000 votes cast in favor would also have been enough to pass the question townwide. This followed the May 22, 2012
passage of
a resolution
by the
Brookline Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish federal, state, and local authority to regulate election spending and allow public financing, and to establish that only natural persons have electoral free speech rights.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Buckland
voted 85% to 15% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the
Buckland Town Meeting
supporting on May 9, 2012
a constitutional amendment
to define constitutional rights as those of natural persons, and to establish that constitutional use of “people,” “person,” and “citizen” does not encompass corporations and similar entities, thus such entities are subject to reasonable regulation.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Cambridge
voted 86% to 14% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the October 24, 2011
passage of a resolution
by the
Cambridge City Council
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
. Then on January 30, 2012 they followed that action by
officially supporting
a similar call at the state level
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Carlisle
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Charlemont
voted 83% to 17% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 22, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Charlemont Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Chatham
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the state may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 9, 2011
passage of a resolution
by the
Chatham Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to allow federal and state governments to ban or reasonably limit corporate election spending.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Chelmsford
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Cheshire
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Chester
voted 72% to 28% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Chesterfield
voted 81% to 19% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Chilmark
voted in favor of instructing their
state representative
and
state senator
to call for a constitutional amendment “affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the state may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 23, 2012
passage of
a resolution
by the
Chilmark Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Clarksburg
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Colrain
voted 85% to 15% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 8, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Colrain Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people, nor is money speech for purposes of campaign-related expenditures and contributions. The resolution proposed specific amendment language.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Concord
voted 81% to 19% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 26, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Concord Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
, declare that corporations are not people under the First Amendment, and restore the people’s right to regulate corporate expenditures to ensure fair elections.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Conway
voted 87% to 13% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 14, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Conway Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people, nor is money speech for purposes of campaign-related expenditures and contributions. The resolution proposed specific amendment language.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Cummington
voted 88% to 12% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 4, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Cummington Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Meeting also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Dalton
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Deerfield
voted 84% to 16% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 1, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Deerfield Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people, nor is money speech for purposes of campaign-related expenditures and contributions. The resolution proposed specific amendment language.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Dennis
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the
Dennis Town Meeting
supporting on May 3, 2011 the following constitutional amendment
: “Corporations, Political Action Committees (PACs), and Foreign Agents are not citizens under the U.S. Constitution and shall not be allowed to financially influence elections.”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Dover
voted 70% to 30% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Eastham
voted 80% to 20% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Edgartown
voted in favor of instructing their
state representative
and
state senator
to call for a constitutional amendment “affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 10, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Edgartown Town Meeting
officially supporting
S772
, the state’s call for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Egremont
voted 82% to 18% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Erving
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Falmouth
voted 79% to 21% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not and entitled to the constitutional rights of human begins, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 5, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Falmouth Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to specify that only natural persons possess constitutional personhood rights, and to restore fairness in elections and policy influence. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Florida
voted 81% to 19% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Georgetown
voted 73% to 27% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Gill
voted 84% to 16% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Gloucester
voted 78% to 22% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the October 9, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Gloucester City Council
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Goshen
voted 81% to 19% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Gosnold
voted in favor of instructing their
state representative
and
state senator
to call for a constitutional amendment “affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Great Barrington
voted 85% to 15% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 2, 2011
passage of
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment, and other action relative thereto, to allow federal and state governments the power to regulate corporate, and similar entities, spending on political speech.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Greenfield
voted 83% to 17% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Groveland
voted 73% to 27% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Hadley
voted 82% to 18% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Hamilton
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Hancock
voted 75% to 25% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Harvard
voted 79% to 21% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Harwich
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Hatfield
voted 80% to 20% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Haverhill
voted in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” The vote in the twenty of twenty-one precincts in which this question was on the ballot was
74% to 26%
, and the more than 14,000 votes cast in favor would also have been enough to pass the question citywide.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Heath
voted 84% to 16% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Hinsdale
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Hudson
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Huntington
voted 79% to 21% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Ipswich
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Lanesborough
voted 80% to 20% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” (There are also
reports
of a town resolution passing in 2011.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Lee
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Lenox
voted 80% to 20% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the June 20, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Lenox Board of Selectmen
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
, and to clarify that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of natural persons, thus restoring the First Amendment and fair election for the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Leverett
voted 91% to 9% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 28, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Leverett Town Meeting
officially supporting
S772
, the state’s call for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people, and
H.J.Res. 88
, which was introduced by US Representative James P. McGovern [MA-2] during the 112th US Congress to establish that constitutional rights belong to natural persons. This followed the April 24, 2010
passage of another resolution
by the
Leverett Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. This resolution also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Lexington
voted 82% to 18% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” Voters in three of Lexington’s nine precincts also considered
a similar instruction for their state senator
, but its nearly 4,000 votes cast in favor would not on their own have been enough to pass the question townwide.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Leyden
voted 85% to 15% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Lincoln
voted 81% to 19% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the March 24, 2012
passage of
a resolution
by the
Lincoln Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment (language provided) to define constitutional rights as those of natural persons, and to establish that constitutional use of “people,” “person,” and “citizen” does not encompass corporations and similar entities, thus such entities are subject to reasonable regulation.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Littleton
voted 79% to 21% in favor of
instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Manchester-by-the-Sea
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Marblehead
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Marlborough
voted 75% to 25% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Mashpee
voted in favor of instructing their
state representative
and
state senator
to call for a constitutional amendment “affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Maynard
voted 80% to 20% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending.”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Melrose
voted 80% to 20% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Merrimac
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Middlefield
voted 82% to 18% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Millis
voted 75% to 25% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Monroe
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Montague
voted 83% to 17% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 5, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Montague Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment and proposing specific language to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people, nor is money speech for purposes of campaign-related expenditures and contributions.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Monterey
voted 84% to 16% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 5, 2012
passage of
a resolution by the
Monterey Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Mount Washington
voted 95% to 5% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Nantucket
voted in favor of instructing their
state representative
and
state senator
to call for a constitutional amendment “affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Needham
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” Voters in five of Needham’s ten precincts also considered
a similar instruction for their state senator
, but its more than 5,000 votes cast in favor would not on their own have been enough to pass the question townwide. This followed the May 14, 2012
passage of
a resolution by the
Needham Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
Substitute language
was adopted after the
original warrant
was issued. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of New Ashford
voted 79% to 21% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of New Marlborough
voted 79% to 21% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of New Salem
voted 82% to 18% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Newbury
voted 76% to 24% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 22, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Newbury Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to the effect that corporations are not people and do not possess the same constitutional rights; people have the right to regulate corporations; corporations cannot make campaign contributions; and federal and state governments shall have the power to reasonably limit election spending.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Newburyport
voted 81% to 19% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the March 27, 2012
passage of
a resolution
by the
Newburyport City Council
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Newton
voted in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” The vote in the thirty of thirty-two precincts in which this question was on the ballot was 82% to 18%, and the nearly 28,000 votes cast in favor would also have been enough to pass the question citywide. This followed the July 9, 2012
passage of
a resolution by the
Newton Board of Aldermen
calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and that federal and state governments may reasonably limit political contributions and spending, thus restoring the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Norfolk
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of North Adams
voted 79% to 21% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of North Attleborough
voted 74% to 26% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Northampton
voted 89% to 11% in favor
when asked
, “Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the US constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?” This followed the May 3, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Northampton City Council
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that constitutional use of “people,” “person,” and “citizen” does not encompass corporations and similar entities, and to reverse Citizens United, thereby restoring constitutional rights and fair elections to the people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Northfield
voted 83% to 17% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Oak Bluffs
voted in favor of instructing their
state representative
and
state senator
to call for a constitutional amendment “affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 10, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Oak Bluffs Town Meeting
officially supporting
S772
, the state’s call for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Orange
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Orleans
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 9, 2011
passage of a resolution
by the
Orleans Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Otis
voted 82% to 18% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 15, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Otis Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Pelham
voted 90% to 10% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 5, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Pelham Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to specify that constitutional personhood rights are for natural persons only, and to restore fairness in elections and policy influence.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Peru
voted 81% to 19% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Pittsfield
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the August 14, 2012
consideration
and
passage of
a resolution by the
Pittsfield City Council
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Plainfield
voted 83% to 17% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Plainville
voted 75% to 25% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Provincetown
voted 90% to 10% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 4, 2011
passage of a resolution
by the
Provincetown Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Richmond
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 23, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Richmond Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
and restore democracy to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Rockport
voted 81% to 19% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the
Rockport Town Meeting
supporting on September 11, 2012
a constitutional amendment to affirm that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and that federal and state governments may limit political contributions and spending from any source.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Rowe
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 14, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Rowe Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of people, nor is money speech.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Rowley
voted 76% to 24% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Royalston
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Salem
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 10, 2012
passage of
a “Restoring Democracy to the People” resolution by the
Salem City Council
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Salisbury
voted 76% to 24% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Sandisfield
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Savoy
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Sheffield
voted 80% to 20% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 7, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Sheffield Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to ban, or at least regulate with punitive assurances, money spent by corporate entities on political speech and elections.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Shelburne
voted 88% to 12% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 3, 2012
passage of
a resolution
by the
Shelburne Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people, nor is money speech for purposes of campaign-related expenditures and contributions. The resolution proposed specific amendment language.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Sherborn
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Shirley
voted 74% to 26% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Shutesbury
voted 90% to 10% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 5, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Shutesbury Town Meeting
officially supporting
S772
, the state’s call for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people, and further specifying the reversal of
Citizens United
, assertion of the people’s sovereignty from the corrupting influence of money in politics, and restoration of constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Somerville
voted 83% to 17% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the October 13, 2011
passage of
a resolution
by the
Somerville Board of Aldermen
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people. The Board also supported
the state’s call for a constitutional amendment
. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of South Hadley
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Stockbridge
voted 83% to 17% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 21, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Stockbridge Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to allow federal and state governments to regulate corporate expenditures to reverse
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Stow
voted 80% to 20% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Sudbury
voted 76% to 24% in favor when asked
, “Shall the state senator from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. constitution affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Sunderland
voted 84% to 16% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Swampscott
voted 79% to 21% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 7, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Swampscott Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not people and do not have the same constitutional rights as people, can be regulated, and are prohibited from making campaign contributions; also that federal and state governments have the power to reasonably limit election spending.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Tisbury
voted in favor of instructing their
state representative
and
state senator
to call for a constitutional amendment “affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 10, 2012
passage of
a resolution by the
Tisbury Town Meeting
officially supporting
S772
, the state’s call for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Topsfield
voted 73% to 27% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Truro
voted 85% to 15% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 26, 2011
passage of a resolution
by the
Truro Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Tyringham
voted 82% to 18% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Waltham
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Warwick
voted 82.5% to 17.5% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 7, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Warwick Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Washington
voted 82% to 18% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Watertown
voted in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” The vote in the nine of twelve precincts in which this question was on the ballot was 81% to 19%, and the more than 8,000 votes cast in favor would also have been enough to pass the question townwide. Then on December 11, 2012 the
Watertown Town Council
agreed to send a letter
to their state and federal legislators acknowledging the town’s vote. (Click
here
for more information. The origin of references made to a 63% result is yet unclear.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Wayland
voted 80% to 20% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Wellfleet
voted 86% to 14% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 26, 2011
passage of a resolution
by the
Wellfleet Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Wendell
voted 92% to 8% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the June 4, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Wendell Town Meeting
registering Wendell’s official support of legislation sponsored by State Senator Stanley Rosenberg and State Representative Stephen Kulik that calls for a constitutional amendment (by convention, language provided) that addresses the rights of and regulatory authority over corporations and other private entities.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Wenham
voted 74% to 26% in favor of instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of West Newbury
voted 79% to 21% in favor of
instructing their state representative to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the
West Newbury Town Meeting
moving on April 30, 2012
in favor of a constitutional amendment
to reverse
Citizens United
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of West Stockbridge
voted 85% to 15% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of West Tisbury
voted in favor of instructing their
state representative
and
state senator
to call for a constitutional amendment “affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the April 10, 2012
passage of
a “Restoring Free Speech” resolution by the
West Tisbury Town Meeting
. (Errant references to a May 9, 2012 action are believed to be false.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Westborough
voted 78% to 22% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Westhampton
voted 77% to 23% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Weston
voted 74% to 26% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Whately
voted 83% to 17% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Williamsburg
voted 87% to 13% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming the (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Williamstown
voted 85% to 15% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]” This followed the May 17, 2011
passage of a resolution
by the
Williamstown Town Meeting
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Windsor
voted 79% to 21% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Worthington
voted 83% to 17% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Wrentham
voted 76% to 24% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Yarmouth
voted 77% to 33% in favor of instructing their state senator to call for a constitutional amendment
“affirming that (1) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]”
On October 16, 2012, the
West Brookfield Town Meeting
called for a constitutional amendment
to reverse
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair election to the people.
On August 6, 2012, the
Methuen City Council
passed
a resolution
opposing
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to limit corporate influence and restore democracy in our elections, thus overturning the ruling.
On July 16, 2012, the
Springfield City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
. The Council also registered its official support for
S772
, the state’s call for a constitutional amendment.
On July 10, 2012, the
Stoughton Board of Selectmen
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
On June 4, 2012, the
Quincy City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
. (Click
here
for more information.)
On May 21, 2012, the
Somerset Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment, specifically
H.J.Res. 88
, which was introduced by US Representative James P. McGovern [MA-2] during the 112th US Congress to establish that constitutional rights belong to natural persons.
On May 15, 2012, the
Worcester City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment, specifically
H.J.Res. 88
, which was introduced by US Representative James P. McGovern [MA-2] during the 112th US Congress to establish that constitutional rights belong to natural persons. (Click
here
for more information.)
On May 8, 2012, the
Warren Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
On May 3, 2012, the
Westport Town Meeting
passed a resolution
to approve the
US H.J.Res. 88
constitutional amendment that was introduced by US Representative Jim McGovern [MA-2] during the 112th US Congress to “end the legal status of corporations as persons, and stop the current practice of unlimited independent congressional campaign funding with money that comes from undisclosed sources.”
On April 30, 2012, the
Reading Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 12, 2012, the
Natick Town Meeting
passed a resolution
to declare that the Constitution protects the rights of the people, not corporations, that corporations and private entities are not people and are thus subject to regulation, and that
Citizens United
unleashed a threatening wave of unlimited election spending form undisclosed special interest sources. Therefore, the Meeting urged, state and federal elected officials should support legislation and a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision, and should work toward fair elections.
On February 29, 2012, the
Boston City Council
passed
a resolution
supporting the restoration of free speech and fair elections to individuals and urging passage of
S772
, the state’s call for a constitutional amendment.
On February 14, 2012, the
Lynn City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
Return to
Contents
Michigan
State
Attempts include:
2017:
HR 125
SR 77
Local | 8
On April 13, 2021, the
Ingham County Board of Commissioners
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that Congress and the states may set even-handed limits on election spending and in so doing may distinguish between natural persons and legal entities. The resolution also supported the federal For the People Act and a disclosure amendment to the state constitution. This followed the September 24, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Board
calling for a constitutional amendment “to defend democracy from the corrupting influences of undue corporate power through campaign contributions.”
On September 18, 2019, the
Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to make clear that federal and state governments have the power to regulate and reasonably limit election contributions and spending in order to protect election integrity and self-government and to secure equal rights for all.
On April 14, 2016, the
Cedar Springs City Council
passed
a resolution
calling on state legislators to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 25, 2013, the
Ferndale City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On October 15, 2012, the
Ann Arbor City Council
passed a resolution
calling for corrective legislation to clarify that constitutional rights are not extended to corporations, and for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
On September 24, 2012, the
Lansing City Council
passed a resolution
calling for full disclosure of independent expenditures in federal, state, and local elections, and for a constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people, money is not speech, and federal, state, and local governments can regulate election expenditures.
On September 11, 2012,
Grand Rapids Mayor George Heartwell and four of the six members of the Grand Rapids City Commission
sent a
letter
to Michigan Governor Rick Snyder expressing concern over
Citizens United
and affirming the priority of natural persons. While the letter text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered constitutional amendment advocacy.
MLive
: “City Commission last month chose not to place on November’s ballot a proposal calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But several commissioners are signing a letter that expresses concern over how a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affects interpretation of the Constitution.” (Click
here
for more information on the push for a ballot measure.)
On August 21, 2012, the
Ypsilanti City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
and clarify that constitutional rights are not extended to corporations.
Return to
Contents
Minnesota
State
2025
HF 2225
introduced on 3/13/2025.
SF 2517
introduced on 3/13/2025.
Attempts include:
93rd Legislature (2023-2024):
HF 1064
SF 384
; 92nd Legislature (2021-2022):
HF 868
SF 649
SF878
SF940
; 91st Legislature (2019-2020):
HF 2661
HF 2701
SF 2037
SF 2038
SF 4368
SF 4371
SF 4581
; 90th Legislature (2017-2018):
HF 2139
SF 1082
SF 3342
Local | 8
On July 20, 2020, the
Chaska City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not natural persons, and only they have constitutional rights, and that federal, state, and local governments shall have the power to regulate contributions and expenditures for elections and campaigns and to require public disclosure of their sources.
On April 9, 2020, the
North Oaks City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not natural persons, and only they have constitutional rights, and that federal and state governments shall have the power to regulate contributions and expenditures for elections and campaigns and to require public disclosure of their sources.
On April 10, 2018, the
New Brighton City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not natural persons, and only they have constitutional rights, and that federal, state, and local governments shall have the power to regulate contributions and expenditures for elections and campaigns and to require public disclosure of their sources.
On April 3, 2018, the
Sherburne County Board of Commissioners
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not natural persons, and only they have constitutional rights, and that federal, state, and local governments shall have the power to regulate contributions and expenditures for elections and campaigns and to require public disclosure of their sources. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 28, 2017, the
Lauderdale City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that only natural persons have constitutional rights, and legal entities are subject to regulation, including regulation, limitation, and prohibition of campaign contributions and expenditures and public disclosure requirements. The resolution proposed specific amendment language. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 15, 2012, the
Minneapolis City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations are not natural persons, and only they have constitutional rights, and that federal and state governments shall have the power to regulate contributions and expenditures for elections and campaigns and to require public disclosure of their sources. The Council also
included
amendment support in the
Transparency in Elections section
of its FY 2013 Federal Agenda. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 13, 2012, the
St. Paul City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of human beings, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On December 19, 2011, the
Duluth City Council
passed a resolution
supporting efforts to reject
Citizens United
and calling for state and federal constitutional amendments to establish that money is not speech, corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, and constitutional use of “person” refers to natural persons.
Return to
Contents
Mississippi
State
Local | 1
On March 6, 2012, the
Jackson City Council
passed a resolution
calling for US and Mississippi constitutional amendments to declare that corporations are not granted the protections or rights of persons.
Return to
Contents
Missouri
State
2026
HCR23
introduced on 01/07/2026.
SCR11
introduced on 01/07/2026.
Attempts include:
96th General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session (2012):
HCR 38
Local | 9
On March 2, 2018, the
St. Louis Board of Aldermen
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On May 14, 2013, the
Granby City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood, thus establishing that corporations, unions, and other collective entities are not entitled to inalienable constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On April 9, 2013, the
Seligman Board of Aldermen
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On March 13, 2013, the
Exeter City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood, thus establishing that corporations, unions, and other collective entities are not entitled to inalienable constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On January 29, 2013, the
Verona Board of Aldermen
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood, thus establishing that corporations, unions, and other collective entities are not entitled to inalienable constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On December 10, 2012, the
Purdy City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood, thus establishing that corporations, unions, and other collective entities are not entitled to inalienable constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On November 12, 2012, the
Pierce City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood, thus establishing that corporations are not entitled to inalienable constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On October 13, 2012, the
Village of Freistatt Board of Trustees
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood, thus establishing that corporations are not entitled to inalienable constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On June 14, 2012, the
Kansas City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
Return to
Contents
Montana
State
On November 6, 2012, Montanans
voted 75% to 25% in favor of
Initiative No. 166
which charged Montana’s state and federal elected officials with implementing a policy, including by constitutional amendment, that corporations are not human beings with constitutional rights. (Click
here
for more information.)
Other attempts include:
68th Regular Session:
SR 75
; 67th Regular Session:
HR 3
; 66th Regular Session:
HR 2
; 63rd Regular Session:
HJ 6
SJ 19
; 62nd Regular Session:
HJ 10
Local | 3
On November 19, 2018, the
Helena City Commission
passed a resolution
to state that artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor does money equal free speech, and therefore they are prohibited from making contributions or expenditures for or against a candidate or ballot issue.
On May 1, 2012, the
Hot Springs Town Council
passed
a resolution modeled on the
Missoula referendum
that passed with
75% to 25% of Missoulians voting in favor of
a constitutional amendment “to clearly state that corporations are not human beings and do not have the same rights as citizens.”
On November 8, 2011,
Missoulians
voted 75% to 25% in favor of
a constitutional amendment
“to clearly state that corporations are not human beings and do not have the same rights as citizens.” In 2016, in accordance with this vote and the 2012 statewide vote,
Missoula Mayor John Engen
proclaimed
Missoula’s first annual “We the People Amendment” day. (Click
here
and
here
for more information. Click to view the
2017
2018
, and
2019
proclamations.)
Return to
Contents
Nebraska
State
Attempts include:
103rd Legislature, 1st Session (2013):
LR 23
Local
Return to
Contents
Nevada
State
Introduced on February 13, 2017 by State Senator Nicole Cannizzaro [6],
SJR 4
passed the Senate on April 25 and the Assembly on May 25.
It calls for a constitutional amendment to allow the reasonable regulation of political contributions and expenditures by corporations, unions and individuals to protect the integrity of elections and the equal right of all Americans to effective representation.
Other attempts include:
77th (2013) Session:
SJR 11
Local
Return to
Contents
New Hampshire
State
Introduced on January 3, 2019 by State Representative Ellen Read [17],
HB 504
passed the House on March 7 and the Senate on June 6.
It calls for
the “Fix It America” constitutional amendment
to regulate money in elections and governance and to prohibit partisan gerrymandering.
Other attempts include:
2019 Session:
HCR 5
; 2018 Session:
HB 1524
; 2017 Session:
HB 116
; 2015/2016:
SB 136
; 2015 Session:
HB 371
; 2014 Session:
SB 307
; 2013 Session:
HCR 2
HR 7
; 2011 Session:
HCR 1
HR 8
Local | 83
On March 20, 2018, the
Bartlett Town Meeting
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 15, 2018, the
Jackson Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that constitutional rights and protections are afforded only to natural persons, and that federal and state legislatures have the authority to regulate and limit, but not ban, spending that supports or opposes federal and state candidates, initiatives, and referenda.
On March 13, 2018, the
citizens of Gilford
voted 57% to 43% in favor of
NH Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes “ban Super PACs and overturn Citizens United” among other reforms intended to stop big money corruption and restore an equal voice for all. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement.
On March 13, 2018, the
citizens of Newfields
voted 62% to 38% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that constitutional rights were not established for corporations, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. This followed a March 11, 2014 vote by the
citizens of Newfields
67% to 33% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for artificial entities such as corporations.
On March 12, 2016, the
Effingham Town Meeting
passed a resolution supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On March 12, 2016, the
Hopkinton Town Meeting
passed a resolution supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On March 12, 2016, the
Mason Town Meeting
passed a resolution supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.) This followed the
Mason Town Meeting
‘s March 14, 2015
passage of a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that constitutional rights were established for people, not corporations, unions, or other artificial entities, and to guarantee the authority to regulate political spending. (Click
here
for more information.)
On March 12, 2016, the
Temple Town Meeting
passed a resolution
urging that concrete steps be taken to fight big money politics and restore government to the people, including a call to overturn
Citizens United
. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement.
On March 10, 2016, the
Antrim Town Meeting
passed a resolution supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On March 10, 2016, the
Wilton Town Meeting
passed a resolution supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On March 9, 2016, the
Brookline Town Meeting
passed a resolution supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On March 9, 2016, the
citizens of Exeter
voted 70% to 30% in favor of supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
here
, and
here
for more information.) This followed a March 11, 2014 vote by the
citizens of Exeter
74% to 26% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations. The voters also called for full, effective, and immediate electronic disclosure of all election-related spending; fair, nonpartisan, and vigorous enforcement of existing campaign laws; an absolute ban on foreign campaign contributions; and small donor empowerment. (Click
here
for more information.)
On March 8, 2016, the
Albany Town Meeting
passed a resolution supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On March 8, 2016, the
citizens of Bethlehem
voted 58% to 42% in favor of supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On March 8, 2016, the
citizens of Epping
voted 76% to 24% in favor of supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On March 8, 2016, the
citizens of Goffstown
voted 71% to 29% in favor of supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On March 8, 2016, the
Marlborough Town Meeting
passed a resolution supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On March 8, 2016, the
citizens of Milford
voted 80% to 20% in favor of supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.) This followed a March 11, 2014 vote by the
citizens of Milford
73% to 27% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 8, 2016, the
citizens of Salem
voted 67% to 33% in favor of supporting
New Hampshire Rebellion’s “We the People” reform agenda
, which includes a call to ban super PACs and overturn
Citizens United
. While the agenda does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.) This followed a March 11, 2014 vote by the
citizens of Salem
70% to 30% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On May 12, 2015, the
citizens of Newport
voted 76% to 24% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that only individual human beings are endowed with constitutional rights, and money isn’t speech; therefore regulating political spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On March 14, 2015,
Greenville
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 14, 2015,
Plainfield
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 14, 2015,
Walpole
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 13, 2015,
Canterbury
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 11, 2015,
Westmoreland
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 10, 2015, the
citizens of Bedford
voted 60% to 40% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with First Amendment political speech rights, and that federal and state governments may regulate political contributions and spending.
On March 10, 2015, the
citizens of Gilmanton
voted 79% to 21% in favor of
: “To request that the Town of Gilmanton, NH stand with communities across the country to defend democracy from the corrupting influence of big money in our political system, by calling upon our legislators to amend the United States Constitution to estab[li]sh that: 1. Only individual human beings are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. And that the People of Gilmanton, NH hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact [] resolutions and legislation to advance this effort, and reduce the influence of big money and increase transparency and voter participation in our electoral system. And that the record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted by written notice to Gilmanton’s Congressional Delegation, and to Gilmanton’s State Legislators, and to the Governor of New Hampshire, and to the President tof the United States, informing them of the instructions from their constituents, by the Town Administrator’s office within 30 days of the vote.”
On March 10, 2015, the
Madbury Town Meeting
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that only individual humans are endowed with constitutional rights, and that money is speech.
On March 10, 2015, the
citizens of Rye
voted 68% to 32% in favor of
: “To request that the Town of Rye, NH, stand with communities across the country to defend democracy from the corrupting influence of big money in our political system, by calling upon our legislators to amend the United States Constitution to establish that: 1. Only individual human beings are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. And that the People of Rye, NH hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort, and to reduce the influence of big money and increase transparency and voter participation in our electoral system. And that the record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted by written notice to Rye’s Congressional Delegation, and to Rye’s State Legislators, and to the Governor of New Hampshire, and to the President tof the United States, informing them of the instructions from their constituents, by the Town Administrator’s office within 30 days of the vote.”
On March 10, 2015, the
citizens of Sandown
voted 66% to 24% in favor of
: “To request that Sandown stand with communities across the country to defend democracy from the corrupting influence of big money in our political system, by calling upon our legislators to amend the United States Constitution to establish that: 1) Constitutional rights were established for people, not corporations, unions or other artificial entities, 2) Our elected representatives and the American people are guaranteed the right to safeguard fair elections through the autority to regulate political spending. And that the People of Sandown, NH, hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort, and to reduce the influence of big money and increase transparency and voter participation in our electoral system.”
On January 20, 2015, the
Derry Town Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reduce the influence of money in politics. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On September 4, 2014, the
Keene City Council
passed
a resolution
outlining several grievances with
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn it and establish constitutional boundaries between natural citizens and non-natural corporate entities. (Click
here
for more information.) This followed a July 17, 2014
vote
by the
Keene City Council
to formally pursue a resolution. (Click
here
for more information.) (It appears that 2012 discussions made progress but did not produce a resolution.)
On May 14, 2014, the
New London Town Meeting
passed a resolution
positing that corporations are not people and that
Citizens United
has weakened the people’s right to freedom of speech and press. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, its call for overturning
Citizens United
and safeguarding our political campaign and elections from the highest bidder is considered constitutional amendment advocacy. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On May 14, 2014, the
Sanbornton Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On May 13, 2014, the
Hanover Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations or similar entities.
On May 13, 2014, the
citizens of Peterborough
voted 82% to 18% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 19, 2014, the
New Durham Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 15, 2014, the
Bristol Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that constitutional rights and protections apply only to natural persons, and that federal and state governments shall have the authority to regulate and limit, but not ban, election expenditures.
On March 15, 2014, the
Dorchester Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to safeguard fair elections through authority to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 15, 2014, the
Dublin Town Meeting
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
. (Click
here
for more information.)
On March 15, 2014, the
Francestown Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the authority to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were established for people, not corporations. The Meeting also called on Congress and the New Hampshire legislature to institute electronic disclosure of all election spending, provide for enforcement of existing campaign laws and regulations, ban foreign campaign spending in the US, and enact small donor multipliers through use of voter vouchers, tax credits, and matching public funds.
On March 15, 2014, the
Groton Town Meeting
passed a resolution
supporting campaign finance reform and calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to safeguard fair elections through authority to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 15, 2014, the
Hancock Town Meeting
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 15, 2014, the
Henniker Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that constitutional rights and protections apply only to natural persons, and that federal and state legislatures shall have the authority to regulate and limit, but not ban, election spending.
On March 15, 2014, the
Jaffrey Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 15, 2014, the
Nottingham Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment (language provided) to establish that constitutional rights are for natural persons only, not artificial entities, and that federal, state, and local governments shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures (and require public disclosure) to ensure equal political access for all citizens.
On March 15, 2014, the
Tilton Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the authority to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights are not for corporations.
On March 15, 2014, the
Webster Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 14, 2014, the
Stratham Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations. The resolution also called for full, effective, and immediate electronic disclosure of all election-related spending; fair, nonpartisan, and vigorous enforcement of existing campaign laws; an absolute ban on foreign campaign contributions; and small donor empowerment.
On March 13, 2014, the
Sandwich Town Meeting
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to safeguard fair elections through authority to regulate federal spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 12, 2014, the
Hollis Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to safeguard fair elections through authority to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 12, 2014, the
Plymouth Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that constitutional rights apply only to natural persons, and that federal and state governments shall have the authority to regulate and limit, but not ban, election expenditures.
On March 12, 2014, the
Warner Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Alstead
voted 59% to 41% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Amherst
voted 61% to 39% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 11, 2014, the
Andover Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Atkinson
voted 69% to 31% in favor when asked
, “Shall the Town vote to petition the state legislature, New Hampshire’s Congressional delegation and Congress to support a Constitutional Amendment relative to elections that reaffirms that democracy is for people and ensure that the will of the citizens of The United States is not drowned out by the massive political spending from the treasuries of large institutions. The record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted within thirty days by written notice from the Selectman to Atkinson’s Congressional delegation and to Atkinson’s state legislators informing them of the instructions from their constituents.”
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Barrington
voted 57% to 43% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On March 11, 2014, the
Bridgewater Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to regulate political spending and clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 11, 2014, the
Chesterfield Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 11, 2014, the
Cornish Town Meeting
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that constitutional rights were not established for corporations, and that money should be regulated.
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Danville
voted 77% to 23% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Deerfield
voted 74% to 26% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 11, 2014, the
Eaton Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment that empowers federal and state governments to establish fair and comprehensive campaign finance limits at all levels.
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Hampstead
voted 74% to 26% in favor
when asked to urge
: “That the New Hampshire State Legislature join nearly 500 municipalities and 16 other states, including all other New England states, in calling upon Congress to move forward a constitutional amendment that: 1) guarantees the right of our elected representatives and of the American people to safeguard fair elections through authority to regulate political spending, and 2) clarifies that constitutional rights were established for people, not corporations. That the New Hampshire Congressional delegation support such a constitutional amendment. That the New Hampshire State Legislature support such an amendment once it is approved by Congress and sent to the State for ratification. The record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted by written notice to HAMPSTEAD’s congressional delegation, and to HAMPSTEAD’s state legislators, and to the President of the United States informing them of the instructions from their constituents by the SELECTMEN within 30 days of the vote.”
On March 11, 2014, the
Harrisville Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Hudson
voted 58% to 42% in favor
when asked to urge
: “That the New Hampshire State Legislature join nearly 500 local municipalities and 16 other states, including all other New England states, in calling upon Congress to move forward a constitutional amendment that 1) guarantees the right of our elected representatives and of the American people to safeguard fair elections through authority to regulate political spending, and 2) clarifies that Constitutional Rights were established for people, not artificial entities such as corporations and unions. -that the New Hampshire Congressional delegation support such a constitutional amendment. -that the New Hampshire State Legislature support such an amendment once it is approved by Congress and sent to the State for ratification. The record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted by written notice to Hudson’s congressional delegation, and to Hudson’s state legislators, and to the President of the United States informing them of the instructions from their constituents by the Town Administrator’s office within 30 days of the vote.”
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Kingston
voted 81% to 19% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to safeguard fair elections through the authority to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Lee
voted 73% to 27% in favor when asked to urge
: “[T]hat the New Hampshire State Legislature join with sixteen other states, including all other New England states, in calling upon Congress to amend the United States Constitution and establish that: 1. Constitutional rights were established for people, not corporations, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. Be it further resolved that the people of Lee, NH hereby instruct our Town Clerk to inform our state and federal representatives the results of this vote within thirty days, and urge them to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.”
On March 11, 2014, the
Lyme Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations or similar entities.
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of New Boston
voted 74% to 26% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations. (Click
here
for more information.)
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Northwood
voted 65% to 35% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Pelham
voted 68% to 32% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations. (Click
here
for more information.)
On March 11, 2014, the
Piermont Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations. The resolution also called for full, effective, and immediate electronic disclosure of all election-related spending; fair, nonpartisan, and vigorous enforcement of existing campaign laws; an absolute ban on foreign campaign contributions; and small donor empowerment.
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Rindge
voted 71% to 29% in favor when asked to urge
: “That the New Hampshire State Legislature join nearly 500 municipalities and 16 other states, including all other New England states, in calling upon Congress to move forward a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right of our elected representatives and of the American people to safeguard fair elections through authority to regulate political spending, and clarifies that constitutional rights were established for people, not corporations. That the New Hampshire Congressional Delegation support such a constitutional amendment. That the New Hampshire State Legislature support such an amendment once it is approved by Congress and sent to the State for ratification. That the record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted by written notice to New Hampshire’s Congressional Delegation, and to New Hampshire’s state legislators, and to the President of the United States informing them of the instructions from their constituents by the selectmen within 30 days of the vote.”
On March 11, 2014,
Article 10
passed in
Sharon
. It reads: “By petition of 10 or more eligible voters of the town of Sharon to see if the town will urge: That the New Hampshire State Legislature join nearly 500 municipalities and 16 other states, including all other New England states, in calling upon Congress to move forward a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right of our elected representatives and of the American people to safeguard fair elections through authority to regulate political spending, and clarifies that constitutional rights were established for people, not corporations. That the New Hampshire Congressional delegation support such a constitutional amendment. That the New Hampshire State Legislature support such an amendment once it is approved by Congress and sent to the State for ratification. The record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted by written notice to New Hampshire’s congressional delegation, and to New Hampshire’s state legislators, and to the President of the United States informing them of the instructions from their constituents by the selectmen within 30 days of the vote.”
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Wakefield
voted 81% to 19% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to guarantee that the American people and their elected representatives have the right to regulate political spending, and to clarify that constitutional rights were not established for corporations.
On March 11, 2014, the
Waterville Valley Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to safeguard fair elections through authority to regulate political spending, as well as amendments to address corporate political fundraising and gerrymandering.
On March 11, 2014, the
citizens of Windham
voted 65% to 35% in favor of adopting the following resolution
: “To see [if] the town will vote to urge: That the New Hampshire State Legislature join nearly 500 local municipalities and 16 other states, including all other New England states, in calling upon Congress to move forward a constitutional amendment that 1) guarantees the right of our elected representatives and of the American people to safeguard fair elections through authority to regulate political spending, and 2) clarifies that constitutional rights were established for people not corporations. That the New Hampshire Congressional delegation support such a constitutional amendment. That the New Hampshire State Legislature support such an amendment once it is approved by Congress and sent to the State for ratification. The record of the vote shall be transmitted by written notice to the Town of Windham’s congressional delegation, and to the Town of Windham’s state legislators, and to the President of the United States informing them of the instructions from their constituents by the Board of Selectmen’s Office within 30 days of the vote.”
On February 19, 2014, the
Newmarket Town Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to safeguard fair elections through authority to limit political spending, and to clarify that inalienable rights are possessed by individuals.
On February 3, 2014, the
Durham Town Council
passed a resolution
supporting
SB 307
, the state’s call to study
Citizens United
constitutional amendments. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge adoption of an amendment, it is considered constitutional amendment advocacy. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On April 9, 2013, the
Conway Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that constitutional rights belong to natural persons, and that federal and state legislatures can regulate and limit election expenditures.
On March 14, 2012, the
Bradford Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not entitled to human rights, nor is corporate spending constitutionally protected speech.
Return to
Contents
New Jersey
State
Introduced on February 16, 2012 by Senator Jeff Van Drew [1] et al.,
SR 47
passed the Senate on October 4. Introduced on May 24, 2012 by Assembly Member Herb Conaway, Jr. [7] et al.,
AR 86
passed the Assembly on October 18.
Together they opposed
Citizens United
and called for a constitutional amendment to provide that, with regard to campaign spending by corporations, the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee protects only natural persons.
Other attempts include:
214th Legislature (2010-2011):
AR 64
Local | 11
On June 3, 2013, the
North Brunswick Township Council
passed a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and that political spending limits promote our Country’s guiding principles by ensuring that all citizens’ political views are heard, and calling for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles.
On May 1, 2013, the
Newark Municipal Council
passed a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and because money is not speech, political spending limits promote First Amendment goals by ensuring that all citizens’ voices are heard. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment related to campaign finance reform and ending the false doctrine of corporate constitutional rights.
On March 27, 2013, the
Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders
considered
and
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to limit corporate and individual spending in our elections.
On December 27, 2012, the
Cape May Point Borough Commission
passed a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and because money is not speech, political spending limits promote First Amendment goals by ensuring that all citizens’ political views are heard. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment related to campaign finance reform and ending the false doctrine of corporate constitutional rights.
On December 26, 2012, the
Elizabeth City Council
passed a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and because money is not speech, political spending limits promote constitutional goals by ensuring that all citizens’ voices are heard. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles.
On November 28, 2012, the
West Cape May Board of Commissioners
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to to disallow corporations to contribute to political campaigns.
On November 19, 2012, the
Little Ferry Borough Council
passed a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same constitutional rights as natural persons, and because money is not speech, political spending limits promote First Amendment goals by ensuring that all citizens’ political views are heard. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles.
On October 16, 2012, the
Highland Park Borough Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
On October 16, 2012, the
Lawrence Township Council
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
On September 10, 2012, the
Princeton Township Committee
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
. (Click to view letters to the editor from
Times of Trenton
and
Princeton Patch
. Note that the former Township of Princeton and Borough of Princeton have since
consolidated
.)
On April 10, 2012, the
Franklin Township Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
Return to
Contents
New Mexico
State
Introduced on January 22, 2018 by Representative Linda M. Trujillo [48],
HJM 10
passed the New Mexico State House on February 7 and the Senate on February 13.
It called for
the “Fix It America” constitutional amendment
to regulate money in elections and governance and to prohibit partisan gerrymandering.
This followed Representative Mimi Stewart’s [21]
HM 4
and Senator Stephen H. Fischmann’s [37]
SM 3
, which passed in 2012.
The companion bills expressed strong opposition to
Citizens United
and called for a constitutional amendment to restore republican democracy to the people.
Other attempts include:
50th Legislature, 2nd Session (2012):
SJM 24
; 50th Legislature, 1st Session (2011):
HJM 36
HM 7
HM 55
SJM 32
Local | 5
On November 10, 2020, the
Los Alamos County Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to confirm that constitutional rights are for human beings, not artificial entities; and that campaign contributions and expenditures can be regulated or limited at the federal, state, and local levels (with public disclosure required) to ensure that all citizens have fair representation and equal participation in the political process and that no person or entity gains undue or disproportionate influence.
On June 12, 2019, the
Santa Fe City Council
followed
Santa Fe County from January 29, 2019
and
passed its own resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to confirm that constitutional rights are for human beings, not legal entities; and that political contributions and expenditures can be regulated, limited, or prohibited at the federal, state, and local levels (with public disclosure required) to ensure that all citizens have access to the political process and that no person or entity gains undue influence.
City Council
previously acted on January 11, 2012
in favor of
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance, also supporting public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraging lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On January 29, 2019, the
Santa Fe County Commission
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to confirm that constitutional rights are for human beings, not legal entities; and that political contributions and expenditures can be regulated, limited, or prohibited at the federal, state, and local levels to ensure that all citizens have access to the political process and that no person or entity gains undue influence. The resolution also required public disclosure of such contributions and expenditures. (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 17, 2012, the
Taos County Commission
passed
a resolution
opposing the adverse democratic impacts of
Citizens United
and its allowance for unlimited corporate election spending, and calling for a constitutional amendment to prohibit or limit such spending and restore democracy to our republic. (Passage was confirmed by a report in
The Taos News
, but the link is no longer available.)
On February 14, 2012, the
Taos Town Council
passed a resolution
opposing
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to restore democracy to our republic. (Click
here
for more information.)
Return to
Contents
New York
State
On June 15, 2016, a bipartisan group of state legislators joined the New York for Democracy coalition to announce that a majority of senators and assemblymembers in New York have called for a constitutional amendment to undo the effects of
Citizens United
The letters are available
here
, along with more information about the announcement, including quotes from legislators and coalition allies.
Other attempts include:
2011-12:
J4154
K871
K1016
K1190
Local | 22
On April 5, 2016, the
Altamont Village Board
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that constitutional rights belong to human beings only, not legal entities, and that money is not speech, thus regulating political contributions and spending does not abridge free speech.
In April of 2016, a two-thirds majority of the
Suffolk County Legislature
, twelve of eighteen legislators,
sent a letter
disagreeing with
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to correct the course of democracy and realign political power as a right of the people.
On June 22, 2015, the
Syracuse Common Council
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to prevent money corruption in politics and overturn
Citizens United
. (Click
here
here
, and
here
for more information.)
On June 3, 2015, the
Geneva City Council
passed a resolution
disagreeing with
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On May 15, 2014, the
Dryden Town Board
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that the Constitution did not intend for money to be construed as speech, nor for corporations to be given the constitutional rights of natural persons. (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 15, 2014, the
Guilderland Town Board
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that constitutional rights do not belong to corporations and other legal entities, nor is money speech, and thus regulating political campaign contributions and spending does not abridge free speech, allowing federal and state governments to limit artificial entities’ political spending. The resolution also stipulated that political parties continue to be allowed to raise and spending money for election purposes.
On April 9, 2014, the
Caroline Town Board
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that the inalienable rights recognized by the Constitution do not belong to legal entities, nor is money speech. The Board allowed for the continued raising and spending of money by political parties. They also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On August 6, 2012, the
Corning City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.
On July 19, 2012, the
Sullivan County Legislature
passed a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that a corporation is not a person, nor is money speech, thus both can be regulated.
On June 19, 2012, the
Tompkins County Legislature
passed two resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment,
one
to allow federal and state governments to ban, limit, or otherwise regulate certain broadcast and cable advertisements that directly refer to candidates during and immediately prior to elections, and
another
to state that inalienable constitutional rights do not belong to legal entities such as corporations and limited liability companies or labor unions, nor is money speech. This followed the June 5, 2012 passage by the
Legislature
of
a third resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance, also supporting public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On June 13, 2012, the
Mount Vernon City Council
passed a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to correct that interpretation, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On May 7, 2012, the
Mount Kisco Village Board of Trustees
passed a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On April 23, 2012, the
Peekskill Common Council
passed a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On April 17, 2012, the
Cortlandt Town Board
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to counteract
Citizens United
On March 27, 2012, the
Yonkers City Council
passed a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On March 1, 2012, the
Troy City Council
passed
a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech. The Council also called on the local, federal, and New York State governments to implement, using the New York City model, public matching for small campaign donations.
On February 13, 2012, the
Danby Town Board
passed a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On February 1, 2012, the
Ithaca Common Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On January 10, 2012, the
Buffalo Common Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment and other legislative actions to ensure that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor that money be considered speech.
On January 4, 2012, the
New York City Council
passed a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of natural persons, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On December 28, 2011, the
Brighton Town Board
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment, and connected state, federal, and/or legislation actions, to reverse the holding in
Citizens United
that governments cannot, except by disclaimer and disclosure, regulate corporate speech.
On December 5, 2011, the
Albany Common Council
passed a resolution
supporting the Move to Amend campaign and calling for legislation to limit corporate personhood.
Return to
Contents
North Carolina
State
Attempts include:
2017-2018 Session:
H453
S354
; 2015-2016 Session:
H125
; 2013-2014 Session:
H171
S109
; 2011-2012 Session:
H1201
S937
Local | 15
On January 21, 2016, the
Sylva Board of Commissioners
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are corporations entitled to constitutionally protected political speech.
On January 29, 2015, the
Jackson County Board of Commissioners
passed
a resolution
rejecting
Citizens United
and related cases and calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are corporations entitled to constitutional rights.
On October 2, 2012, the
Greensboro City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment, nor is money speech under the First Amendment.
On September 10, 2012, the
Greenville City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for increased disclosure of political money, voter-authorized public funding, and a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On September 4, 2012, the
Forest Hills Town Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that constitutional rights are for natural persons only, thus corporations and similar entities have no such rights, and that money is not speech.
On July 3, 2012, the
Raleigh City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to create a First Amendment exception based on the provisions of the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
relating to contributions by corporations and labor unions.
On June 7, 2012, the
Webster Town Board
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that constitutional rights are for natural persons only; corporations and other artificial entities don’t have constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On May 24, 2012, the
Durham City Council
passed a resolution
calling for increased disclosure of political money, voter-authorized public funding, and a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On May 7, 2012, the
Bryson City Board of Aldermen
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons entitled to constitutionally protected speech.
On April 17, 2012, the
Highlands Town Board
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons entitled to constitutionally protected speech.
On April 2, 2012, the
Franklin Board of Aldermen
passed
a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons entitled to constitutionally protected political speech.
On February 21, 2012, the
Orange County Board of Commissioners
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not persons and are not entitled to the rights that the Constitution affords to people, and election spending by corporations may be regulated.
On February 14, 2012, the
Asheville City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood. (Click
here
for more information.)
On January 17, 2012, the
Carrboro Board of Aldermen
passed a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that a corporation is not a person, nor is money speech, thus both can be regulated. The resolution proposed specific amendment language.
On January 9, 2012,the
Chapel Hill Town Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
Return to
Contents
North Dakota
State
Local
Return to
Contents
Ohio
State
2025
HCR19
introduced on 9/15/2025.
Attempts include:
135th General Assembly (2023-2024):
SR 180
; 134th General Assembly (2021-2022):
HR 65
; 133rd General Assembly (2019-2020):
HR 140
SR 221
; 132nd General Assembly (2017-2018):
HR 74
SR 37
; 131st General Assembly (2015-2016):
HR 503
SR 187
; 129th General Assembly (2011-2012):
HCR 53
Local | 27
On November 17, 2020, the
Toledo City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats. This followed a March 15, 2016 vote by the
citizens of Toledo
64% to 36% to enact
a “Democracy Day” ordinance
that included a similar amendment call.
On November 3, 2020, the
citizens of Painesville
voted 78% to 22% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to declare that corporations are not legal persons with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and to establish public city council hearings on this issue. (Click
here
for more information.)
On December 16, 2019, the
University Heights City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not legal persons with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending doesn’t equate to limiting political speech.
On April 25, 2019, the
Tallmadge City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 22, 2019, the
Sandusky City Commission
passed a resolution
calling for a “Fix-It America” constitutional amendment to regulate money in elections, protect the integrity of democratic institutions, and encourage ethical conduct. (Click
here
for more information.)
On December 5, 2016, the
Cleveland City Council
enacted
a “Democracy Day” ordinance
that calls for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not legal persons with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of Shaker Heights
voted 82% to 18% in favor
when asked
, “Shall the proposed ordinance entitled ‘Political Influence by Corporate Entities,’ establishing biennial public hearings before City Council on this subject, and sending a summary of the public hearing to Congressional and State Representatives, and calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that only human beings, not corporations, are legal persons with Constitutional rights and that money is not the equivalent of speech, be adopted?” (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of South Euclid
voted 77% to 23% in favor
when asked
, “Shall the proposed ordinance creating new Chapter 114 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of South Euclid entitled ‘Public Hearing, Corporate Rights and Political Contributions of Part One Administrative Code of the City of South Euclid,’ establishing biennial public hearings before City Council on this subject, and sending a summary of the public hearing to Congressional and State representatives, and calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that only human beings, not corporations, are legal persons with Constitutional rights and that money is not the equivalent of speech, be adopted?” (Unable to locate ordinance text.)
On March 15, 2016, the
Oakwood Village Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance.
On January 5, 2016, the
Bedford Heights City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance.
On November 3, 2015, the
citizens of Kent
voted 65% to 35% in favor of
a city charter amendment
to establish Democracy Day and to call for a constitutional amendment to declare: “1. Only human beings, not corporations, are legal persons with Constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not equivalent to speech, and therefore, regulating political contributions and spending does not equate to limiting political speech.” (Click
here
for more information.)
On May 18, 2015, the
Lorain City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and the regulation of political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On May 5, 2015, the
Oxford City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with constitutional rights, and to ensure that the spending of money shall not be construed as First Amendment speech. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech.
On April 20, 2015, the
Canton City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance. (Click
here
for more information.)
On February 18, 2015, the
Dayton City Commission
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Chagrin Falls
voted 66% to 34% in favor
when asked
, “Shall the proposed ordinance entitled “Political Influence by Corporate Entities,” establishing biennial public hearings before Village Council on this subject, and sending a summary of the public hearing to Congressional and State representatives, and calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution declaring that only human beings, not corporations, are legal persons with Constitutional rights and that money is not the equivalent of speech, be adopted?” (Unable to locate ordinance text. Click
here
here,
and
here
for more information.)
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of Mentor
voted
70% to 30% in favor of
a city ordinance
supporting public hearings regarding the impact of political contributions by corporations and similar entities and calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not legal persons with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On July 21, 2014, the
Lakewood City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, and to claim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 5, 2013, the
citizens of Cleveland Heights
voted
78% to 22% in favor of
a city ordinance
supporting public hearings regarding the impact of political influence by corporate entities and big money and calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not legal persons with constitutional rights, nor is money speech. (Click
here
for more information.) This followed the June 18, 2012
passage of
a resolution
by the
Cleveland Heights City Council
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to correct that interpretation, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On November 5, 2013, the
citizens of Defiance
voted
67% to 33% in favor of
a city ordinance
supporting public hearings regarding the impact of political contributions by corporations and similar entities and calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not legal persons with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On December 20, 2012, the
Fremont City Council
passed a resolution
positing that corporations should not receive the same legal rights as natural persons, and that the most urgent action is needed to reverse
Citizens United
and close the door it opened to unlimited independent expenditures by corporations, thus preventing future injustice. The Council called for a constitutional amendment to negate corporate ability to make unlimited election donations.
On December 10, 2012, the
Akron City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish federal and state government authority to regulate and limit political contributions and expenditures by corporations and similar entities, and for legislation to regulate and limit the impact, including through disclosure, of
Citizens United
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Brecksville
voted
52% to 48% in favor of
a city ordinance
supporting public hearings regarding the impact of political contributions by corporations and similar entities and calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not legal persons with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Newburgh Heights
voted
74% to 26% in favor of
a city ordinance
supporting public hearings regarding the impact of political contributions by corporations and similar entities and calling for a constitutional amendment to declare that corporations are not people, nor is money speech.
On July 23, 2012, the
Barberton City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On February 21, 2012, the
Oberlin City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are corporations entitled to constitutional rights.
On February 6, 2012, the
Athens City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and return our democracy, our elections, and our communities to America’s human persons, and calling on the US Congress to support
S.J.Res. 33
(by referencing its sponsor, US Senator Bernie Sanders [VT]).
Return to
Contents
Oklahoma
State
On February 18, 2026, Oklahoma became the 24th state to formally urge Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that returns the power to regulate election spending to the states.
HCR1006
introduced on 3/3/2025. Introduced in House on 3/6/2025 and adopted unanimously. Introduced in Senate on 5/5/2025 and passed on 2/18/2026.
Local
Return to
Contents
Oregon
State
Introduced on January 14, 2013 by Representative Brian L. Clem [21] et al.,
HJM 6
passed the House on June 21 and the Senate on July 1.
It called for a constitutional amendment to clarify the distinction between the rights of natural persons and the rights of corporations and other legal entities, and that federal and state governments may regulate money raised and spent for political purposes.
Other attempts include:
2013 Regular Session:
HJM 5
SJM 9
; 2011 Regular Session:
HJM 9
Local | 13
On April 2, 2013, the
Beaverton City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that legislatures may regulate money that is raised and spent for political purposes.
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Ashland
voted 80% to 20% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
“to grant only natural persons constitutional rights and limit campaign spending[.]” This followed the March 6, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Ashland City Council
that called for a constitutional amendment to establish federal and state authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Corvallis
voted 76% to 24% in favor of
calling for a
“constitutional amendment addressing artificial entities’ personhood and campaign contributions[.]” (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Eugene
voted 74% to 26% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
“reversing negative impact of the Citizens United case and limit independent campaign spending[.]” This followed the February 15, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Eugene City Council
establishing natural persons’ ownership of constitutional rights and the urgent need to curb corporations’ unlimited independent expenditures, and calling for a constitutional amendment that addresses such threats to representative government. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Lincoln County
voted 70% to 30% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
“to clarify corporation/union political speech rights, allowing campaign finance regulation and limits[.]”
On July 19, 2012, the
Port Orford Common Council
passed a
resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reaffirm and protect human persons’ First Amendment rights.
On June 26, 2012, the
Baker City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to give federal and state governments the authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures. (Click
here
for more information.)
On May 7, 2012, the
Silverton City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that constitutional rights belong to natural persons, and that election spending is not speech and can be regulated.
On April 23, 2012, the
West Linn City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to afford ordinary citizens a greater opportunity to meaningfully participate in fair elections and not be overwhelmed by corporate spending. (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 16, 2012,
a majority of the Newport City Council
agreed to sign
a corporate personhood proclamation
rejecting
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are corporations entitled to constitutional rights.
On April 12, 2012, the
Yachats City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore election spending is not constitutionally protected speech and may be regulated.
On March 6, 2012, the
Coos Bay City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.
On January 12, 2012, the
Portland City Council
passed a resolution
positing that corporations should not possess the constitutional rights as natural persons; expressing the need to address
Citizens United
by stopping unlimited independent campaign expenditures by corporations; and calling for a constitutional amendment inclusive of these principles, including but not limited to
S.J.Res. 29
and
H.J.Res. 72
as introduced in the 112th US Congress. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.) (The Council also called for a legal review of putting the question of corporate personhood before the citizens of Portland, but we know of no such vote having taken place to date.)
Return to
Contents
Pennsylvania
State
2025:
SR126
introduced on 6/18/2025.
Attempts include:
Regular Session 2017-2018:
HR 440
; Regular Session 2011-2012:
HR 732
SR 264
Local | 8
On December 20, 2018, the
Butler City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that federal and state governments have the power to regulate and limit election contributions and expenditures; constitutional rights are for natural persons; and corporations are subject to regulation through the legislative process. (Click
here
for more information.)
On September 8, 2014, the
State College Borough Council
passed a resolution
opposing
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that the First Amendment protection of free speech applies only to natural persons, not to corporations and their campaign spending. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 25, 2012, the
Reading City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our right to self-governance.
On June 21, 2012, the
Philadelphia City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
and establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On May 24, 2012, the
Wilkes-Barre City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and clarify that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights and protections of natural persons, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating election spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (It’s unclear whether the resolution’s call for a November 6, 2012 vote of the people ever came to fruition.)
On May 1, 2012, the
Allegheny County Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
, and by doing so restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people. (Click
here
for more information.)
On February 14, 2012, the
Lancaster City Council
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On December 30, 2011, the
Pittsburgh City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
Return to
Contents
Rhode Island
State
Introduced on March 1, 2012 by Senator M. Teresa Paiva Weed [13] et al.,
S 2656
passed the Senate on April 25 and the House on May 15, and Governor Lincoln Chafee signed it on May 21. Introduced on March 6, 2012 by Representative Gordon Fox [4] et al.,
H 7899
passed the House on May 8 and the Senate on May 24, and Governor Lincoln Chafee signed it on May 30.
Together they called for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
and related cases and to permit federal and state governments to regulate and restrict independent political expenditures by corporations and wealthy individuals.
Other attempts include:
2024 Session:
H 7768
S 2890
; 2011 Session:
H 6156
Local | 2
On October 16, 2012, the
East Providence City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and to restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
On June 7, 2012, the
Providence City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
and citing
H7899
, the state’s call for a constitutional amendment. (Click
here
for more information.)
Return to
Contents
South Carolina
State
Local
Return to
Contents
South Dakota
State
Attempts include:
2010 Regular Session:
HCR 1018
Local
Return to
Contents
Tennessee
State
Local
Return to
Contents
Texas
State
2025:
HCR79
introduced on 2/19/2025.
SCR28
introduced on 3/6/2025.
Attempts include:
87(R) – 2021:
HCR 53
SCR 27
; 86(R) – 2019:
HCR 68
; 85(R) – 2017:
HCR 34
; 84(R) – 2015:
HCR 49
SCR 2
; 83(R) – 2013:
HCR 21
HR 230
SCR 2
; 82(R) – 2011:
HCR 91
Local | 1
On January 17, 2013, the
Austin City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment and/or other legislative actions to ensure that money is not speech and spending for electoral or legislative influence shall be regulated. The Council also made a clear call, outside the amendment context, for regulating the use of funds by corporations and similar entities for electoral or legislative influence.
Return to
Contents
Utah
State
2025
On March 6, 2025, Utah became the 23rd state to formally urge Congress to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that returns the power to regulate election spending to the states.
SJR007
introduced on 2/4/2025. Considered by Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee on 2/20/2025 and passed (6-0-1). Considered by full Senate on third reading on 2/25/2025 and passed (20-4-5). Introduced in House on 2/25/2025. Considered by House Government Operations Committee on 3/3/2025 and passed (9-0-4). Considered by full House on 3/6/2025 and passed (63-9-3).
Local | 1
On December 9, 2014, the
Salt Lake City Mayor and Salt Lake City Council
resolved in favor
of calling for a constitutional amendment to affirm that constitutional rights are for natural persons only, and that both artificial entities and money, not being speech, can be regulated, and to specify what shall be regulated. (Click
here
for more information.) The resolution also recognized that on October 8, 2013 the
citizens of Salt Lake City
voted 90% to 10% in favor of a similar proposal
. (Click
here
for more information.)
Return to
Contents
Vermont
State
Introduced on January 21, 2011 by Senator Virginia “Ginny” Lyons [Chittenden] et al.,
J.R.S.11
passed the Senate on April 12 and the House on April 19.
It disagreed with the “money is speech” holdings in
Buckley
and
Citizens United
and urged the adoption of the
S.J.Res. 29
constitutional amendment in the US Congress, to provide that money is not speech and corporations are not persons under the Constitution, and to affirm natural persons’ constitutional rights.
Other attempts include:
2011-2012 Session:
J.R.H.25
Local | 64
On March 6, 2012, the
Albany Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Barnet Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Brandon Town Meeting
moved in favor of
supporting campaign finance reform and calling for a constitutional amendment to effectively reverse
Citizens United
On March 6, 2012, the
citizens of Brattleboro
voted 89% to 11% in favor of
calling for regulation of corporate political spending
. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered
constitutional amendment advocacy
On March 6, 2012, the
citizens of Burlington
voted 79% to 21% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to provide that money isn’t speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Calais Town Meeting
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012,
Article 10
passed
in
Charlotte
. It reads: “Shall voters of the Town of Charlotte urge the Vermont Congressional Delegation and the United States Congress to propose a United States Constitutional amendment for the States’ consideration which provides that money is not political speech, that corporations are not persons under the United States Constitution, that the General Assembly of the State of Vermont pass a similar resolution, and that the town send its resolution to Vermont State and Federal representatives within thirty days of passage of this measure? Advisory motion only.”
On March 6, 2012, the
citizens of Chittenden
voted 67% to 33% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
“provid[ing] that money is not speech, and that corporations are not persons under the U.S. Constitution[.]”
On March 6, 2012, the
Craftsbury Town Meeting
passed a resolution (post-signed)
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the U.S. Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
East Montpelier Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not political speech, nor do corporations possess the rights of persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Fayston Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Fletcher Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012,
Granville
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Greensboro Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Hardwick Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Hartland Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations and unions persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Huntington Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not free speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Jericho Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Marlboro Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Marshfield Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012,
Middletown Springs
considered
and
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Monkton Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations and similar entities persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012,
Montgomery
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Montpelier City Meeting
voted 80% to 20% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
“providing that money is not speech, and that corporations are not persons under the U.S. Constitution[.]”
On March 6, 2012, the
Moretown Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012,
Mount Holly
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 6, 2012,
Newbury
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 6, 2012,
Newfane
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Norwich Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Plainfield Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Putney Town Meeting
passed two relevant resolutions
, one calling for a constitutional amendment to affirm that money is not speech and to limit corporate election spending, and another declaring that corporations are not people and do not enjoy personhood rights.
On March 6, 2012, the
Randolph Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Richmond Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Roxbury Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
citizens of the city of Rutland
voted 67% to 33% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the U.S. Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Sharon Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
citizens of Shrewsbury
voted 76% to 24% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to provide that money is not political speech, nor are corporations persons under the U.S. Constitution.
On March 6, 2012,
Article III
passed
in
South Burlington
. It reads: “In light of the United States Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that equates money with speech and gives corporations rights constitutionally intended for natural persons, shall the city of South Burlington vote on March 6, 2012 (town meeting date) to urge the Vermont Congressional Delegation and the U.S. Congress to propose a U.S. Constitutional amendment for the States’ consideration which provides that money is not speech, and that corporations are not persons under the U.S. Constitution, that the General Assembly of the State of Vermont pass a similar resolution, and that the town send its resolution to Vermont State and Federal representatives within thirty days of passage of this measure?”
On March 6, 2012, the
Sudbury Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012,
Tunbridge
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 6, 2012,
a resolution
passed in
Underhill
. It reads: “In light of the United States Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that equates money with political speech and gives corporations rights constitutionally intended for natural persons, shall the town of Underhill, Vermont vote on March 6, 2012 to urge the Vermont Congressional Delegation and the United States Congress to propose a United States Constitutional amendment for the States’ consideration which provides that money is not political speech, that corporations are not persons under the United States Constitution, that the General Assembly of the State of Vermont pass a similar resolution, and that the town send its resolution to Vermont State and Federal representatives within thirty days of passage of this measure?” (The resolution’s passage was detailed in a
Burlington Free Press
report, but the link is no longer available.)
On March 6, 2012, the
Waitsfield Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the U.S. Constitution.
On March 6, 2012,
Walden
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Warren Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the U.S. Constitution.
On March 6, 2012,
West Haven
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Williamstown Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012,
Windsor
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Winooski Town Meeting
moved in favor of calling for
a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 6, 2012, the
Worcester Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 5, 2012,
Bolton
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 5, 2012, the
Bristol Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 5, 2012, the
Chester Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 5, 2012, the
Hinesburg Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not political speech, nor do corporations possess the rights of persons under the US Constitution.
On March 5, 2012, the
Lincoln Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not political speech, nor do corporations possess the constitutional rights of persons.
On March 5, 2012,
Peru
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 5, 2012, the
Ripton Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 5, 2012,
Rochester
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 5, 2012, the
Shelburne Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that individual persons, not corporations, have rights to free speech and election spending.
On March 5, 2012, the
Waltham Town Meeting
moved in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 5, 2012,
a resolution
passed
in
Williston
. It reads: “In light of the United States Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that equates money with political speech and gives corporations rights constitutionally intended for natural persons, shall the town of Williston vote on March 5, 2012 to urge the Vermont Congressional Delegation and the United States Congress to propose a United States Constitutional amendment for the States’ consideration which provides that money is not political speech, that corporations are not persons under the United States Constitution, that the General Assembly of the State of Vermont pass a similar resolution, and that the town send its resolution to Vermont State and Federal representatives within thirty days of passage of this measure?”
On March 5, 2012,
Woodbury
passed
a constitutional amendment resolution.
On March 3, 2012, the
Starksboro Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money isn’t speech, nor do corporations possess persons’ constitutional rights.
On March 3, 2012, the
Thetford Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.
On March 3, 2012, the
Woodstock Town Meeting
passed a resolution
calling for all possible actions to restore elections to the people, including a constitutional amendment to affirm that money is not speech, nor are corporations and unions persons under the US Constitution.
Return to
Contents
Virginia
State
Introduced on January 19, 2021 by Senator R. Creigh Deeds [25],
SJ 314
passed the Senate on January 21 and the House on January 25. Introduced on January 20, 2021 by Delegate Michael P. Mullin [93],
HJ 599
passed the House on January 25 and the Senate on January 28.
Together they supported the American Promise-Take Back Our Republic call for a constitutional amendment and their work protecting free speech and liberty and upholding the Virginia Declaration of Rights.
Local | 4
On December 9, 2013, the
Falls Church City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and related cases and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people; therein making clear that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of natural persons, nor is money speech, that regulating election-related spending is not the same as limiting political speech, and that federal and state governments may limit election contributions and expenditures. (Click
here
for more information.)
On September 10, 2013, the
Alexandria City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and related cases and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people, saying that the amendment should make clear that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of natural persons, nor is money speech, and that regulating election-related spending is not synonymous with limiting political speech, thus federal and state governments may place limits on election contributions and expenditures.
On September 18, 2012, the
County Board of Arlington, Virginia
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and restore fair elections to the American people. The Board also commended US Representatives James P. Moran [VA-8] and Gerald E. Connolly [VA-11] for their efforts to address this issue.
On June 4, 2012, the
Charlottesville City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
Return to
Contents
Washington
State
On November 8, 2016, the citizens of Washington State
voted 63% to 37% in favor of
Initiative Measure No. 735
, which calls for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations do not have constitutional rights, nor is the spending of money constitutionally-protected speech. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
Other attempts include:
2017-18:
SJM 8001
; 2015-16:
HB 2848
HJM 4004
SB 6505
SB 8011
SJM 8002
, Legislators’ Letter; 2013-14:
HJM 4001
SJM 8002
; 2011-12:
HJM 4005
SJM 8007
; 2009-10:
SJM 8027
Local | 17
On May 2, 2016, the
Burien City Council
passed a resolution
positing that corporations are not persons under the U.S. Constitution for the purposes of regulating elections, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. The resolution also urges federal and state legislators to take corrective action against corporations’ unbridled election spending. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered part of the constitutional amendment movement. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 4, 2013, the
Anacortes City Council
passed a resolution
calling for statutory or constitutional amendments to reverse
Citizens United
On March 5, 2013, the
Oak Harbor City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clearly state that corporations are not people and only people have constitutional rights, political contributions and expenditures are not constitutionally protected speech, and federal and state governments shall have the power both to regulate them and to require public disclosure of their sources.
On February 19, 2013, the
Kirkland City Council
passed a resolution
positing that corporations are not people when it regards constitutional regulation of elections, nor is money speech, and political campaign donations are not constitutionally protected speech. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered constitutional amendment advocacy. Kirkland resident Bill Lamarche in
The Kirkland Reporter
: “But [Bill] hopes with enough cities behind the measure that it will eventually get state approval to ‘put pressure on the federal government to amend the Constitution.'”
On January 28, 2013, the
Sequim City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to stipulate that no constitutional provisions shall limit the power of federal and state governments to regulate the speech of corporations and similar entities. (Click
here
for more information.)
On December 19, 2012, the
Walla Walla City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clearly state that corporations are not people and only people have constitutional rights, political contributions and expenditures are not constitutionally protected speech, and federal and state governments shall have the power both to regulate them and to require public disclosure of their sources.
On December 18, 2012, the
Tacoma City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clearly state that corporations are not people and only people have constitutional rights, and political contributions and expenditures are not constitutionally protected speech.
On October 2, 2012, the
Olympia City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not human beings, nor are political contributions and expenditures constitutionally-protected speech, and that Congress and the states shall have the power to regulate such contributions and expenditures and to require public disclosure of their sources.
On September 25, 2012, the
Coupeville Town Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations are not human beings endowed with constitutional rights; nor are political contributions and expenditures constitutionally protected speech, and therefore regulating them is not equivalent to limiting political speech; and federal and state governments can regulate them and require public disclosure of their sources. (Click
here
for more information.)
On September 11, 2012, the
La Conner Town Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On July 25, 2012, the
Snohomish County Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to clearly state that political contributions and expenditures are not constitutionally protected speech, and federal and state governments shall have the power both to regulate them and to require public disclosure of their sources.
On July 23, 2012, the
Board of Island County Commissioners
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional to reverse
Citizens United
by clarifying that corporations are not persons under the U.S. Constitution, nor is money speech, nor is the donation of money to a political campaign constitutionally protected speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 4, 2012, the
Bellingham City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to declare the corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of natural persons, and to ensure that corporate election expenditures are not constitutionally protected speech.
On June 4, 2012, the
Langley City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse
Citizens United
by clarifying that corporations are not people, nor is money speech.
On May 14, 2012, the
Seattle City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations are not human beings endowed with constitutional rights; nor are political contributions and expenditures constitutionally protected speech, and regulating them is not equivalent to limiting political speech; and Congress and the states shall have the power to regulate such contributions and expenditures and to require public disclosure of their sources. (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 23, 2012, the
Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats.
On March 5, 2012, the
Port Townsend City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance. The Council also supported public education on the democratic threats posed by corporate personhood, and encouraged lively discussion toward responding to such threats. (Click
here
for more information.)
Return to
Contents
West Virginia
State
Introduced on February 19, 2013 by Delegate Meshea Poore [37] et al.,
HR 9
passed the House on March 28.
It called for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations and unions to the constitutional rights and protections of natural persons, and to assure the power of federal, state, and local governments to limit, regulate, and require disclosure of all money spent to influence elections.
Introduced on March 5, 2013 by Senator Herb Snyder [16] et al.,
SR 24
passed the Senate on April 10.
It called for a constitutional amendment to address
Citizens United
, using language nearly identical to HR 9.
Other attempts include:
2012 Regular Session:
HR 8
SR 7
Local | 4
On April 2, 2012, the
St. Albans City Council
passed a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to correct that interpretation, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On March 8, 2012, the
Martinsburg City Council
passed a resolution
opposing
Citizens United
and calling for a constitutional amendment to remove the influence of corporate money from electoral campaigns. (Click
here
for more information.)
On March 5, 2012, the
Charles Town City Council
passed
a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights, and agreeing that corporate election spending should not be considered constitutionally protected speech. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered
constitutional amendment advocacy
On January 26, 2012, the
Jefferson County Commission
passed a resolution
opposing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in
Citizens United
of corporate constitutional rights and calling for a constitutional amendment to correct that interpretation, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
Return to
Contents
Wisconsin
State
2025
AJR57 introduced on 5/19/2025.
SJR58 introduced on 5/30/2025.
Attempts include:
2023-2024 Wisconsin Legislature:
AJR 92
SJR 82
; 2021-2022 Wisconsin Legislature:
AJR 78
SJR 61
; 2019-2020 Wisconsin Legislature:
AJR 11
SJR 9
; 2017-2018 Wisconsin Legislature:
AJR 53
SJR 54
; 2015-2016 Wisconsin Legislature:
AJR 8
SJR 12
; 2013-2014 Wisconsin Legislature:
AJR 50
SJR 68
Local | 170
On April 4, 2023, the citizens of the
City of Viroqua (Vernon County)
voted 91% to 9% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On December 21, 2022, the
Brown County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to allow reasonable campaign finance regulations.
On November 8, 2022, the
citizens of the Town of Bartelme (Shawano County)
voted 88% to 12% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 5, 2022, the
citizens of the Town of Red Springs (Shawano County)
voted 89% to 11% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limited speech.
On November 3, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Land O’ Lakes (Vilas County)
voted 84% to 16% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On November 3, 2020, the
citizens of the County of Winnebago
voted 76% to 24% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unlimited political contributions and spending.
On May 19, 2020, the
Lafayette County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Arbor Vitae (Vilas County)
voted 87% to 13% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Boulder Junction (Vilas County)
voted 86% to 14% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Crescent (Oneida County)
voted 83% to 17% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the City of Eagle River (Vilas County)
voted 87% to 13% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Hazelhurst (Oneida County)
voted 86% to 14% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment to limit the money that can be given to candidates for public office and the money that candidates for public office may spend.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Lac du Flambeau (Vilas County)
voted 85% to 15% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to limit the money that can be given to candidates for public office and the money that candidates for public office may spend.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the City of Manitowish Waters (Vilas County)
voted 77% to 23% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Newbold (Oneida County)
voted 87% to 13% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Pelican (Oneida County)
voted 85% to 15% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Phelps (Vilas County)
voted 81% to 19% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Pine Lake (Oneida County)
voted 86% to 14% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Plum Lake (Vilas County)
voted 82% to 18% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Presque Isle (Vilas County)
voted 79% to 21% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the City of Rhinelander (Oneida County)
voted 89% to 11% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Wescott (Shawano County)
voted 86% to 14% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Winchester (Vilas County)
voted 83% to 17% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 7, 2020, the
citizens of the Town of Woodruff (Oneida County)
voted 85% to 15% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On October 14, 2019, the
City of Park Falls Common Council (Price County)
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On October 8, 2019, the
City of Phillips Common Council (Price County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On December 18, 2018, the
City of Richland Center City Council (Richland County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On December 12, 2018, the
City of Shawano Common Council (Shawano County)
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech. (Council chose a legislative resolution over a vote of the people. Click
here
for the vote letter.)
On November 6, 2018, the
citizens of the County of Jackson
voted 69% to 31% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations, unions, and PACs are not endowed with constitutional rights, thus establishing that regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting freedom of speech.
On November 6, 2018, the
citizens of the Town of Kickapoo (Vernon County)
voted 85% to 15% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2018, the
citizens of the Village of Readstown (Vernon County)
voted 91% to 9% in favor of calling for
a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On November 6, 2018, the
citizens of the Town of Rib Mountain (Marathon County)
oted 78% to 22% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to allow restrictions on political spending by unions, corporations, or other similar entities. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2018, the
citizens of the County of Sauk
voted in favor of two constitutional amendment referenda:
72% to 28% in favor of
calling for an amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights;
66% to 34% in favor of
calling for an amendment
to state that money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2018, the
citizens of the Town of Vermont (Dane County)
voted 86% to 14% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2018, the
citizens of the Village of Westfield (Marquette County)
voted 87% to 13% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On November 6, 2018, the
citizens of the Village of Weston (Marathon County)
voted 83% to 17% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech. (Click
here
for more information.) This followed the July 16, 2018
passage of a similar resolution
by the
Village of Weston Board of Trustees (Marathon County)
. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 6, 2018, the
citizens of the County of Wood
voted 80% to 20% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with individual constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not limiting political speech.
On August 7, 2018, the
City of Black River Falls Common Council (Jackson County)
passed a resolution
expressing the city’s interest in maintaining resident-driven elections and detailing their strong
Citizens United
objections. The Council also supported Jackson County’s upcoming constitutional amendment advisory referendum. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered
constitutional amendment advocacy
. (Click
here
for more information.) (Errant references to August 8, 2018 are believed to be false.)
On May 24, 2018, the
Village of Sister Bay Board of Trustees (Door County)
passed
a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech.
On April 17, 2018, the
Door County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 17, 2018, the
Town of Gardner Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech.
On April 3, 2018, the
citizens of the County of Green
voted 78% to 22% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other legal entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 3, 2018, the
citizens of the City of La Crosse (La Crosse County)
voted 88% to 12% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 3, 2018, the
citizens of the City of Marshfield (Wood County, Marathon County)
voted 81% to 19% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 3, 2018, the
citizens of the Village of McFarland (Dane County)
voted 79% to 21% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, thus establishing that regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting freedom of speech.
On April 3, 2018, the
citizens of the City of Rice Lake (Barron County)
voted 81% to 19% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 3, 2018, the
citizens of the Town of Sand Creek (Dunn County)
voted 77% to 23% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and similar associations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 3, 2018, the
citizens of the County of St. Croix
voted 77% to 23% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On April 3, 2018, the
citizens of the City of Sun Prairie (Dane County)
voted 83% to 17% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations and similar associations are not endowed with individual constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech.
On April 3, 2018, the
citizens of the Village of Wittenberg (Shawano County)
voted 83% to 17% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limited [sic] speech.
On February 14, 2018, the
Town of Union Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech.
On December 15, 2017, the
Town of Nasewaupee Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech.
On December 14, 2017, the
Town of Clay Banks Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 21, 2017, the
Village of Forestville Village Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 8, 2017, the
Town of Brussels Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On September 26, 2017, the
Town of Jacksonport Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On September 4, 2017, the
Town of Sturgeon Bay Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On August 2, 2017, the
Town of Gibraltar Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On July 18, 2017, the
Town of Forestville Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On July 11, 2017, the
Village of Ephraim Village Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On July 11, 2017, the
City of Merrill Common Council (Lincoln County)
passed a resolution
to reclaim democracy and call for a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On July 10, 2017, the
Village of Egg Harbor Village Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech. (Click
here
and
here
for more information.)
On July 5, 2017, the
Town of Liberty Grove Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 19, 2017, the
Town of Egg Harbor Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech.
On June 12, 2017, the
Town of Baileys Harbor Town Board (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech.
On April 4, 2017, the
citizens of the Town of Blue Mounds (Dane County)
voted 84% to 16% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the Town of Blue Mounds, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights ─ not corporations, unions, non-profits or other artificial entities, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.”
On April 4, 2017, the
citizens of the Village of Blue Mounds (Dane County)
voted 88% to 12% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the Village of Blue Mounds, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights—not corporations, unions, nonprofits or other artificial entities; and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.”
On April 4, 2017, the
citizens of the Town of Caledonia (Waupaca County)
voted 70% to 30% in favor
when asked
, “Do you support the passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution as follows? 1. Only human beings—not corporations, unions or other entities—are endowed with constitutional rights, and; 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech”
On April 4, 2017, the
citizens of the Town of Crystal Lake (Marquette County)
voted 79% to 21% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 4, 2017, the
citizens of the Village of Fox Crossing (Winnebago County)
voted 81% to 19% in favor when asked
, “Shall the Village of Fox Crossing adopt Resolution 170404-1:VB which reads: WHEREAS, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and related case law allows ‘associations of people’ such as corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums of money for the purpose of influencing local, state and federal elections. BE IT RESOLVED, that the residents of the Village of Fox Crossing, Wisconsin recommend to amend the United States [Constitution] so that: 1. Only human beings-not ‘associations of people’ such as corporations, limited liability companies, unions, nonprofit organizations, or similar associations-are endowed with a Constitutional right to spend money to influence local, state and federal elections, and 2. The ‘expenditure of money’ is not to be equated with “freedom of speech” and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting [political] speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby urge our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.” (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 4, 2017, the
citizens of the Town of Jordan (Green County)
voted 71% to 29% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Results reported as 71% to 29%, or 60 votes in favor to 24 votes against. Click
here
for more information.)
On April 4, 2017, the
citizens of the City of Monona (Dane County)
voted 91% to 9% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the City of Monona, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights ─ not corporations, unions, nonprofits or other artificial entities, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.”
On April 4, 2017, the
citizens of the City of Racine (Racine County)
voted 81% to 19% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech. (While they reach the same overall percentages, the city-posted and county-posted totals differ slightly. Click
here
for the city and
here
and
here
for the county.)
On March 21, 2017, the
City of Sturgeon Bay Common Council (Door County)
passed a resolution
supporting, through its call for a nonbinding statewide referendum, a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with individual constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to restricting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On January 18, 2017, the
Town of Clayton Town Board (Winnebago County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that artificial entities like corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On January 12, 2017, following a
successful
municipal referendum
, the
Town of West Point Town Board (Columbia County)
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that artificial entities like corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click for more information on
the referendum
and
its results
.)
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Town of Cadiz (Green County)
voted 87% to 13% in favor
when asked
, “Shall the Town of Cadiz, Green County, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending, by standing with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, limited liability companies, unions, non-profit organizations or similar associations and corporate entities—are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting free speech.”
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Village of Clayton (Polk County)
voted 86% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the Village of Clayton, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights—not corporations, unions, nonprofits or other artificial entities, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.”
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Town of Decatur (Green County)
voted 89% to 11% in support of
a constitutional amendment stating
: “1. Only human beings—not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations—are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the City of Delafield (Waukesha County)
voted 79% to 21% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations and similar associations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Town of Harris (Marquette County)
voted 65% to 35% in favor when asked
, “”Shall the United States Constitution be amended to establish the following? 1. Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitution rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore, regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Town of Lake Tomahawk (Oneida County)
voted 91% to 9% in favor of adopting the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the Town of Lake Tomahawk, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political cont[r]ibutions and spending. We stand with communities across Wisconsin and the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Cons[t]itution stating: (1.) Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights—not corporations unions, nonprofits or other artific[i]al entities and (2.) Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contr[i]b[u]tions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.” (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the City of Manitowoc (Manitowoc County)
voted 81% to 19% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the City of Manitowoc, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations—are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.” (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Village of Monticello (Green County)
voted 86% to 14% in support of
a constitutional amendment stating
: “1. Only human beings—not corporations, unions, non-profits, or similar associations—are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Village of Mount Horeb (Dane County)
voted 84% to 16% in favor of adopting the following resolution
: “RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the Village of Mount Horeb, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights—not corporations, unions, nonprofits or other artificial entities, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.”
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Town of Mount Pleasant (Green County)
voted 84% to 16% in favor
when asked
, “Shall the Town of Mount Pleasant, Green County, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending, by standing with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations—are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Village of Neshkoro (Marquette County)
voted 88% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “We the People of the Village of Neshkoro, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights; not corporations, unions or other artificial entities. 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.”
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Town of New Glarus (Green County)
voted 83% to 17% in favor
when asked
, “Due to the corruption of big money in politics, shall the people of the Town of New Glarus, Green County, Wisconsin support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations—are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting free speech.”
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Village of New Glarus (Green County)
voted 88% to 12% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved that “We the People” of the Village of New Glarus, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, limited liability companies, unions, non-profit organizations, or similar associations and corporate entities—are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Village of Osceola (Polk County)
voted 86% to 14% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the Village of Osceola, Wisconsin seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights—not corporations, unions, nonprofits or other artificial entities AND 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the City of Reedsburg (Sauk County)
voted 86% to 14% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of Rock County
voted 86% to 14% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech.
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Village of Spring Valley (Pierce County, St. Croix County)
voted 91% to 9% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the Village of Spring Valley, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings ─ not corporations, unions, non-profits or other artificial entities ─ are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. Further Resolved, that the Village of Spring Valley, Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to our state and federal representatives with instructions to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.” (These results reflect votes cast in Pierce County, where all but six of the 1,352 residents of the Village of Spring Valley resided as of the 2010 Census. While no results are available from the St. Croix County portion of the Village of Spring Valley, such results, if voted there, would not have changed the outcome. Click
here
for more information.)
On November 8, 2016, the
citizens of the Town of Springdale (Dane County)
voted 86% to 14% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the Town of Springdale, Dane County, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights – not corporations, unions, nonprofits or other artificial entities, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. Be It Further Resolved, that the Town of Springdale Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to our state and federal representatives with instructions to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort. “
On September 8, 2016, the
Marion Town Board (Waushara County)
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations, unions, nonprofits, and other artificial entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On August 16, 2016, the
City of Milton Common Council (Rock County)
passed
a resolution
to establish that corporations, unions, nonprofits, and other artificial entities are not endowed with first amendment constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting speech. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it is considered
constitutional amendment advocacy
On April 19, 2016, the
Town of Fountain Town Meeting (Juneau County)
passed
a constitutional resolution. (It’s unclear whether errant references to an April 20, 2016 action are false or indicate correct or subsequent action.)
On April 5, 2016, the
citizens of the Village of Belmont (Lafayette County)
voted 88% to 12% in favor of adopting the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the Village of Belmont, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations—are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
On April 5, 2016, the
citizens of the City of Beloit (Rock County)
voted 74% to 26% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to declare that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting First Amendment political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 5, 2016, the
citizens of the City of Brodhead (Rock County)
voted 85% to 15% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the City of Brodhead, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings — not corporations, unions, nonprofits or similar associations — are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
On April 5, 2016, the
citizens of the Town of Clarno (Green County)
voted 85% to 15% in favor
when asked
: “Shall the people of the Town of Clarno, Wisconsin support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings ─ not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations ─ are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting free speech.”
On April 5, 2016, the
citizens of the City of Darlington (Lafayette County)
voted 81% to 19% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the City of Darlington, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings — not corporations, unions, nonprofits or similar associations — are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
On April 5, 2016, the
citizens of the City of Janesville (Rock County)
voted 84% to 16% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 5, 2016, the
citizens of the City of Lancaster (Grant County)
voted 85% to 15% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the City of Lancaster, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings – not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations – are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. Be it further resolved, that the City of Lancaster Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to our state and federal representatives with instructions to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.”
On April 5, 2016, the
citizens of the City of Monroe (Green County)
voted 82% to 18% in favor
when asked
, “Should the United States Constitution be amended to state the following: 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities established by the laws of any state, The United States, or any foreign state, shall have no rights under this Constitution. 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. and 2. Federal, state, and local government shall regulate, limit, or prohibit contributions and expenditures related to elections, including a candidate’s own contributions and expenditures, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of their economic status, have access to the political process, and that no person gains, as a result of their money, substantially more access or ability to influence 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.” (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 5, 2016, the
citizens of the City of New London (Outagamie County, Waupaca County)
voted in favor of adopting the following resolution: “BE IT RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the City of New London, Wisconsin, call for reclaiming democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country supporting passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, limited liability companies, unions, nonprofit organizations or similar associations—are endowed with Constitutional rights: and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore: regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our Federal representatives to enact legislation to advance this effort.” (
Advocates
and
press reports
have cited the winning percentage as 81%. While accurate, this appears to reflect only the Waupaca County segment of the vote. Inclusion of Outagamie County suggests a 78% or 80% win. Click
here
for more information.)
On April 5, 2016, the
citizens of the City of Platteville (Grant County)
voted 84% to 16% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 5, 2016, the
citizens of Town of York (Green County)
voted 84% to 16% in favor of adopting the following resolution
: “We, the people of the Town of York, Green County, Wisconsin support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, unions, non-profits, or similar associations—are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting free speech.”
On October 12, 2015, the
Town of
Greenville Board of Supervisors (Outagamie County)
passed a resolution
to reclaim democracy and call for a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On July 20, 2015, the
City of
New Lisbon Common Council (Juneau County)
passed
a resolution
to reclaim democracy and call for a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On June 23, 2015, the
City of
Mauston Common Council (Juneau County)
passed
a resolution
to reclaim democracy and call for a constitutional amendment stating that only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights, that money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click for more information on
Wisconsin’s Direct Legislation Statute
.)
On May 14, 2015, the
Town of Ellington Town Board (Outagamie County)
passed a resolution
rejecting
Citizens United
and related cases and calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons entitled to constitutional rights.
On April 7, 2015, the
citizens of the City of Evansville (Rock County)
voted 80% to 20% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 7, 2015, the
citizens of the Town of Reedsburg (Sauk County)
voted 63% to 37% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to provide that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 7, 2015, the
citizens of the City of Watertown (Dodge County, Jefferson County)
voted 69% to 31% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Be it Resolved, that We the People of the City of Watertown, Wisconsin, call for reclaiming democracy from the expansion of the rights of artificial legal entities and the corrupting influence of unregulated political spending. We stand with the communities across the country and Move To Amend supporting an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1) Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights – not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations; and 2) Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Appleton (Outagamie County, Calumet County, Winnebago County)
voted 74% to 26% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Whereas, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and related case law allows unlimited political campaign spending to influence local, state, and federal elections; BE IT RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the City of Appleton, Wisconsin, call for reclaiming democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country supporting passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, limited liability companies, unions, nonprofit organizations, or similar associations—are endowed with constitutional rights; and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the Dunn County
voted 72% to 28% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.) This followed the July 25, 2012
passage of a resolution
by the
Dunn County Board of Supervisors
calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of rights of human beings, specifically so that corporate election spending is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Fond du Lac (Fond du Lac County)
voted 73% to 27% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Green Bay (Brown County)
voted 77% to 23% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “WHEREAS, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and related case law allows unlimited political campaign spending to influence local, state and federal elections; BE IT RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the City of Green Bay, Wisconsin call for reclaiming democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country supporting passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, limited liability companies, unions, nonprofit organizations, or similar associations—are endowed with Constitutional rights; and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Menasha (Calumet County, Winnebago County)
voted 80% to 20% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the County of Milwaukee
voted 78% to 22% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Neenah (Winnebago County)
voted 79% to 21% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “WHEREAS, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and related case law allows unlimited political campaign spending to influence local, state and federal elections; BE IT RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the City of Neenah, Wisconsin, call for reclaiming democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country supporting passage of an amendment to the United State[s] Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings – not corporations, limited liability companies, unions, nonprofit organizations, or similar associations – are endowed with Constitutional rights; and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the Village of Oregon (Dane County)
voted 79% to 21% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations and similar associations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the Village of Park Ridge (Portage County)
voted 83% to 17% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Ripon (Fond du Lac County)
voted 79% to 21% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “BE IT RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the City of Ripon, Wisconsin, call for reclaiming democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country supporting passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings – not corporations, limited liability companies, unions, nonprofit organizations, or similar associations – are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.” (Click
here
for more information.)
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Stoughton (Dane County)
voted 82% to 18% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “BE IT RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the City of Stoughton, Wisconsin, call for reclaiming democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country supporting passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, limited liability companies, unions, nonprofit organizations, or similar associations—are endowed with constitutional rights; and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.”
On November 4, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Wausau (Marathon County)
voted 77% to 23% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “WHEREAS, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and related case law allows unlimited political campaign spending to influence local, state, and federal elections; BE IT RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the City of Wausau, Wisconsin, call for reclaiming democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country supporting passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings – not corporations, limited liability companies, unions, nonprofit organizations, or similar associations – are endowed with constitutional rights; and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.”
On August 18, 2014, the
Town of Dunn Town Board (Dane County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar associations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On July 7, 2014, the
Town of Janesville Board of Supervisors (Rock County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On April 15, 2014, the
Town of
Viroqua Town Meeting (Vernon County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that only human beings are entitled to constitutional rights; and money is not speech; therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the Village of Belleville (Dane County, Green County)
voted 86% to 14% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “RESOLVED, the Village of Belleville, Wisconsin, calls for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that: 1. Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the Village of DeForest (Dane County)
voted 70% to 30% in favor of
calling for
a constitutional amendment to affirm that corporations and other legal entities do not have constitutional rights, and
69% to 31% in favor of
calling for
a constitutional amendment to affirm that money is not speech.
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Delavan (Walworth County)
voted 76% to 24% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “RESOLVED, the City of Delavan, Wisconsin, calls for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that: 1. Only human beings, not corporations, unions, nonprofit organizations nor similar associations are entitled to constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.” (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Edgerton (Rock County)
voted 87% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the City of Edgerton, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, unions, non-profits, or similar associations—are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Elkhorn (Walworth County)
voted 69% to 31% in favor of
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Lake Mills (Jefferson County)
voted 73% to 27% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting freedom of speech, nor are corporations and similar associations entitled to constitutional rights.
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the Village of Shorewood (Milwaukee County)
voted 76% to 24% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the Town of Waterloo (Jefferson County)
voted 61% to 39% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting freedom of speech, nor are corporations and similar associations entitled to constitutional rights.
On April 1, 2014, the citizens of the
City of Waukesha (Waukesha County)
voted 69% to 31% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations and similar entities are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the Village of Waunakee (Dane County)
voted 79% to 21% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the Village of Waunakee, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings – not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations – are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.” (Click
here
for more information.)
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the City of Wauwatosa (Milwaukee County)
voted 64% to 36% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “RESOLVED, the City of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin, calls for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that: 1. Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.”
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the Village of Whitefish Bay (Milwaukee County)
voted 65% to 35% in favor of
calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On April 1, 2014, the
citizens of the Town of Windsor (Dane County)
voted 70% to 30% in favor of
calling for
a constitutional amendment to affirm that corporations and other legal entities do not have constitutional rights, and
71% to 29% in favor of
calling for
a constitutional amendment to affirm that money is not speech.
On February 10, 2014, the
Town of
Newark Town Board of Supervisors (Rock County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities do not have constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On January 14, 2014, the
Town of
Plymouth Town Board of Supervisors (Rock County)
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech. (Errant references to the same date in 2013 are believed to be false.)
On December 16, 2013, the
Town of Porter Town Board of Supervisors (Rock County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities do not have constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On December 2, 2013, the
Town of
Avon Town Board of Supervisors (Rock County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities do not have constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On November 11, 2013, the
Town of
Cross Plains Town Board of Supervisors (Dane County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to permit federal and state governments to regulate the role of money in elections.
On September 17, 2013, the
Town of
Richmond Town Board (Walworth County)
passed
a resolution (post-signed)
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar associations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On September 10, 2013, the
Town of Lake Mills Town
Board of Supervisors (Jefferson County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights, and money is not speech.
On September 9, 2013, the
Town of
Spring Valley Town Board of Supervisors (Rock County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities do not have constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On September 5, 2013, the
Town of
Farmington Town Board of Supervisors (Jefferson County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On September 5, 2013, the
Town of
Jefferson Town Board (Jefferson County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On August 20, 2013, the
Kenosha County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.
On August 12, 2013, the
Town of
Sumner Town Board of Supervisors (Jefferson County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On August 12, 2013, the
Town of Watertown Town
Board of Supervisors (Jefferson County)
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On August 5, 2013, the
City of
Kenosha City Council (Kenosha County)
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations and similar entities do not have constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On July 16, 2013, the
Town of
Oakland Town Board of Supervisors (Jefferson County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On July 10, 2013, the
Town of
Koshkonong Town Board of Supervisors (Jefferson County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On July 9, 2013, the
Jefferson County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities do not have constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On July 8, 2013, the
Town of
Exeter Town Board of Supervisors (Green County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that artificial entities such as corporations do not have constitutional rights, nor is money speech. (Click
here
for more information.)
On June 20, 2013, the
Douglas County Board of Supervisors
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United
and to ensure constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.
On April 2, 2013, the
citizens of the County of Chippewa
voted 68% to 32% in favor when asked
, “Should the United States Constitution be amended to state that only human beings, not corporations, unions or political action committees, are entitled to constitutional rights and that government regulation of political contributions and spending by corporations, unions or political action committees is therefore not equivalent to limiting freedom of speech?”
On April 2, 2013, the
citizens of the City of Fort Atkinson (Jefferson County)
voted 77% to 23% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that “We the People” of the City of Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings – not corporations, limited liability companies, unions, non-profit organizations, or similar associations and corporate entities – are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.”
On April 2, 2013, the
citizens of the City of Whitewater (Jefferson County, Walworth County)
voted 83% to 17% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “Resolved, that ‘We the People’ of the City of Whitewater (Fort Atkinson), Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the corrupting influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating: 1. Only human beings—not corporations, limited liability companies, unions, nonprofit organizations or similar associations and corporate entities—are endowed with constitutional rights, and, 2. Money is not speech, and therefore, regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. Be it further resolved, that we hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.”
On November 6, 2012, the
citizens of Eau Claire County
voted 71% to 29% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting freedom of speech, by stating that corporations and similar entities are not entitled to constitutional rights.
On May 7, 2012, the
Town of
Westport Town Board (Dane County)
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that artificial entities such as corporations do not have constitutional rights, nor is money speech.
On April 3, 2012, the
citizens of the City of West Allis (Milwaukee County)
voted 70% to 30% in favor of calling for a constitutional amendment
to establish that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech. (Click
here
for more information.) (Errant references characterizing the results as only Republican Party results are believed to be false.)
On April 5, 2011, the
citizens of the County of Dane
voted 78% to 22% in favor
when asked
, “Should the United States Constitution be amended to establish that regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting freedom of speech, by stating that only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights?”
On April 5, 2011, the
citizens of the City of Madison (Dane County)
voted 84% to 16% in favor of adopting
the following resolution
: “RESOLVED, the City of Madison, Wisconsin, calls for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate influence by amending the United States Constitution to establish that: 1. Only human beings, not corporations, are entitled to constitutional rights, and 2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech.”
Return to
Contents
Wyoming
State
2026
SJ0002
introduced on 1/14/2026.
2025
SJ0008
introduced on 1/24/2025. Considered by Senate Judiciary Committee on 2/5/2025 and passed unanimously (5-0). Considered by full Senate on third reading on 2/11/2025 and passed (17-13-1). Introduced in House on 2/25/2025. Considered by House Travel Committee on 2/27/2025 and passed unanimously (9-0). Was not considered by full House before session adjourned on 2/28/2025.
Attempts include:
2021 General Session:
HJ0005
; 2019 General Session:
HJ0008
SJ0008
; 2017 General Session:
HJ0010
Local | 3
On August 17, 2021, the
Laramie City Council
passed a resolution supporting
the Wyoming Association of Municipalities resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to distinguish the rights of natural persons from the rights of corporations, unions, and other legal entities, and to provide Congress and the states with the right to regulate political fundraising and spending.
On April 13, 2021, the
Lander City Council
passed a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to distinguish the rights of natural persons from the rights of corporations, unions, and other legal entities, and to provide Congress and the states with the right to regulate political fundraising and spending.
On March 22, 2021, the
Cheyenne City Council
passed
a resolution
calling for a constitutional amendment to distinguish the rights of natural persons from the rights of corporations, unions, and other legal entities, and to provide Congress and the states with the right to regulate political fundraising and spending.
Return to
Contents
Copyright © 2026