To date, 23 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.

State

Local

Return to Contents

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

State

• 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

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

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 United 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State

• 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

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

State

• 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

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

State

• Attempts include: Session of 2015: SCR 1602; Session of 2013: SCR 1607; Session of 2012: SCR 1617

Local

Return to Contents

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

State

Local

Return to Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

State

• 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

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

State

• Attempts include: 103rd Legislature, 1st Session (2013): LR 23

Local

Return to Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

State

Local

Return to Contents

State

• 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

State

• 2025:
  • HCR1006 introduced on 3/3/2025. Introduced in House on 3/6/2025 and adopted unanimously.

Local

Return to Contents

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

State

• 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

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

State

Local

Return to Contents

State

• Attempts include: 2010 Regular Session: HCR 1018

Local

Return to Contents

State

Local

Return to Contents

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

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

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

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

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

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

State

• 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) voted 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

State

• 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