Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campaign Finance Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee lays over Marty resolution asking Congress to propose amendment reversing corporate personhood and Citizens United
Summary
Senate File 569, a resolution urging Congress to draft a constitutional amendment to limit corporate constitutional rights and allow regulation of campaign spending, received testimony from reform groups and was laid over for further consideration at the sponsor's request.
Senate File 569, a resolution from Senator Marty asking Congress to propose a constitutional amendment to clarify that constitutional rights belong to natural persons and to permit limits on campaign spending, received testimony and was laid over for further consideration Feb. 6, 2025.
Senator Marty framed the proposal as a response to the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United and related decisions, arguing those rulings have allowed corporations and outside groups to inject large sums into campaigns and to claim constitutional protections. "Political money is corrupting our democracy," Marty said, citing national spending figures and public opinion data about donor influence.
Supporters who testified included volunteers and leaders from Minnesota Move to Amend, Common Cause Minnesota and Clean Elections Minnesota. Testifiers described two principles central to the resolution: (1) that only human beings ("natural persons") should hold constitutional rights, and (2) that money in political campaigns is not equivalent to speech and may be regulated to ensure equal access to the political process. Testimony cited Citizens United v. FEC (2010) and former and ongoing examples of independent dark‑money spending to argue for congressional action.
After public testimony, the committee agreed to lay the resolution on the table for further consideration and additional vetting. Senator Barr moved to lay the matter on the table; the chair accepted the motion and announced the bill was laid over. Members asked sponsors and proponents to provide written questions and suggestions in advance of the next hearing to expedite discussion.
No final committee vote on the substance of the resolution occurred; the layover preserves the record and allows the sponsor time to gather input and potential revisions before the committee takes further action.
