Local and State Resolutions

 

States with Resolutions Passed - 16  |   CA  |   CO  |   CT  |   DE  |   HI  |   IL  |   ME  |   MD  |   MA  |   MT  |   NJ  |   NM  |   OR  |   RI  |   VT  |   WV  |   States Not Yet Passed, DC, and US Territories  |   AL  |   AK  |   AS  |   AZ  |   AR  |   DC  |   FL  |   GA  |   GU  |   ID  |   IN  |   IA  |   KS  |   KY  |   LA  |   MI  |   MN  |   MS  |   MO  |   NE  |   NV  |   NH  |   NY  |   NC  |   ND  |   MP  |   OH  |   OK  |   PA  |   PR  |   SC  |   SD  |   TN  |   TX  |   UT  |   VI  |   VA  |   WA  |   WI  |   WY  |   Adding Resolutions



States with Resolutions Passed - 16



California


  • State Resolutions

    • AJR 22, introduced on January 5, 2012 by Assemblymember Bob Weikowski, passed the State Assembly on March 20 and the State Senate on July 5. AJR 22 officially registered California's call for a constitutional amendment to "overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and to restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people." 2014 update. On January 27, AJR 1 was pulled out of the inactive file. This resolution, which calls for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment limiting corporate personhood and declaring that money is not speech, passed the State Assembly on January 30 and the State Senate on June 23.

      Other attempts include:

      2013-2014 Regular Session: AB 644

  • Local Resolutions - Passed

    • On April 25, 2000, the municipality of Point Arena passed a resolution rejecting corporate personhood, which declared,"Interference in the democratic process by corporations frequently usurps the rights of citizens to govern."

    • 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.

    • On July 21, 2011, the South Robertson Neighborhoods Council passed (see page 3, motion GB072111-3, and page 6, vote 05) 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 (see page 3, motion GB072111-4, and page 6, vote 06) sending amendment support letters to elected officials. (See pgs. 1-4 for more information.)

    • 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 for the inclusion of these principles in related constitutional amendments.

    • On December 20, 2011, the Oakland City Council passed a resolution opposing Citizens United and calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn it and limit corporate influence in our elections.

    • On January 9, 2012, the Petaluma City Council passed (see page 12, item C) 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 January 11, 2012, the Fairfax Town Council passed (see pgs.7-8, "Adoption of Resolution No. 12-05") 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 17, 2012, the West Hollywood City Council passed (page 8, item 2.O) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.

    • On January 24, 2012, the Santa Cruz City Council passed (see item 14) 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 February 6, 2012, the Albany City Council passed (see pgs. 4-5, item 7-1) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are corporations natural persons entitled to constitutional rights.

    • On February 16, 2012, the Los Altos Hills City Council passed (see page 4, item 3, especially item 3H) 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 21, 2012, the Davis City Council passed (see page 4, "Support of Assembly Joint Resolution No. 22") 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 (pgs. 5-6) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood and reaffirm that money does not equal speech.

    • On March 1, 2012, the City of Point Arena unanimously passed a resolution supporting their previous resolution in 2000, which called for the abolition of corporate personhood.


    • On March 13, 2012, the Ojai City Council passed (see pgs. 6-7, item 8) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance.

    • On March 14, 2012, the Nevada City Council passed a resolution (pgs. 1-2) positing that corporations do not enjoy the same constitutional rights as natural persons and, because money is not speech, political spending limits promote First Amendment goals, and calling for a constitutional amendment related to campaign finance reform the dismisses the notion of corporate constitutional rights.

    • On March 20, 2012, the Mountain View City Council passed (see page 5, item 8) 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 (see item 5) a resolution supporting S.J.Res. 33 in the US Congress, which proposes a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.

    • 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 and see page 5, item 11.4 for more information.)

    • On April 9, 2012, the Malibu City Council passed (see page 25, item D) 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 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 (see page 4, item 9A) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.

    • On May 1, 2012, the Redlands City Council passed (see pgs. 5-6, "Resolution No. 7158") 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 (Ibid) after the original agenda was released.

    • On May 15, 2012, the Plumas County Board of Supervisors passed (see page 3, item 3) a resolution (pgs. 7-9) 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 June 12, 2012, the Ventura County Board of Supervisors passed (see page 5, item 16) 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 June 26, 2012, the Oxnard City Council passed (see pgs. 6-7, item N2) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to end corporate personhood.

    • On July 10, 2012, the Claremont City Council passed (see pgs. 12-14, item 15) 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 August 7, 2012, the Campbell City Council passed (see pgs. 5-6, item 12) 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 part of the constitutional amendment advocacy by Move to Amend and allied organizations. (Click here and see pgs. 9-10, item 20 for more information.)

    • On August 8, 2012, the Coachella City Council passed (see page 3, item 9) 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 September 5, 2012, the Sonoma City Council passed (see page 5, item 8E) a resolution (pgs. 122-128) calling on the US Congress to support S.J.Res. 33, a constitutional amendment abolishing corporate personhood.

    • On September 24, 2012, the Mount Shasta City Council passed a resolution supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

    • On October 3, 2012, the Ukiah City Council passed (see page 3, item 13a) a resolution supporting, and calling on its citizens to support, a Mendocino County, of which Ukiah is a part, ballot measure asking, "Should the elected representatives of Mendocino County be instructed to enact resolutions calling for amendment to the United States Constitution to establish that 1) only human beings and not corporations are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2) that money does not constitute speech and therefore political contributions can be regulated?" (The ballot measure passed, and Mendocino County subsequently enacted a resolution.)

    • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Arcata voted 83% to 17% in favor of (see pgs. 1 and 5, "Measure H") ordaining that corporations shall not have the rights of persons within their city. The full text of the measure 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. (See "Measure H" for more information.)

    • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Chico voted 59% to 41% in favor of adopting (see "MEASURE K") 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." (Click here for more information.) This followed the May 15, 2012 passage of (see item 2.3) a resolution by the Chico City Council calling for the regulation of corporate political expenditures and for a constiutional 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. (See item 4.4.A. for more information.)

    • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Richmond voted 73% to 27% in favor when asked (see page 2, item 5), "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 November 7, 2012, the Pacific Grove City Council passed (see page 3, item 7C, and page 4, item 12-7C) 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 20, 2012, the Napa City Council passed (see pgs. 3-4, item 15.B) a resolution opposing corporate personhood and supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

    • On December 4, 2012, the San Diego City Council passed (see "ITEM-S508") 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 May 7, 2013, the San Jose City Council passed (see pgs. 24-25, item 3.3) a resolution (see pgs. 6-9) 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 May 14, 2013, the Santa Monica City Council passed (see video at 5:31:25, debate on item 8-B preceding) a resolution (see pgs. 1-7) 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 (see page 7, item 8-C) a resolution (see pgs. 1-3 and 8-12) 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 May 21, 2013, Angelenos voted 77% to 23% in favor of (see page 2) 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 permissable." This followed the December 6, 2011 passage of (see pgs. 14-15, item 17) a resolution (see especially "File Activities, 12/21/2011") 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 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 August 27, 2013, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors passed (see pgs. 1-3, item 4, especially item 4(e)) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor does money constitute speech, and encouraging consideration of 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. This action was a direct response to the citizens of Mendocino County, who on November 6, 2012 voted 75% to 25% in favor (see "MEASURE F") when asked, "Should the elected representatives of Mendocino County be instructed to enact resolutions calling for amendment to the United States Constitution to establish that 1) only human beings and not corporations are endowed with constitutional rights, and 2) that money does not constitute speech and therefore political contributions can be regulated?"

    • On October 14, 2013, the Upland City Council passed (see pgs. 7-8, item 13B) 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 March 12, 2014, the Encinitas City Council passed a resolution (see also "Agenda Report," pgs. 3-4, item C, and pgs. 9-11) 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.

    • 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 mroe information.)

    • On May 14, 2014, the Willits City Council passed a resolution (see pgs. 75-78) 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 November 4, 2014, the citizens of Berkeley voted 85% to 15% in favor when asked, "Should the United States Constitution be amended 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?" (Click here for more information.) This followed the March 6, 2012 passage of (see item A under "Action Calendar - Continued Business") a resolution by the Berkeley City Council to affirm its belief that the rights of persons are not similarly held by corporations, nor are corporate expenditures constitutionally protected speech. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United, and registered its official support for California's AJR 22 and the US Senate's S.J.Res. 33. This followed the April 27, 2010 passage of (see item 13 under "Consent Calendar") a similar resolution that registered the Council's official support for the US House's H.J.Res. 74.

     

    Colorado


    • State Resolutions

      • On November 6, 2012, Amendment 65, a statewide balllot initiative, passed with 73.8% of the vote. Amendment 65 instructs Colorado's congressional delegation to propose and support "an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that allows congress and the states to limit campaign contributions and spending that allow all citizens, regardless of wealth, to express their views to one another on a level playing field."

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • 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.

      • On November 1, 2011, the citizens of Boulder voted 74% to 26% in favor when asked (see page 5, "City of Boulder Ballot Question No. 2H"), "Shall the People of the City of Boulder, Colorado, call for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of 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 January 3, 2012, the Commissioners of Pueblo County unanimously passed a resolution in favor of overturning the Citizens United decision, and calling for the end of corporate personhood

      • 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 October 2, 2012, the Fort Collins City Council passed (see pgs. 60-63, "Resolution 2012-092") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights, nor is money speech.

      • On November 6, 2012, voters in Pueblo, CO supported, with 65% of the vote, a Reclaim Our Rights initiative urging Pueblo's congressional representatives to support and its state legislators to ratify a constitutional amendment to establish that constitutional rights belong to natural human beings and not legal entities like corporations; and money is not speech.

     

    Connecticut


    • State Resolutions

      • On September 12, 2012, 88 state representatives and 22 state senators signed a letter calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The effort to gather signatures was initiated by State Senator Gayle Slossberg.

        Other attempts include:

        Session Year 2013: HJ 3, SB 5

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On May 14, 2012, the Hartford Court of Common Council passed (see page 2, item 18) a resolution (pgs. 10-11) calling for a constitutional amendment and other legislative actions to overturn Buckley and Citizens United, which together established the prinicples money is speech and corporations are people.

      • On June 4, 2012, the New London City Council passed a resolution (see page 8, item 7.3-B) 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 June 4, 2012, the Middletown Common Council passed a resolution (see pgs. 6-7, item 11) 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 11, 2012, the Ashford Board of Selectmen passed (see page 1, item 7c) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to nullify Citizens United.

      • On June 11, 2012, the West Haven City Council passed (see "Update") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of natural persons, nor is money speech.

      • 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 corporate personhood and the doctrine of money as speech, such as Buckley and Citizens United. (See also pgs. 11-13, item 1 and file summary.)

      • On October 16, 2012, the Windham Town Council passed a resolution (see page 6) 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.

     

    Delaware


    • State Resolutions

      • On June 10, 2013, the majority of the House and Senate of the Delaware General Assembly sent a letter to Delaware’s congressional delegation calling to overturn Citizens United and related cases, and stating that “the United States of America’s elections should not be permitted to go to the highest bidder.” The Delaware General Assembly expressed “we sharply disagree with the … decision” and call for a constitutional amendment “that makes clear the right of our elected representatives and the American people to be steadfast in pursuit of fair elections and democratic sovereignty.”

    • Local Resolutions - Passed


    Hawaii


    • State Resolutions

      • HCR 282, introduced on March 10, 2010 by Rep. Bob Herkes (D-5), passed the House on April 9, 2010 and the Senate on April 28, 2010. Through HCR 282, the State of Hawaii "respectfully requests that the U.S. Congress propose and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to clarify the distinction between the rights of natural persons and the rights of corporations, thereby preserving the power of Congress and the States to place limits on the ability of corporations to influence the outcome of elections through political expenditures."

        Other attempts include:

        26th Legislature (2012): HR 5, SR 68

        26th Legislature (2011): HB 36, HCR 51, HR 44

        25th Legislature (2010): HCR 10, HR 204, SCR 225, SR 116

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On September 12, 2012, the Council of the City and County of Honolulu passed (see pgs. 14-15, "RESOLUTION 12-207, CD1") 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 theseprinciples, and supported related citizen advocacy for a constitutional amendment.

     

    Illinois


    • State Resolutions

      • SJR 27, a joint resolution introduced by State Senators Heather Steans, Karen McConnaughay and Pamela J. Althoff on March 13, 2013, passed the Senate on May 14, 2013 and the House on May 31, 2013. The resolution calls “upon the United States Congress to propose and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v. FEC, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, Buckley v. Valeo, and other related cases that allow for unlimited election spending; and ... that such an amendment should make clear that the rights of persons protected by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons and not those of corporations or other artificial entities.”

        Other attempts include:

        98th General Assembly (2013-2014): SR 85

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On May 14, 2012, the Evanston City Council passed (see page 9, item O2) 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.

      • On June 4, 2012, the Galesburg City Council passed (see pgs. 3-4, item 12-2023) a resolution (pgs. 123-125) calling for a constitutional amendment and other legislative actions to ensure that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Avon Township voted 75% to 25% in favor when asked (see page 3, "AVON TOWNSHIP, Advisory Question"), "Should the United States Constitution be amended to limit the use of corporate, special interests, and private money in any political activity, including influencing the election of any candidate for public office?"

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Carbondale Township voted 70% to 30% in favor (see page 29) when asked (see "second Public Question") "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 (see "Advisory: Citizens v. Corporations CITY OF CHAMPAIGN TOWNSHIP") the following resolution (see page 3, "Champaign Township"): "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." (See "November 6, 2012 General Election" for more information.)

      • On November 6, 2012, Chicagoans voted 74% to 26% in favor (see "Political Contributions") when asked, "Shall the U.S. Congress pass a bill, to be duly ratified by three-fourths of the states, adopting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, empowering the federal government and the states to regulate and limit political contributions from corporations?" (page 23) 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.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Cunningham Township voted 72% to 28% in favor (see "Money Is Not Speech CUNNINGHAM TOWNSHIP") when they considered this question (see page 4, "Cunningham Township"): "Shall the City of Urbana have the authority to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution to establish: "1) that a corporation does not have the same rights as an actual person, and 2) that money is not speech and, therefore, regulating political spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech?"; and the following resolution (Ibid): "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 undue that decision, the people of the Cunningham 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." (See "November 6, 2012 General Election" for more information.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Kane County voted 73% to 27% in favor when asked (see page 55), "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?" (See "2012 General Election" for more information.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Lisle Township voted 63% to 37% in favor (see page 3, "LISLE TOWNSHIP") when asked (see page 6, Ibid), "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 when asked (see page 3, "WARREN TOWNSHIP, Advisory Question"), "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?"

      • One November 6, 2012, the citizens of Warrenville voted 65% to 35% in favor (see page 2, "CITY OF WARRENVILLE") when asked (see page 3, Ibid), "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 4, 2014, the citizens of Edwardsville voted 77% to 23% in favor (see "EDWARDSVILLE TOWNSHIP PUBLIC POLICY") when asked (see page 4, "An Advisory Question of Public Policy"), "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?"

     

    Maine


    • State Resolutions

      • SP 548, a joint resolution introduced by State Senator Dick Woodybury passed in the Senate and the House on April 30, 2013. The joint resolution declares Maine's support "for an amendment to the United States Constitution regarding campaign finance that would reaffirm the power of citizens through their government to regulate the raising and spending of money in elections."

        Other attemps include:

        126th Legislature, First Regular Session (2013): HP 1107

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On January 18, 2012, the Portland City Council passed (see page 3, "Resolve 11-11/12") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood. (Click here for more information.)

      • On February 21, 2012, the Waterville City Council passed (see page 2, "RESOLUTION 29-2012") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations are not human beings.

      • On February 26, 2012, the Town of Great Pond passed a resolution supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.

      • On March 10, 2012, the Vienna Town Meeting passed (see page 1, "Results") a resolution (page 7) calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.

      • On March 26, 2012, the Bangor City Council passed (see page 32, item 12-129) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the rights of natural persons with regard to election spending. (Click here for more information.)

      • 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 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 May 15, 2012, the Bar Harbor City Council considered (see pgs. 37-39) and passed a resolution (see page 3, item 7C) calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not entiteld to the constitutional rights of natural persons, nor is money speech.

      • On June 2, 2012, the attendees of the Town Meeting of Leeds passed a Town Warrant to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

      • On June 4, 2012, the Mount Desert Board of Selectmen passed (see item VII-A) 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. The Board first took up the resolution at its May 21, 2012 meeting (see item VIII-A), but it failed on a 2-2 tie vote.

      • On June 5, 2012, the Freeport Town Council passed a resolution (see pgs. 10-12, "ITEM #99-12") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations people. (Click here for more information.)

      • On June 11, 2012, the Town of Vassalboro passed a resolution denouncing Citizens United and calling for a constitutional amendment.

      • On June 13, 2012, the Arrowsic Town Meeting declared (see page 9, "Art. 45"): "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, 18, 2012, the Newcastle Town Meeting passed a resolution (page 28) calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations do not hold constitutional rights, nor is money speech.

      • 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.

      • In June of 2012, the Bethel Board of Selectmen passed a resolution denouncing Citizens United and calling for a constitutional amendment.

      • In June of 2012, the Town of Liberty passed a resolution denouncing Citizens United and calling for a constitutional amendment.

      • On September 4, 2012, the Lewiston City Council passed a resolution (see pgs. 7-8, "RESOLVE SUPPORTING") 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 November 7, 2012, the Scarborough Town Council passed a resolution (see pgs. 1-3, "Resolution 12-07") calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations are not human beings and do not have the same rights as citizens.

      • On January 8, 2013, the Camden Select Board supported (see pgs. 3-4, item H1) a constitutional amendment to state that money is not speech, nor are corporations people, thus overturning Citizens United.

      • On January 28, 2013, the Thomaston Select Board passed (see pgs. 2-3, item 9B) 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 February 4, 2013, the Brunswick Town Council passed (see pgs. 4-5, item 13) a resolution (see pgs. 24-26) 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 February 11, 2013, the Orono Town Council passed (see page 2, "Order 13-27") 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 provideregulatory and limiting authority over political participation by such entities. (Click here for more information.)

      • On March 6, 2013, the Bath City Council passed (see pgs. 3-4, item E6) 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 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 April 6, 2013, the city of Brooklin passed a resolution to support the creation of a constitutional amendment to effectively limit the influence of “big money” in elections.

     

    Maryland


    • State Resolutions

      • On January 19, 2012, State Senator Jamie Raskin introduced a letter to the Maryland General Assembly. The letter concluded with the following: "Article V of the United States Constitution empowers the people, the states and the Congress to use the constitutional amending process to protect republican self-government. This power has repeatedly been used by the people when the Supreme Court has undermined the progress of popular democracy. As Members of the Maryland General Assembly, we sharply disagree with the majority decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and call upon the United States Congress to propose and send to the states for ratification as soon as is practicable a constitutional amendment to reverse this decision and restore fair elections and democratic sovereignty to the states and to the people." The majority of members in the House of Delegates and State Senate signed the letter in agreement.

    • Local Resolutions - Passed


      • 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. (Click here for more information.

      • 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 (see pgs. 3-4, "Maryland United for Peace and Justice"). The Council decided on February 13 not to endorse specific amendment language (see item 18.I and pgs. 5-6, "Constitutional Amendments"). This was a conversation formally started on July 11, 2011 (see page 5, "Maryland United for Peace"). (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 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.

      • 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 May 14, 2012, the Baltimore City Council passed a resolution opposing Citizens United and calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the deicison and remove corporate money from the electoral process. (See pgs. 5-6, "Bill No. 12-0051R" for more information.)

      • 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.

     

    Massachusetts


    • State Resolutions

      • 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."

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On April 24, 2011, the Town of Leverett passed Move to Amend's model resolution at a townhall meeting.

      • On February 14, 2012, the Lynn City Council passed a resolution (see pgs. 8-9) calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.

      • On February 29, 2012, the Boston City Council passed (see item 0324) 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 April 10, 2012, the Town of West Tisbury passed a resolution supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

      • On April 12, 2012, the Natick Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 1, "Ms. Boggia") 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 April 28, 2012, the Town of Leverett passed a second resolution condemning Citizens United and calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision.

      • On April 28, 2012, the Town of Nahant passed its first resolution, calling on the US Congress to pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and restore democracy to the people.

      • On April 30, 2012, the Reading Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 5-7, "ARTICLE 18," and pgs. 54-66) calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.

      • On May 1, 2012, the Town of Shelburne passed a resolution condemning Citizens United and calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling.

      • On May 1, 2012, the Westport Town Meeting passed a resolution (page 48) 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 8, 2012, the Warren Town Meeting passed (see pgs. 40-41, "Warren") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.

      • On May 9, 2012, the Town of West Tisbury passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.

      • On May 10, 2012, the Salem City Council passed a Restoring Demcoracy to the People resolution that condemns Citizens United and supports a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision.

      • On May 14, 2012, the Needham Town Meeting passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. Subsitute language was adopted after the original warrant (pgs. 33-34) was issued.

      • On May 15, 2012, the Worcester City Council passed (see item 13) 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 21, 2012, the Somerset Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 35, "Somerset") 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 June 4, 2012, the Quincy City Council passed (see page 2, item 10) a resolution (see page 17) calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

      • On July 10, 2012, the Stoughton Board of Selectmen passed a resolution (see page 38, "Stoughton") calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

      • On July 16, 2012, the Springfield City Council passed (see page 37, "Springfield") a resolution (see pgs. 66-67) calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citiens United. The Council also registered its official support for S772, the state's call for a constitutional amendment.

      • On August 6, 2012, the Methuen City Council passed (see page 7, item 11, TR-12-36) 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 October 16, 2012, the West Brookfield Town Meeting called for (see page 16, "Article 11") a constitutional amndment to reverse Citizens United and restore constitutional rights and fair election to the people.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Acton voted 81% to 19% in favor (see page 4, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Adams voted in favor of (see "Adams" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Alford voted in favor of (see "Alford" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Amesbury voted 79% to 21% in favor (see page 35, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 (see page 2, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page two, Ibid), "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?" (See page 5, Ibid for more information.) This followed the May 7, 2012 passage of a resolution (see page 11, "ARTICLE 28") 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 (see "Aquinnah" at right) instructing their state legislators "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[.]" (See pgs. 62 and 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 8, 2012 passage of a resolution (see page 9) by the Aquinnah Town Meeting officialy 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 (see page 123, "Question 4"), "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 (see page 5, item 73) a resolution (see pgs. 20-22, "ARTICLE 73") 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 vote in favor of (see "Ashfield" at right) instructing their state senator (see page 4, "QUESTION 4") "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[.]" (See page 64 for districtwide results.) This followed the May 5, 2012 passage of (see page 2, "Ashfield") a resolution (see page 7, "ARTICLE 29") 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-relateed expenditures and contributions.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Ayer voted 76% to 24% in favor (see "Question 4") when asked (see page 64), "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?" (Click here for more information.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Barnstable voted 76% to 24% in favor (see page 3, "QUESTION #4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Becket voted 84% to 16% in favor when asked (see "QUESTION 4"), "Shall the state senator from this disctict 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 (see page 5, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 in favor of (see "Bernardston" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the June 7, 2012 passage of a resolution (see page 2, "Bernardston") 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-relateed expenditures and contributions. The resolution proposed specific amendment language.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Beverly voted 77% to 23% in favor (see "Question Five") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 in favor of (see "Blandford" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Boxborough voted 79% to 21% in favor (see "Question 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 17, 2012 passage of a resolution (see pgs. 65-67, "ARTICLE 37") 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 (see page 2, "Corporations") when asked (see page 64), "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 3, 2011 passage of a resolution (see page 25, "RESOLUTION") by the Brewster Town Meeting calling for a constitutional amendment to restore the First Amendment and fair elections to the people. (See pgs. 66-67, Ibid for more information.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the following advisory question (see page 62) was on the ballot (see page 3, "QUESTION 5") in twelve of Brookline's sixteen precincts: "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) corporations are not 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 those precincts was 85% to 15%, and the more than 15,000 votes in favor would also have been enough to pass the question townwide. (Ibid) This followed the May 22, 2012 passage of (see item 29) a resolution (pgs. 293-299, esp. from 296) 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 in favor of (see "Buckland" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the Buckland Town Meeting supporting on May 9, 2012 (see page 7, "ARTICLE 29") a constitutional amendment (see page 5, Ibid) 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 (see pgs. 8-9, "CAMPAIGN FINANCE") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 (S772).

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Carlisle voted 78% to 22% in favor (see page 3, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Charlemont voted in favor of (see "Charlemont" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 22, 2012 passage of a resolution (see page 8, "Charlemont") 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 when asked (see page 117, "QUESTION 4"), "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 state may place limits on political contributions and political spending?" This followed the Chatham Town Meeting supporting on May 9, 2011 (see page 99, "Article 22") 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 (see page 5, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Cheshire voted in favor of (see "Cheshire" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Chester voted 72% to 28% in favor (see page 2, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Chesterfield voted in favor of (see "Chesterfield" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Chilmark voted 88% to 12% in favor of (see pgs. 4-5, "QUESTION #4" and "QUESTION #5") instructing their state legislators (see page 4, Ibid) "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 state may place limits on political contributions and political spending[.]" This followed the April 23, 2012 passage of (see page 3, "ARTICLE 22") a resolution (see pgs. 4-5, "ARTICLE 22") 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 in favor of (see "Clarksburg" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Colrain voted in favor of (see "Colrain" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 8, 2012 passage of a resolution (see pgs. 9-10, "Colrain") 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-relateed expenditures and contributions. The resolution proposed specific amendment language. (Click here for more information.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Concord voted 81% to 19% in favor (see page 3, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 April 26, 2012 passage of (see page 3, item 48) 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 in favor of (see "Conway" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 14, 2012 passage of (see pgs. 11-12, "Conway") a resolution (see pgs. 5-6, "ARTICLE 40") 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-relateed expenditures and contributions. The resolution proposed specific amendment language.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Cummington voted in favor of (see "Cummington" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 4, 2012 passage of a resolution (see pgs. 51-52, "Article 21") 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 (see page 3, "QUESTION 7") when asked (see page 64), "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 Deerfield voted in favor of (see "Deerfield" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 1, 2012 passage of a resolution (see pgs. 80-81, "ARTICLE 22") 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 in favor of (see "Dennis" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the Dennis Town Meeting supporting on May 3, 2011 the following constitutional amendment (see page 16, "ARTICLE 49"): "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 (see "QUESTION 5") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 (see page 133, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 131, Ibid), "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 Edgartown voted in favor of instructing their state senator (79% to 21%) and state representative (80% to 20%) "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[.]" (See page 3, "Political Contrib" for local results and pgs. 62 and 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the April 10, 2012 passage of a resolution (see page 14, "Edgartown") 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 in favor of (see "Egremont" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Erving voted 78% to 22% in favor (see page 109, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Falmouth voted 79% to 21% in favor when asked (see pge 4, "Question 4"), "Shall the state representative from this district be instructed to vote in favor of a resolution calling upon Congress to purpose an amendment to the U.S. constitution 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 (see page 14, "ARTICLE 25") 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.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Florida voted in favor of (see "Florida" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Georgetown voted 73% to 27% in favor (see page 3, "QUESTION #7") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 in favor of (see "Gill" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Gloucester voted 78% to 22% in favor (see page 2, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see "QUESTION 5"), "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) corporations are not 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 (pgs. 17-18) 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 in favor of (see "Goshen" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Gosnold voted in favor of (see "Gosnold" at right) instructing their state legislators "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[.]" (See pgs. 62 and 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Great Barrington voted in favor of (see "Great Barrington" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (see page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 2, 2011 passage of (see pgs. 16-17, "Great Barrington") a resolution (see pgs. 1-2, "ARTICLE 31") 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 in favor of (see "Greenfield" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Groveland voted 73% to 27% in favor (see page 12, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 in favor of (see "Hadley" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Hamilton voted 76% to 24% in favor (see page 2, "Question 7") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 in favor of (see "Hancock" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Harvard voted 79% to 21% in favor when asked (see page 189, "QUESTION #4"), "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 Harwich voted 78% to 22% in favor (see page 2, "QUESTION #4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Hatfield voted in favor of (see "Hatfield" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the following advisory question (see page 62) was on the ballot (see "Question 4") in twenty of Haverhill's twenty-one precincts: "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) corporations are not 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 those precincts was 74% to 26%, and the more than 14,000 votes in favor would also have been enough to pass the question citywide. (Ibid) (Click here for more information.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Heath voted in favor of (see "Heath" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Hinsdale voted in favor of (see "Hinsdale" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Hudson voted 76% to 24% in favor (see page 3, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Huntington voted 79% to 21% in favor (see page 43, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see page 64), "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 Ipswich voted 77% to 23% in favor (see page 3, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 in favor of (see "Lanesborough" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) (There are also reports of a town resolution passed in 2011. Official confirmation, including final text, not available.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Lee voted in favor of (see "Lee" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Lenox voted in favor of (see "Lenox" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for more information.) This followed the June 20, 2012 passage of (see "KF read") a resolution (see pgs. 17-18, "Lenox") 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 Lexington voted 82% to 18% in favor (see page 3, first "QUESTION 4" and "QUESTION 5") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?" Three of nine precincts also considered a similar advisory question (see page 64) related to their state senator, but its nearly 4,000 votes in favor (82% to 18%) would not have been enough to pass the question townwide (see page 3, second "QUESTION 4".)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Leyden voted in favor of (see "Leyden" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Lincoln voted 81% to 19% in favor (see "Question 5") when asked (see page 64), "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 March 24, 2012 passage of (see page 20, "Lincoln") a resolution (see pgs. 52-53, "ARTICLE 39") 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 (see pgs. 3-4, "Question 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Manchester-by-the-Sea voted in favor of (see "Manchester" at right) instructing their state representative "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[.]" (See page 62 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Marblehead voted 77% to 23% in favor (see page 5, "QUESTION FOUR") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 in favor of (see "Marlborough" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Mashpee voted 75% to 25% in favor of (see "QUESTION 4" and "QUESTION 5") instructing their state legislators (see pgs. 62 and 64) "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 Maynard voted in favor of (see "Maynard" at right) instructing their state senator "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." (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Melrose voted in favor of (see "Melrose" at right) instructing their state representative "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[.]" (See page 62 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Merrimac voted in favor of (see "Merrimac" at right) instructing their state representative "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[.]" (See page 62 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Middlefield voted 82% to 18% in favor (see page 72, "Question 7") when asked (see page 64), "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 Millis voted in favor of (see "Millis" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Monroe voted in favor of (see "Monroe" at right") insructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Montague voted 83% to 17% in favor when asked (see page 6), "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 5, 2012 passage of a resolution (see pgs. 8-9, "ARTICLE 29") by the Montague 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 Monterey voted in favor of (see "Monterey" at right) instructing their state senator 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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 5, 2012 passage of (see page 11, "ARTICLE 27") 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 in favor of (see "Mount Washington" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Nantucket voted in favor of instructing their state senator (79% to 21%) and state representative (78% to 22%) "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[.]" (See page 2, "QUESTION FOUR" and "QUESTION FIVE" for local results and pgs. 62 and 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of New Ashford voted in favor of (see "New Ashford" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of New Marlborough voted in favor of (see "New Marlborough" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of New Salem voted in favor of (see "New Salem" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwise results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Newbury voted in favor of (see "Newbury" at right) instructing their state representative "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[.]" (See page 62 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 22, 2012 passage of (see pgs. 24-25, "Newbury") a resolution (see pgs. 53-54, "ARTICLE 30") 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 in favor of (see "Newburyport" at right) instructing their state representative "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[.]" (See page 62 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the March 27, 2012 passage of (see page 2, item 10(1)) a resolution (see pgs. 56-57) by the 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 following advisory question (see page 62) was on the ballot (see page 3, second and third "QUESTION 5") in thirty of Newton's thirty-two precincts: "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) corporations are not 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 those precincts was 82% to 18%, and the nearly 28,000 votes in favor would also have been enough to pass the question citywide. (Ibid) (See 11/06/2012 for more information.) This followed the July 9, 2012 passage of (see page 8, item #122-12) 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 resonably limit politicial contributions and spending, thus restoring the First Amendment and fair elections to the people.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Norfolk voted in favor of (see "Norfolk" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of North Adams voted in favor of (see "North Adams" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of North Attleborough voted 74% to 26% in favor (see page 79, "Question 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Northampton voted 89% to 11% in favor (see page 25, "Question 4") when asked (see page 12), "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 (see pgs. 1-2, "Resolution to Amend") 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. (See page 1, Ibid for more information.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Northfield voted 83% to 17% in favor (see page 4, "Question #4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Oak Bluffs voted in favor of (see "Oak Bluffs" at right) instructing their state legislators "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[.]" (See pgs. 62 and 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the April 10, 2012 passage of (see page 28, "Oak Bluffs") a resolution (see pgs. 1-2, "Article 17") 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 (see page 90) when asked (see page 64), "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 Orleans voted 78% to 22% in favor (see page 3, "QUESTION #4") when asked (see page 64), "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 9, 2011 passage of a resolution (see page 41, "Article 34") by the Orleans 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 Otis voted 82% to 18% in favor when asked (see page 2, "QUESTION 4"), "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 15, 2012 passage of a resolution (see page 29, "Otis") 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 in favor of (see "Pelham" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 5, 2012 passage of a resolution (see page 30, "Pelham") 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 in favor of (see "Peru" at right) insructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Pittsfield voted 78% to 22% in favor (see page 3, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 August 14, 2012 consideration and passage of a resolution by the Pittsfield City Council calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. This followed subcommittee action on August 6. (See page 30, "Pittsfield" for more information.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Plainfield voted in favor of (see "Plainfield" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Plainville voted 75% to 25% in favor (see page 38, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Provincetown voted 90% to 10% in favor (see page 2, "Question 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 April 4, 2011 passage of a resolution (see pgs. 33-34, "Article 33") 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 in favor of (see "Richmond" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 23, 2012 passage of (see page 94, "ARTICLE 27") 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 in favor of (see "Rockport" at right) instructing their state representative "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?" (See page 62 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the Rockport Town Meeting supporting on September 11, 2012 (see page 32, "Rockport") 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 in favor of (see "Rowe" at right) insructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 14, 2012 passage of a resolution (see page 8, "ARTICLE 26") 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 Royalston voted in favor of (see "Royalston" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Salisbury voted in favor of (see "Salisbury" at right) instructing their state representative "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[.]" (See page 62 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Sandisfield voted in favor of (see "Sandisfield" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Savoy voted in favor of (see "Savoy" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Sheffield voted in favor of (see "Sheffield" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (see page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 7, 2012 passage of a resolution (see pgs. 3-4, "ARTICLE 30") by the Sheffield Town Meeting calling for a constitutional amendment to ban or at least regulate, with punitive assurances, election spending by corporations and similar entities.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Sherborn voted in favor of (see "Sherborn" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Shirley voted in favor of (see "Shirley" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Shutesbury voted 90% to 10% in favor (see page 2, "Question 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 5, 2012 passage of a resolution (see pgs. 5-6, "Article 22") 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 consitutional rights and fair elections to the people.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Somerville voted 83% to 17% in favor (see page 3, "QUESTION 7") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 consitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people. The Board also registered its official support for Senate Docket 01488 (S772), the state's call for a constitutional amendment.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of South Hadley voted 77% to 23% in favor (see "QUESTION 5") when asked (see page 64), "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 Stockbridge voted in favor of (see "Stockbridge" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 21, 2012 passage of a resolution (see pgs. 37-38, "Stockbridge") 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 (see page 3) when asked (see page 64), "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 Sudbury voted 76% to 24% in favor when asked (see "BALLOT QUESTION 4"), "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 in favor of (see "Sunderland" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Swampscott voted 79% to 21% in favor (see page 2, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 62), "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) corporations are not 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 (see "Tisbury" at right) instructing their state legislators "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[.]" (See pgs. 62 and 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the April 10, 2012 passage of a resolution by the Tisbury Town Meeting officialy 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 in favor of (see "Topsfield" at right) instructing their state representative "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[.]" (See page 62 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Truro voted in favor of (see "Truro" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the April 26, 2011 passage of (see page 40, "Truro") a resolution (see pgs. 46-47, "ARTICLE TWENTY-NINE") 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 in favor of (see "Tyringham" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Waltham voted in favor of (see "Waltham" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Warwick voted in favor of (see "Warwick" at right) instructing their state senator "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?" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 7, 2012 passage of (see page 41, "Warwick") a resolution (see page 4, "ARTICLE 26") 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 in favor of (see "Washington" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Wayland voted 80% to 20% in favor (see page 3, "QUESTION NO. 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Wellfleet voted in favor of (see "Wellfleet" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the April 26, 2011 passage of a resolution (see page 44, "ARTICLE 52") 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 in favor of (see "Wendell" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the June 4, 2012 passage of (see page 42, "Wendell") a resolution (see "ARTICLE 26") 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 in favor of (see "Wenham" at right) instructing their state representative "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[.]" (See page 62 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of West Newbury voted in favor of (see "West Newbury" at right) instructing their state representative "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[.]" (See page 62 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the West Newbury Town Meeting moving on April 30, 2012 in favor of (see pgs. 36-37, "ARTICLE 16") supporting a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of West Stockbridge voted in favor of (see "West Stockbridge" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Westborough voted 78% to 22% in favor (see page 158, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 153, Ibid), "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 Westhampton voted in favor of (see "Westhampton" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Whately voted 83% to 17% in favor when asked (see page 8), "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 Williamsburg voted 87% to 13% in favor when asked (see page 5, "QUESTION 5"), "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 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 in favor of (see "Williamstown" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.) This followed the May 17, 2011 passage of a resolution (see page 22, "Article 36") 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 in favor of (see "Windsor" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Worthington voted in favor of (see "Worthington" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Wrentham voted 76% to 24% in favor (see page 5, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 Yarmouth voted 77% to 33% in favor (see page 102, "QUESTION 4") when asked (see page 64), "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 December 11, 2012, the Town of Watertown passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

      • On April 10, 2013, the Scituate Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 53-54, "ARTICLE 29") 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.

      • On April 27, 2013, the Town of Nahant passed its second resolution, calling on Massachusetts legislators and the state's delegation to the US Congress to support any constitutional amendment based on the idea that corporations are not people, and money is not speech; they can be regulated. Nahant also stipulated that nothing should be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

      • On May 4, 2013, the Ashburnham Town Meeting passed a resolution (page 11) calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of real people, nor is money speech.

      • On May 6, 2013, the Saugus Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 4-5, "Article 25") calling for a constitutional amendment to affirm that corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, nor is money speech.

      • On May 6, 2013, the Sandwich Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 45-46, "Article 24") calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and restore the First Amendment and fair elections to we the people.

      • On May 7, 2013, the Essex Town Meeting carried a motion (see page 9, "Article 41") 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 in favor (see "Essex" at right) when asked (see page 4, "QUESTION #5"), "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) corporations are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings, and (2) both Congress and the states may place limits on political contributions and political spending?" (See page 62 for districtwide results.)

      • On May 8, 2013, the Oxford Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 133) 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 13, 2013, the Monson Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 11-13, "Article 27") 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 May 20, 2013, the Brimfield Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 24-25, "ARTICLE 45") calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.

      • On June 26, 2013, the Hawley Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 52-53, "Article 14") 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. (See pgs. 47-48, "Article 43" for an earlier attempt at similar action.) This followed a successful ballot question. On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Hawley voted in favor of (see "Hawley" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On May 13, 2014, the Andover Town Meeting passed (see page 2, item 64) a resolution (see page 24, "Constitutional Amendment") 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. (Click here for more information.)

      • On May 20, 2014, the North Andover Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 35-36, "Article 13") calling for a constitutional amendment to clarify that entities created by law, including corporations, are not entitled to the constitutional rights of human beings.

      • On November 4, 2014, the citizens of Ashland voted 75% to 25% in favor (see page 4, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 Avon voted 72% to 28% in favor (see page 4, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 Bedford voted 75% to 25% in favor (see "QUESTION 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 a November 6, 2012 vote by the citizens of Bedford 79% to 21% in favor of (see page 143, "QUESTION 4") instructing their state senator (see page 64) "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 4, 2014, the citizens of Burlington voted 73% to 27% in favor (see page 2, "Question 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 May 20, 2013 passage of, following a failed amendment vote, (pgs. 9-10) a resolution (pgs. 12-13) 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 (see page 5, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 Danvers voted 75% to 25% in favor (see page 4, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 Dunstable voted 75% to 25% in favor (see page 4, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 Fitchburg voted 70% to 30% in favor (see page 4, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 following advisory question (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6") was on the ballot (see page 3, second "Question 5" and "Question 6") in seventeen of Framingham's eighteen precincts: "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?" The vote in those precincts was 72% to 28%, and the more than 10,000 votes in favor would also have been enough to pass the question townwide. (Ibid) This followed the April 24, 2012 passage of a resolution (see page 8) 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 (see page 3, "QUESTION 6") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 Groton voted 75% to 25% in favor when asked (see page 3, "Question 5"), "Shall the state representative form this district be instructed to vote for a resolution calling upon Congress to propose an amendment affriming 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 (see page 2, "Question 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 Hopkinton voted 74% to 26% in favor (see page 5) when asked (see page 4, "QUESTION 5"), "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 following advisory question (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6") was on the ballot (see page 4, "QUESTION #5") in fifteen of Malden's sixteen precincts: "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?" The vote in those precincts was 72% to 28%, and the more than 7,000 votes in favor would also have been enough to pass the question citywide. (Ibid)

      • On November 4, 2014, the citizens of Marion voted 72% to 28% in favor (see page 5, "QUESTION #5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 Mattapoisett voted 73% to 27% in favor when asked (see page 2, "QUESTION 5"), "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 Medway voted 74% to 26% in favor (see page 3, "QUEST 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 May 14, 2012 passage of a resolution (see pgs. 110-111, "ARTICLE 48") 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 (see page 5, "QUESTION 5"), "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 (see page 5, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see page 6, Ibid), "Shall the state representativ[e] 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 Peabody voted 72% to 28% in favor (see page 2, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 Pepperell voted 75% to 25% in favor (see page 4, "Question 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 Sharon voted 75% to 25% in favor when asked (see page 6, "QUESTION 5"), "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 (see pgs. 13-14, "ARTICLE 10") 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 (see page 2, "QUESTION 5") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 a November 6, 2012 vote by the citizens of Southborough in favor of (see "Southborough" at right) instructing their state senator "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[.]" (See page 64 for full text and districtwide results.)

      • On November 4, 2014, the citizens of Townsend voted 74% to 26% in favor (see page 4) when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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 West Bridgewater voted 72% to 28% in favor (see page 4, "QUESTION FIVE") when asked (see fifth section down, "QUESTION 5 or 6"), "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?"

     

    Montana


    • State Resolutions

      • On November 6, 2012, Ballot Initiative 166, Stand with Montanans, passed in Montana with 75% of the vote. Initiative 166 established "a state policy that corporations are not entitled to constitutional rights because they are not human beings, and charges Montana elected and appointed officials, state and federal, to implement that policy. With this policy, the people of Montana establish that there should be a level playing field in campaign spending, in part by prohibiting corporate campaign contributions and expenditures and by limiting political spending in elections. Further, Montana's congressional delegation is charged with proposing a joint resolution offering a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not human beings entitled to constitutional rights."

        Other attempts include:

        63rd Legislature, 2013 Regular Session: SJ 19

        62nd Legislature, 2011 Regular Session: HJ 10

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On November 8, 2011, Missoulians voted 75% to 25% in favor of (see "MISSOULA CITY REFERENDUM") urging (see page 2, "Ballot statement") "the Montana State Legislature and United States Congress to amend the United States Constitution to clearly state that corporations are not human beings and do not have the same rights as citizens."

      • On May 2, 2012, the City Council of Hot Springs unanimously passed a resolution supporting an amendment to overturn Citizens United and provide that corporations are not people.

     

    New Jersey


    • State Resolutions

      • SR 47, introduced by State Senator Jeff Van Drew passed in the Senate on October 4, 2012. AR 86, introduced by State Representative Herb Conway passed in the Assembly on October 18, 2012 by a roll call vote. The companion bills "expresses strong opposition to the United States Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and calls upon the Congress of the United States to propose a constitutional amendment to provide that with regard to corporation campaign spending, a person means only a natural person for First Amendment protection of free speech.

        Other attempts include:

        214th Legislature (2010-2011): AR 64

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On December 26, 2012, the Elizabeth City Council passed a resolution (see page 19) 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 April 10, 2012, the Franklin Township Council passed a resolution (see page 19, "Resolution #12-167") calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

      • On October 16, 2012, the Highland Park Borough Council passed (see page 1, "Consent Agenda") a resolution (see page 2, "No. 10-12-288") calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

      • On October 16, 2012, the Lawrence Township Council passed (see page 2, "Resolution (8-C)," and pgs. 7-8, Ibid) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

      • On September 10, 2012, the Princeton Township Committee passed (see pgs. 1-2, "Consent Agenda") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. (Scroll down here for more information, and also check out letters to the editor of Times of Trenton and Princeton Patch. Note that the Township of Princetown and Borough of Princeton have since merged.)

      • 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 March 27, 2013, the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders considered (see item 46) and passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to limit corporate and individual spending in our elections.

      • 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.

     

    New Mexico


    • State Resolutions

      • HM 4, introduced by Representative Stewart, passed in a 38-29 vote in the House on January 30, 2012. SM 3, introduced by Senator Fischmann, passed in a 20-9 vote in the Senate on February 7, 2012. The companion bills "express strong opposition to the United States supreme court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and call upon the United States congress to propose and send to the states for ratification an amendment to the United States constitution to restore republican democracy to the people of the United States."

        Other attempts include:

        50th Legislature, 1st Session (2011): HJM 36

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On January 11, 2012, the Santa Fe City Council passed (see page 31, item 11) 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 14, 2012, the Taos Town Council passed (see item 10A) a resolution opposing Citizens United and caling for a constitutional amendment to restore democracy to our republic.

      • On April 17, 2012, the Taos County Board of County Commissioners 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.

     

    Oregon


    • State Resolutions

      • On July 1, 2013, the Oregon State Legislature passed HJM 6, a resolution introduced by State Representatives Brian Clem and Paul Holvey to respectfully "urge the Congress of the United States of America to propose and send to the states for ratification an amendment to the United States Constitution consistent with the findings of this memorial, clarifying the distinction between the rights of natural persons and the rights of corporations and other legal entities . . . [and to] clarify that Congress and state legislatures may regulate all moneys raised and spent for political purposes."

        Other attempts include:

        2013 Regular Session: HJM 5, SJM 9

        2011 Regular Session: HJM 9

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On January 12, 2012, the Portland City Council passed (see pgs. 83-100, item 49) a resolution positing that corporations should not have the constitutional rights that natural persons possess, 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. (Click here for more information.) The Council also called for a legal review of putting the question of corporate personhood before the citizens of Portland. (We know of no such vote having taken place.)

      • On March 6, 2012, the Coos Bay City Council passed (see pgs. 3-4, "Resolution 12-04") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.

      • On April 12, 2012, the Yachats City Council passed (see page 1, item III) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.

      • 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.

      • On May 7, 2012, the Silverton City Council passed (see pgs. 3-4, item 5.3) a resolution (see pgs. 35-41) 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 May 15, 2012, the City Council of Newport passed a resolution supporting a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and the doctrine that money is not speech.

      • On June 26, 2012, the Baker City Council passed (see pgs. 3-4, item 6) 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 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 November 6, 2012, Ashlandians voted 80% to 20% in favor (see 15-116) when asked (Ibid), "Shall Ashland voters instruct Congress to amend U.S. Constitution 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 amendmendment to establish federal and state authority to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.

      • On November 6, 2012, Eugenians voted 74% to 26% in favor (page 7) when asked, "Shall Congress send to States 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 consitutional rights and the urgent need to curb corporations' unlimited independent expenditures, and calling for a constitutional amendment that addresses such threats to representative government.

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Corvallis voted 76% to 24% in favor (see page 8, "02-81 CITY OF CORVALLIS") when asked (see pgs. 28-29), "Shall the City urge elected representatives to support Constitutional Amendment denying artificial entities’ personhood and rejecting money as speech?" (See "November 6, 2012 General Election" and pgs. 8-13, from "Ralph Bolger" to item V, and pgs. 17-19 for more information.)

      • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Lincoln County voted 70% to 30% in favor (see "Measure 21-146") when asked (see pgs. 9-10, and page 30, "21-146" under "Lincoln County Measures"), "Should citizens urge Congress/Oregon Legislature to amend Constitution to clarify corporation/union political speech rights, allowing campaign finance regulation and limits?"

      • On April 2, 2013, the Beaverton City Council passed (see pgs. 1-2, "Visitor Comment Period," and pgs. 5-6, item 13080) a resolution calling for a constiutional amendment to establish that legislatures may regulate money that is raised and spent for political purposes.

     

    Rhode Island


    • State Resolutions

      • H7899 was introduced by Speaker of the House Gordon Fox and passed on May 8, 2012. S2656 was introduced by State Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed and passed on May 24, 2012. Governor Lincoln Chafee signed the joint resolutions on May 30, 2012. The companion bills respectfully urge "the Congress of the United States to pass and send to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to effectively overturn the holding of Citizens United and its progeny and to permit the governments of the United States and the several states to regulate and restrict independent political expenditures by corporations and wealthy individuals."

        Other attempts include:

        2013 Session: H 6051

        2011 Session: H 6156

        2010 Session: H 8186

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

     

    Vermont


    • State Resolutions

      • JRS 11, introduced on January 21, 2011 by Senator Virginia Lyons (D-Chittendon), passed the Senate on April 12, 2012 and the House on April 19, 2012. On behalf of the Vermont Legislature, JRS 11 "expresses its disagreement with the holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley and in Citizens United that money is speech" and "urges Congress to consider the request of many Vermont cities and towns to propose a constitutional amendment for the state's consideration that provides that money is not speech and corporations are not persons under the U.S. Constitution and that also affirms the constitutional rights of natural persons." 2014 update. On March 18, JRS 27 began moving in the Senate Committee on Judiciary. This resolution, which calls for a constitutional convention to propose amendments limiting the electoral influence of corporate money, including by overturning Citizens United, passed the State Senate on March 21 and the State House on May 2.

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On March 3, 2012, the Thetford Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 20, "ARTICLE 13") 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 (see page 1, "ARTICLE XVII," and page 2) calling for all possible actions to restore elections to the people, including a constitutional amendment to affirm that money is not speech, nor are corproations and unions persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 5, 2012, the Bristol Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 70, "ARTICLE 17") 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 (see pgs. 96-97, "Article 21") 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 (see page 53, "ARTICLE 16") 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 (see pgs. 114-115, "Article 16") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor do corporations possess the constitutional rights of persons.

      • On March 5, 2012, the Ripton Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 47, "Article 7") 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 Shelburne Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 68, "ARTICLE III") calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that individual persons, not corporations, have the right of free speech, and hence the right to spend funds to influence elections.

      • On March 5, 2012, the Williston 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. (Click here for more information.)

      • 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 (see page 7, "ARTICLE 24") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, in Bolton, citizens nearly unanimously voted to pass a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision and clarify that corporations are not people.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Brandon Town Meeting moved in favor of (see page 4, item 4 under March 6, 2012) supporting campaign finance reform and calling for a constitutional amendment to effectively reverse Citizens United.

      • On March 6, 2012, citizens at a town hall meeting in Brattleboro passed a resolution that condemns Citizens United and supports a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court ruling.

      • On March 6, 2012, the citizens of Burlington voted 79% to 21% in favor (see page 1, "Question 3") when asked 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 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 City of Burlington send its resolution to Vermont State and Federal representatives within thirty days of passage of this measure[.]”

      • On March 6, 2012, the Calais Town Meeting passed (see "Calais") a resolution (see "ARTICLE 24") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, a town hall meeting in Charlotte voted in favor of a resolution that calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision and clarify that corporations are not people.

      • On March 6, 2012, the citizens of Chittenden voted 67% to 33% in favor when asked to urge (see page 2, "Article 16") "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 Craftsbury Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 4-5, "Article 18") 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 East Montpelier Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 121, "Art. 16") 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 (see page 13, "Article 20") 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 (see page 9, "Art. 18") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, citizens at a town hall meeting in Granville voted to pass a resolution that condemns Citizens United and supports a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Greensboro Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 66, "Article 16") 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 (see page 39, "Article 21") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, citizens in Hartland voted in favor of a resolution that calls for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United.

      • On March 6, 2012, a town hall meeting in Hartford voted to pass a resolution that condemns Citizens United and supports a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling

      • On March 6, 2012, the Huntington Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 10-11, "Article 12") 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 (see pgs. 12-13, "ARTICLE VII") 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 (see pgs. 13-14, "Article 13") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, a town hall meeting in Middletown Springs voted in favor of a resolution that supports a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and clarifies that corporations are not people protected by the First Amendment.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Monkton Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 12-13, "Article 8") 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, in Montgomery, a town hall meeting passed a resolution that condemns Citizens United and favors a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Montpelier City Meeting passed a resolution (see page 102, "ARTICLE 40") 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 Moretown Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 69-70, item 29) 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 citizens at a town hall meeting passed a resolution that condemns Citizens United and supports a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling.

      • On March 6, 2012, a town hall meeting in Newbury voted in favor of a resolution that calls for a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision and clarify that corporations are not people protected by the First Amendment.

      • On March 6, 2012, citizens at a town hall meeting in Newfane voted to pass a resolution that condemns Citizens United and favors a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Norwich Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 18, "Article 28") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, a town hall meeting in Peru voted to pass a resolution that condemns Citizens United and favors a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Plainfield Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 11, "Art. 11") 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 corproate election spending (including a "personal funds" amendment, see page 55, "Article 18"), and another declaring that corporations are not people and do not enjoy the rights of natural persons (see page 55, "Article 17").

      • On March 6, 2012, the Randolph Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 7, "Jeffrey Tolbert") 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 (see pgs. 9-10, "Article 15") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, in Rochester, citizens voted to pass a resolution that condemns Citizens United and favors a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Roxbury Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 55, "Art. 12") 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 Rutland City voted 67% to 33% in favor of (see page 4, first item) calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, in Rutland Town, citizens voted to pass a resolution condemning Citizens United and support a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Sharon Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 11, "ARTICLE 6") 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 Shrewsbury Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 15-16, item 30) calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not political speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, Article III (see page 10) passed (see "South Burlington") 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 Starksboro Town Meeting passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment in response to Citizens United.

      • 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, a town hall meeting in Tunbridge passed a resolution that condemns Citizens United and supports a constitutional amendment to reverse the ruling.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Underhill Town Meeting passed (see page 2) a resolution calling for a consitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Waitsfield Town Meeting passed a resolution (see "ARTICLE 14") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, at a town hall meeting in Walden, citizens voted to pass a resolution that condemns Citizens United and favors a constitutional amendment to overturn the ruling.

      • On March 6, 2012, citizens in Waltham voted in favor of a resolution that supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Warren Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 3, "Article 12") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, in West Haven, citizens voted to pass a resolution supporting a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision and clarify that corporations are not people.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Williamstown Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 3, "Art. 33") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

      • On March 6, 2012, in Windsor, citizens at a town hall meeting voted to pass a resolution that supports a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United decision and clarifies that corporations are not people protected by the First Amendment.

      • On March 6, 2012, a town hall meeting in Winooski voted in favor of a resolution that supports a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

      • On March 6, 2012, citizens in Woodbury passed a resolution that condemns Citizens United and favors a constitutional amendment to reverse the decision.

      • On March 6, 2012, the Worcester Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 4, "ARTICLE 17") calling for a constitutional amendment to provide that money is not speech, nor are corporations persons under the US Constitution.

     

    West Virginia


    • State Resolutions

      • SR 24, introduced by Senator Herb Snyder, passed in the Senate on April 10, 2013. HR 9, introduced by Delegate Meshea Poore, passed in the House of Delegates on March 28, 2013. These companion resolutions call upon Congress to propose an amendment "to establish that corporations and unions are not entitled to the same rights and protections as natural persons under the Constitution" and that "such an amendment should assure the power of the federal, state and local governments to limit, regulate and require disclosure of sources of all money spent to influence elections."

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On January 26, 2012, the Jefferson County Commission passed a resolution (see pgs. 1-2, "PUBLIC COMMENT," and pgs. 5-6, "Resolution opposing" through "Lyn Widmyer") 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 5, 2012, Charles Town passed a resolution calling on the US Congress to amend the constitution to state that only living persons are endowed with constitutional rights and that money is not the same as free speech.

      • On March 8, 2012, the Martinsburg City Council passed (see page 4, item 14(a)) a resolution asking Congress to take what steps are necessary, including but not limited to a constitutional amendment, to ensure a fair and equitable electoral process. (See page 2, item 8(c) and page 2, item 8(b) for more information.)

      • On April 2, 2012, the Saint Albans City Council passed a resolution (see page 2) 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.


    States Not Yet Passed, DC, and US Territories



    Alabama


    • State Resolutions
    • Local Resolutions - Passed

     

    Alaska


    • State Resolutions

      • Alaska has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        28th Legislature (2013-2014): HJR 8, SJR 7

        27th Legislature (2011-2012): HJR 33, SJR 13

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • 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.

     

    American Samoa


    • Territorial Resolutions
    • Local Resolutions - Passed

     

    Arizona


    • State Resolutions

      • Arizona has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        51st Legislature, 1st Regular Session (2013): HCR 2018

        50th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session (2012): HCR 2049, SCR 1040

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On May 1, 2012, the Flagstaff City Council passed (see page 6, item 14C) 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 corprations and similar entities are not people.

      • On June 12, 2012, the Tucson City Council passed (see item 9) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood and reclaim our sovereign right to self-governance.

     

    Arkansas


    • State Resolutions

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On May 14, 2012, the Eureka Springs City Council passed (see page 5, item 1) 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 June 5, 2012, the Fayetteville City Council passed (pgs. 11-13) 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 (see page 6, item R-12-139) 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 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 January 22, 2013, the Conway City Council passed (pgs. 6-7) a resolution (page 37) 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.

     

    District of Columbia


    • District Resolutions - Passed

      • On February 5, 2013, the Council of the District of Columbia passed (see especially "Bill History") 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.)

     

    Florida


    • State Resolutions

      • Florida has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        Regular Session 2012: HM 1275, SM 1576

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On October 4, 2011, the South Miami City Commission passed (see page 6, item 6) 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.

      • 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 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 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 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.

      • On January 15, 2013, the Lake Worth City Commission passed (see pgs. 3-4, item 9) a resolution (pgs. 44-46) calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United, in addition to other corrective legislation.

      • On November 4, 2014, the citizens of Alachua County voted 72% to 28% in favor (see page 2, "Alachua County Question 2") when asked (Ibid), "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 poltiical cotnributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech?" (Click here for more information.)

     

    Georgia


    • State Resolutions

      • Georgia has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        2013-2014 Regular Session: SR 410

        2011-2012 Regular Session: HR 1377

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On March 21, 2013, the Savannah City Council passed a resolution (pgs. 9-11) 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 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.)

     

    Guam


    • Territorial Resolutions
    • Local Resolutions - Passed

     

    Idaho


    • State Resolutions

      • Idaho has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        60th Legislature, 2nd Regular Session (2010): HJM 12

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • 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.

     

    Indiana


    • State Resolutions

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On June 20, 2012, the Bloomington City Council passed (see pgs. 2-4, "Resolution 12-09") 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.

     

    Iowa


    • State Resolutions

      • Iowa has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        84th General Assembly (1/10/2011-1/13/2013): SR 113

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On February 3, 2014, the Dubuque City Council passed (see page 11, item 14) 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 March 3, 2014, the Buffalo City Council passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

     

    Kansas


    • State Resolutions

      • Kansas has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        Session of 2013: SCR 1607

        Session of 2012: SCR 1617

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

     

    Kentucky



    • State Resolutions

      • Kentucky has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        2013 Regular Session: HCR 6

        2011 Regular Session: HR 14

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

     

    Louisiana


    • State Resolutions
    • Local Resolutions - Passed

     

    Michigan


    • State Resolutions

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On August 21, 2012, the Ypsilanti City Council passed (see page 9, above item XII) a resolution (see pgage 6, item 4) calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and clarify that constitutional rights are not extended to corporations.

      • 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 part of the constitutional amendment advocacy by Move to Amend and allied organizations. 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 September 24, 2012, the Lansing City Council passed a resolution (see page 3, "Resolution #2012-211") calling for full disclosure of independent expenditures in federal, state, and local elections, and for a constiutitional amendment stating that corporations are not people, money is not speech, and federal, state, and local governments can regulate election expenditures.

      • On September 24, 2012, the Ingham County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment "to defend democracy from the corrupting influences of undue corporate power through campaign contributions."

      • 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 November 25, 2013, the Ferndale City Council passed (see item 7B and "Moved" below item 7D) 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.

     

    Minnesota


    • State Resolutions

      • Minnesota has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        88th Legislature (2013-2014): HF 276, SF 17

        87th Legislature (2011-2012): HF 914, SF 683

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • On December 19, 2011, the Duluth City Council passed a resolution (see pgs. 14-15, "Resolution 11-0691") 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.

      • 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 June 15, 2012, the Minneapolis City Council passed (see item 2 under "Committee of the Whole") 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 (Ibid) amendment support in the Transparency in Elections section of its FY 2013 Federal Agenda. (See item 2b for more information.)

     

    Mississippi


    • State Resolutions

      • Mississippi has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        2013 Regular Session: HCR 22

        2012 Regular Session: HCR 108

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • 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.

     

    Missouri


    • State Resolutions

      • Missouri has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        96th General Assembly, 2nd Regular Session (2012): HCR 38

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

      • 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.

      • 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 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 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 entitites 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 entitites are not entitled to inalienable 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 entitites 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 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 entitites are not entitled to inalienable constitutional rights, nor is money speech.

     

    Nebraska


    • State Resolutions

      • Nebraska has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

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

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

    Nevada


    • State Resolutions

      • Nevada has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

        2013 77th Regular Session: SJR 11

    • Local Resolutions - Passed

       

      New Hampshire


      • State Resolutions

        • New Hampshire has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

          2013 Session: HCR 2, HR 7

          2011 Session: HCR 1, HR 8

      • Local Resolutions - Passed

        • On March 14, 2012, the Bradford Town Meeting passed a resolution (See 03.14.12, "Article Thirty Two") calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are note entitled to human rights, nor is corporate spending constitutionally protected speech.

        • In 2012, Barnstead voted to pass a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

        • On April 9, 2013, the Conway Town Meeting passed a resolution (page 21) 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 February 19, 2014, the Town of Andover voted on a resolution urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.

        • On February 19, 2014, the Newmarket Town Council passed (see pgs. 7-8, "Resolution #2013/2014-50") a resolution (see pgs. 43-45) 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. (Click here for more information.)

        • On March 11, 2014, the citizens of Alstead voted 59% to 41% in favor (see "Article #24") 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 constitution rights were established for people, not corporations. That the New Hampshire Congressional delegation support such a constitutional 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 in writing by the Selectmen to Alstead’s congressional delegation, and to Alstead’s state legislators, and to the President of the United states, informing them of the instructions from their constituents, within 30 days of the vote,."

        • On March 11, 2014, the citizens of Amherst voted 61% to 39% in favor when asked (see page 4, "ARTICLE 41"), "Shall the town of Amherst, New Hampshire 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 guarantees the right of our elected representatives and of the American people to safeguard fair elections through authorities 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 record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted by written notice to the Amherst’s congressional delegation, and to Amherst’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 Atkinson voted 69% to 31% in favor when asked (see page 5, "2014-27"), "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 esnure 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 (see page 6, "Article 26"): "Resolved, the People of Barrington, New Hampshire, stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities across the country to defend democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate power by amending the United States Constitution to establish that: 1 Only human beings, not corporations, 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 People of Barrington, New Hampshire, hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort."

        • On March 11, 2014, Article 6 (see page 1) passed (see "Bridgewater") in Bridgewater. It reads: "To see it the town will vote to call upon the US Congress with the support of the NH State Legislature, to move forward with a Constitutional Amendment to regulate political spending and clarify that constitutional rights were established for people and not corporations and, if such an amendment be approved, that the NH State Legislature support such and amendment if sent to the State for ratification."

        • On March 11, 2014, the Town of Chesterfield voted on a resolution urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

        • On March 11, 2014, Article 2014-31 (see page 6) passed (see "Danville") in Danville. It reads: "By petition of 25 or more eligible voters of the town of DANVILLE, NH 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 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 DANVILLE’s congressional delegation, and to DANVILLE’s state legislators, and to the President of the United States informing them of the instructions from their constituents by the Board of Selectmen within 30 days of the vote."

        • On March 11, 2014, the citizens of Deerfield voted 74% to 26% when asked (see page 3, "Article # 13"): "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. That record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted by written notice to DEERFIELD, NH's congressional delegation, and to DEERFIELD, NH's state legislators, and to the President of the United States informing them of the instructions from their constituents by the Board of Selectmen within 30 days of the vote."

        • On March 11, 2014, the Eaton Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 6, "ARTICLE #16") 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 Exeter voted 74% to 26% in favor when asked (see page 4, "Article 23"): "Shall the town vote 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 the 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. And furthermore, that this Town Meeting vote be a record that, We the People want Congress and our state legislature to: * Institute full, effective and immediate electronic disclosure of all election-related spending by any individual[,] group, corporation, party or institution. * Provide for fair, nonpartisan and vigorous enforcement of existing campaign laws and regulations by federal and state agencies. * Enact an absolute ban on campaign contributions by foreign governments, foreign agencies, foreign corporations or their subsidiaries and employees in the U.S. * Enact legislation that would cut down on the influence of big bankroll donors by mutliplying the power of small donations through the use of voter vouchers, tax credits and matching public funds. The record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted by written notice to Exeter's congressional delegation, and to Exeter's state legislators, and to the President of the United States informing them of the instructions from their constituents by the Board of Selectmen within 30 days of the vote."

        • On March 11, 2014, the citizens of Hampstead voted 74% to 26% in favor (see page 2, "ARTICLE 17") when asked to urge (see page 4, Ibid): "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 Town of Harrisville voted on a resolution urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

        • On March 11, 2014, the citizens of Hudson voted 58% to 42% in favor (see page 2, "Article 17") when asked to urge (see page 4, Ibid): "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 when asked (see page 8, "ARTICLE 22"): "[S]hall the Town vote to join nearly 500 municipalities in 16 other states, including all the other New England states, in calling upon Congress to move forward a constitutional amendment to safeguard fair elections through the authority to regulate political spending, and clarify that the 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; and that the record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted by written notice to Kingston’s state and federal legislative delegation by the Board of Selectmen within 30 days of the vote?"

        • On March 11, 2014, the citizens of Lee voted 73% to 27% in favor when asked to urge (see "ARTICLE 4"): "[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 citizens of Lyme voted overwhelmingly in favor when asked to urge (see pgs. 5-6, "ARTICLE 17"): "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 natural persons only, not corporations, unions, or other artificial entities. 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 states for ratification. Within 30 days of approval of this article, the Select Board shall transmit by written notice the record of the vote to Lyme’s congressional delegation, to Lyme’s state legislators, and to the President of the United States, informing them of the instructions from their constituents." (Click here for more information.)

        • On March 11, 2014, Warrant Article 25 (see page 12) passed (see "Milford") in Milford. It reads: "Shall the Town 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 guarantees the right of our elected representatives and 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 Milford’s congressional delegation, and to Milford’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 New Boston voted 74% to 26% in favor when asked to urge (see page 18, "Article 29"): "That the New Hampshire State Legislature join nearly 500 other 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 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 Boston’s congressional delegation, and to New Boston’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 Newfields voted 67% to 33% in favor when asked to urge (see page 3, "Article 11"): "That the New Hampshire State Legislature join nearly 500 other 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. 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 Newfields' congressional delegation, and to Newfields' state legislators, and to the Governor of New Hampshire, 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." (See page 10, "Article 11" for more information.)

        • On March 11, 2014, the citizens of Northwood voted 65% to 35% to pass a resolution (see page 3, "Article 19"): "RESOLVED, the People of Northwood, New Hampshire, stand with communities across the country to defend democracy from the corrupting effects of undue corporate power by amending the United States Constitution to estsablish that: 1. Only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with csontitutional 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 People of Northwood, New Hampshire, hereby instruct our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort."

        • On March 11, 2014, the citizens of Pelham voted 68% to 32% when asked to urge (see page 2, "ARTICLE 15"): "[T]hat the 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 Pelham’s congressional delegation, and to Pelham’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." (Click here and here for more information.)

        • On March 11, 2014, the Town of Piermont voted on a resolution urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

        • On March 11, 2014, the citizens of Rindge voted 71% to 29% in favor when asked to urge (see page 7, "Article 32"): "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, the Town of Salem voted on a resolution urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision.

        • On March 11, 2014, Article 10 (see page 3) passed (see "Sharon") 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 consitutitional amendment. That the New Hampshire State Leigslature 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 when asked to urge (see page 4, "Article 36"): "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 supports such a constitutional amendment. That the New Hampshire State Legislature supports 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 Wakefields’s congressional delegation, and to Wakefield’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, Waterville Valley passed Article 9. According to the New Hampshire Union Leader, the Article "directs the New Hampshire Legislature to call upon Congress to 'move forward a constitutional amendment' that would 'safeguard fair elections through the authority to regulate political spending[.]'" (Click here for more information.)

        • On March 11, 2014, the citizens of Windham voted 65% to 35% in favor when asked to urge (see page 4, "ARTICLE 28"): "To see of 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." (Click here for more information.)

        • On March 12, 2014, the Town of Hollis voted on a resolution urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

        • On March 12, 2014, the Warner Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 23, "Article 22") calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.

        • On March 13, 2014, the Sandwich Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 9, "ARTICLE 49") 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 14, 2014, the Town of Plymouth voted on a resolution urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

        • On March 14, 2014, the Stratham Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 14-15, "Article 13") 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 Bristol Town Meeting passed (see "Bristol") a resolution (see page 7, "Article 25") 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 15, 2014, the Dorchester Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 5, item 12) 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 (see page 15, "ARTICLE 24") calling for a constitutional amendment to gaurantee the authority to regulate poltical 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 dislcosure 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 (see "Groton") a resolution (see page 6, "ARTICLE 31") 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 (see "Hancock") a resolution (see page 10, "ARTICLE 19") 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 Henniker Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 7-8, item 20) 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 Town of Jaffrey voted on a resolution urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

        • On March 15, 2014, the Nottingham Town Meeting passed a resolution (see "Article # 18") 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 (see pgs. 3-4, "Article 4") 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 (see pgs. 13-14, "ARTICLE 19") 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.

        • On March 19, 2014, the New Durham Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 11-12, "Article 11") 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 May 13, 2014, the Hanover Town Meeting passed a resolution (see page 4, "ARTICLE NINETEEN") 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, unions, or other artificial entities. (See page 9, "Article Nineteen," and page 15 for more information.)

        • On May 13, 2014, Article 10 (see page 8) passed (see "Peterborough") in Peterborough. It reads: "By petition of 25 or more eligible voters of the town of Peterborough, New Hampshire to see if the town will 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 that 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 send it to the State for ratification. The record of the vote approving this article shall be transmitted by written notice to Peterborough's congressional delegation, and to Peterborough'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 May 14, 2014, the Sanbornton Town Meeting passed a resolution (see pgs. 11-12, item 14) 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.

       

      New York


      • State Resolutions

        • New York has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

          2011-12: K01016

      • Local Resolutions - Passed

        • On December 5, 2011, the Albany Common Council passed a resolution (see pgs. 1 and 5-6, "93.121.11R") calling for legislation to limit corporate personhood. While the resolution text does not specifically suggest or urge a constitutional amendment, it does refer to Council's support of the Move to Amend campaign relating to corporate personhood as decided in Citizens United, and is therefore considered amendment advocacy.

        • On December 28, 2011, the Brighton Town Board passed (see page 8, "Move to Amend") a resolution (see pgs. 43-44) 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 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 January 10, 2012, the Buffalo Common Council passed (see page 16, item 66) 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 February 1, 2012, the Ithaca Common Council passed a resolution (see page 4, item 14.1, and pgs. 19-20, Ibid) 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 13, 2012, the Danby Town Board passed a resolution (see page 4, "Corporate Personhood Question") 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 (see page 3, item 3) a resolution (see pgs. 35-36) 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 March 27, 2012, the Yonkers City Council passed a resolution (see pgs. 20-21) 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 April 23, 2012, the Peekskill Common Council passed (see pgs. 6-7, "Opposing") 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 May 8, 2012, the Mount Kisco Village Board of Trustees passed a resolution (see pgs. 4-5, item 6A) 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 June 13, 2012, the Mount Vernon City Council passed a resolution (see page 2, item 2, and page 4) 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 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. (The above-mentioned resolution pages contain links to more information.)

        • 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 August 6, 2012, the Corning City Council passed a resolution (see pgs. 6-7, "MOTION BY COCCHO") calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.

        • On April 9, 2014, the Caroline Town Board passed a resolution (see pgs. 4-6, "Resolution 94 of 2014") calling for a constitutional amendment to state that the inalienable rights recognized by the Constiution 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 May 15, 2014, the Dryden Town Board passed a resolution (see pgs. 2-4, "Tiffany" through "McRae," and page 10, "Resolution to Amend Constitution") 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.

       

      North Carolina

       

      North Dakota


      • State Resolutions
      • Local Resolutions - Passed

       

      Northern Mariana Islands


      • Territorial Resolutions
      • Local Resolutions - Passed

       

      Ohio


      • State Resolutions

      • Local Resolutions - Passed

        • 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]).

        • On February 21, 2012, the Oberlin City Council passed (see page 12, item 4(J)) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that money is not speech, nor are corporations entitled to constitutional rights.
        • On July 23, 2012, the Barberton City Council passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations are not endowed with constiutional rights, nor is money speech.

        • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Brecksville voted (see page 14, item 25) 52% to 48% in favor of (see "25 - Brecksville Proposed Ordinance") 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. (Click here for more information.)

        • On November 6, 2012, the citizens of Newburgh Heights voted (see page 34, item 69) 74% to 26% in favor of (see "69 - Newburgh Hts Proposed Ordinance") 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. (Click here for more information.)

        • 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 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. The Council also called for a constitutional amendment to curtail corporate ability to make unlimited election donations.

        • On November 5, 2013, the citizens of Cleveland Heights voted (see page 23, item 32) 78% to 22% in favor of (see "32 - Cleveland Hts Ordinance (petition)") 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 (see pgs. 4 and 8-9, "Resolution No. 77-2012") 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 (see page 7, "Occupy Defiance") 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. (See pgs. 1-2 and "November 5, 2013" for more information.)

        • On July 21, 2014, the Lakewood City Council passed (see pgs. 4-5, item 13) a resolution (see pgs. 25-28) 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 4, 2014, the citizens of Chagrin Falls voted 66% to 34% in favor (see page 15, item 34) when asked (see page 15, Ibid), "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 and here and see "2014 November 04" for more information.)

        • On November 4, 2014, the citizens of Mentor voted (see page 2, item 5) 70% to 30% in favor of (see "MENTOR CITY - INITIATIVE PETITION") 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.

       

      Oklahoma


      • State Resolutions
      • Local Resolutions - Passed

       

      Pennsylvania


      • State Resolutions

        • Pennsylvania has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

          Regular Session 2013-2014: HR 293

          Regular Session 2011-2012: SR 264

          Regular Session 2009-2010: HR 653

      • Local Resolutions - Passed

        • 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.

        • On February 14, 2012, the Town of Lancaster passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

        • On May 1, 2012, the Allegheny County Council passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United. (See pgs. 23-26 and 29-41 for more information.)

        • On May 24, 2012, the Wilkes-Barre City Council voted 4-1 in favor of calling for to overturn Citizens United.

        • 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 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 September 8, 2014, the State College Borough Council passed (see page 3, "Citizend United Resolution") 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.

       

      Puerto Rico


      • Territorial Resolutions
      • Local Resolutions - Passed

       

      South Carolina


      • State Resolutions
      • Local Resolutions - Passed

       

      South Dakota


      • State Resolutions
      • Local Resolutions - Passed

       

      Tennessee


      • State Resolutions
      • Local Resolutions - Passed

       

      Texas


      • State Resolutions
      • Local Resolutions - Passed

        • 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.

       

      Utah

       

      Virgin Islands


      • Territorial Resolutions
      • Local Resolutions - Passed

       

      Virginia


      • State Resolutions

      • Local Resolutions - Passed

        • On June 4, 2012, the Charlottesville City Council passed (see pgs. 5-6, "RESOLUTION: MOVE TO AMEND") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.

        • On September 18, 2012, the Arlington County Board passed a resolution (see pgs. 2-3, "Citizens United") 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 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 synonomous with limiting political speech, thus federal and state governments may place limits on election contributions and expenditures.

        • On December 9, 2013, the Falls Church City Council passed (see page 5, "RECEIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS," and pgs. 30-31, "TR13-39") a resolution (see pgs. 68-69, "RESOLUTION 2013-46") calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United and related cases and restore consitutional 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. (See pgs. 2-4, "RECEIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS," and pgs. 13-14, "TR13-39" for more information.)

       

      Washington


      • State Resolutions

        • Washington has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

          63rd Legislature (2013-14): HJM 4001, SJM 8002

          62nd Legislature (2011-12): HJM 4005, SJM 8007

          61st Legislature (2009-10): SJM 8027

      • Local Resolutions - Passed

        • On March 5, 2012, the Port Townsend City Council passed (see pgs. 4-5, "RESOLUTION 12-010") 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 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 May 14, 2012, the Seattle City Council passed (see "Resolution No. 31380" under items F and I) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to state 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 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 (see page 1, "New Business") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United by clarifying that corporations are not people, nor is money speech.

        • On July 23, 2012, the Island County Board of Commissioners passed (see pgs. 3-4, "Resolution C-87-12") a resolution calling for a constitutional to reverse Citizens United by clarifying that corporations are not persons under the US Constitution, nor is money speech, nor is the donation of money to a political campaign constitutionally protected speech.

        • On July 25, 2012, the Snohomish County Council passed (see page 14, item 6) 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 September 25, 2012, the Coupeville Town Council passed (see page 2, "Approval of Resolution 12-06") a resolution (see pgs. 11-12) calling for a constitutional amendment to state 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 11, 2012, the La Conner Town Council passed (see page 2, "Resolution - Amendment") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.

        • 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 December 18, 2012, the Tacoma City Council passed (see pgs. 3-4, "Public Comment," and page 7, "Resolution No. 38596") 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 December 19, 2012, the Walla Walla City Council passed (see page 8, "Resolution No. 2012-97") 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 January 28, 2013, the Sequim City Council passed (see pgs. 5-6, item 9) 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.

        • 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 part of the constitutional amendment advocacy by Move to Amend and allied organizations. Kirkland resident and Move to Amend member Bill Lamarche in Kirkland Reporter: "But he 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 March 5, 2013, the Oak Harbor City Council passed (see page 4, "Resolution 13-02") 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 November 4, 2013, the Anacortes City Council passed (see page 2, "Resolution 1875") a resolution calling for statutory or constitutional amendments to reverse Citizens United.

       

      Wisconsin


      • State Resolutions

        • Wisconsin has yet to pass a resolution at the state level. Attempts include:

          2013-2014 Legislature: AJR 50, SJR 68

          2011-2012 Legislature: AJR 121

      • Local Resolutions - Passed

        • On April 5, 2011, the citizens of Dane County voted 78% to 22% in favor when asked (see "COUNTY" under "REFERENDUM"), "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 Madison voted 84% to 16% in favor of adopting the following resolution (see "CITY" under "REFERENDUM"): "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."

        • On April 3, 2012, Republican Party Primary voters in West Allis approved a resolution (70%) calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

        • On May 7, 2012, the Westport Town Board 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 November 6, 2012, the citizens of Eau Claire County voted 71% to 29% in favor when asked (see pgs. 25-26), "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, unions or PAC's are entitled to constitutional rights?"

        • On April 2, 2013, the citizens of Chippewa County voted 68% to 32% in favor (see page 9, "County Referendum") 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 Fort Atkinson voted 77% to 23% in favor of adopting (see "CITY OF FORT ATKINSON MUNICIPAL REFERENDUM") 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 Whitewater voted 83% to 17% in favor of adopting (see "CITY OF WHITEWATER MUNICIPAL REFERENDUM") the following resolution (see page 2, "Referendum"): "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 June 20, 2013, the Douglas County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution (see pgs. 17-18) calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and to ensure constitutional rights and fair elections to the people.

        • On July 8, 2013, the Exeter Board of Supervisors passed (see "Old Business") 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 July 9, 2013, the Jefferson County Board of Supervisors passed (see page 62, "County Clerk" and "The floor," and pgs. 68-69, "Resolution Nos. 2013-43 and 2013-44") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to state that corporations and similar entities do not have constitutional rights, nor is money speech. (See pgs. 10-12 for more information.)

        • On July 10, 2013, the Koshkonong Board of Supervisors 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 16, 2013, the Oakland 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 Kenosha City Council passed (see page 6, "Resolution 113-13") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations and similar entities do not have constitutional rights, nor is money speech.

        • On August 12, 2013, the Sumner Board of Supervisors passed (see pgs. 5-8, item 13) 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 12, 2013, the Watertown Board of Supervisors passed (see page 2, item 10) 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 20, 2013, the Kenosha County Board of Supervisors passed a resolution (see pgs. 1-2, "RESOLUTION 33") 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 September 5, 2013, the Farmington 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 Jefferson Town Board passed (see item 1 under "Regular Business" on page 1) 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 9, 2013, the Spring Valley Town 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 September 17, 2013, the Richmond Town Board passed (see pgs. 1-2, "Jane Roberts") 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 November 11, 2013, the Cross Plains Town Board of Supervisors passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to permit federal and state governments to regulate the role of money in elections.

        • On December 2, 2013, the Avon Town 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 December 16, 2013, the Porter Town 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 January 14, 2014, the Plymouth Town Board of Supervisors (Rock County) passed (see item 8.1) a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that corporations and similar entities are not endowed with constitutional rights, nor is money speech.

        • On February 10, 2014, the Newark Town 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 April 1, 2014, the citizens of Belleville 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 DeForest 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 Delavan voted 76% to 24% in favor of adopting (see page 9, "C Delavan Referendum") 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."

        • On April 1, 2014, the citizens of Edgerton voted 87% in favor of adopting the following resolution (see pgs. 1-4, "Referendum"): "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 Elkhorn voted 69% to 31% in favor of (see page 9, "C Elkhorn Referendum") a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

        • On April 1, 2014, the citizens of Lake Mills voted 73% to 27% in favor (see "City of Lake Mills Move Amend Referendum") when asked (see page 6, "City of Lake Mills," item 2), "Should the United States Constitution be amended to establish that regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting freedom of speech, and that only human beings, and not corporations or similar associations, are entitled to Constitutional rights?" This followed the September 10, 2013 passage of (see page 1, item 10c) a resolution by the Lake Mills Town Board of Supervisors calling for a constitutional amendment to establish that only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights and money is not speech.

        • On April 1, 2014, the citizens of Shorewood voted 76% to 24% in favor of adopting (see page 2, "Village Referendum") the following resolution: "RESOLVED, the Village of [Shorewood], 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 Waterloo voted 61% to 39% in favor (see "Town of Waterlook Move to Amend Referendum") when asked (see page 6, "Town of Waterloo"), "Should the United States Constitution be amended to establish that regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting freedom of speech, and that only human beings, and not corporations or similar associations, are entitled to Constitutional rights?"

        • On April 1, 2014, the citizens of Waukesha voted 69% in favor of adopting the following resolution: "RESOLVED, the City of Waukehsa, 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."

        • On April 1, 2014, the citizens of Waunakee voted 79% to 21% in favor of adopting (see "Referendum (MOVE to Amend)") the following resolution (see "Referendum," item 2"): "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 Wauwatosa voted 64% to 36% in favor of adopting (see pgs. 5-6, "MUNICIPAL Referendum," especially page 5, "TOTALS") 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 Whitefish Bay voted 65% to 35% in favor of adopting the following resolution: "RESOLVED, the Village of Whitefish Bay, 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 Windsor 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 July 7, 2014, the Janesville Town Board of Supervisors 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 18, 2014, the Dunn Town Board 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 November 4, 2014, the citizens of Appleton 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 accross 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 limited 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 Dunn County voted 72% to 28% in favor (see "Question 2") when asked (Ibid), "Shall the Constitution of the United States of America be amended to state that: 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." (See pgs. 2-3, Ibid for more information.) This followed the July 25, 2012 passage of a resolution (see page 1, "Public Comments," and pgs. 8-9, "RESOLUTION NO. 50") 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 Fond du Lac voted 73% to 27% in favor of adopting (see page 16, "CITY FOND DU LAC") the following resolution (see page 5, "CITY OF FOND DU LAC"): "Whereas, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and related case law, allows unlimited spending to influence local, state, and federal elections; BE IT RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the City of Fond du Lac, 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 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– 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 Green Bay voted 77% to 23% in favor of adopting (see page 4, "City of Green Bay Ref") the following resolution (see page 2, "Municipal"): "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." (Click here and see "November 04, 2014" for more information.)

        • On November 4, 2014, the citizens of Menasha voted 80% to 20% in favor of adopting (see "QUESTION 1" under "Menasha") the following resolution (see page 9, "CITY OF MENASHA"): "WHEREAS, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and related case law allows unlimited spending to influence local, state, and federal elections; and BE IT RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the City of Menasha, 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, here, and here for more information.)

        • On November 4, 2014, the citizens of Milwaukee County voted 78% to 22% in favor (see page 6, "CORPORATION") when asked (see page 2, "MILWAUKEE COUNTY"), "Shall the United States Constitution be amended to establish the following? 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." (Click here and see "Constitutional Rights" for more information.)

        • On November 4, 2014, the citizens of Neenah voted 79% to 21% in favor of adopting (see "Question No. 2") the following resolution (see page 6, "QUESTION #1" under "Neenah"): "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." (Click here for more information.)

        • On November 4, 2014, the citizens of Oregon voted 79% to 21% in favor of adopting (see page 2, "Municipal") the following resolution: "RESOLVED, the people of the Village of Oregon, Wisconsin, call for reclaiming democracy from the corrupting effects of unude corporate influence by amending the U.S. Constitution to estsablish that: 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."

        • On November 4, 2014, the citizens of Park Ridge voted 83% to 17% in favor of adopting (see "MOVE TO AMEND") the following resolution (see page 7, "VILLAGE OF PARK RIDGE"): "WHEREAS, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and related case law allows unlimited spending to influence local, state, and federal elections; and BE IT RESOLVED, that “We the People” of the Village of Park Ridge, 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 Ripon voted 79% to 21% in favor of adopting (see page 17, "CITY RIPON") 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 Stoughton voted 82% to 18% in favor of adopting the following resolution (see page 2, both samples): "Resolved, that “We the People” of the City of Stoughton, 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-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."

        • On November 4, 2014, the citizens of Wausau voted 77% to 23 in favor of adopting (see "City of Wausau Referendum") the following resolution (see pgs. 9-11): "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." (Click here for more information.)

       

      Wyoming


      • State Resolutions
      • Local Resolutions - Passed


      Adding Resolutions to the Endorsers List



      • Contact us to find out how to add a resolution to this list.