0
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States providing that the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.
3/12/2025, 8:07 AM
Summary of Bill HJRES 54
The amendment seeks to address concerns about the influence of corporate money in politics and the idea that corporations have the same rights as individuals. Supporters of the amendment argue that it is necessary to ensure that the government is truly of the people, by the people, and for the people.
If passed, this amendment would have significant implications for campaign finance laws, as it would limit the ability of corporations to spend money on political campaigns. It would also impact the legal standing of corporations in terms of their ability to claim constitutional rights. Opponents of the amendment argue that it could have unintended consequences and restrict the rights of businesses and other organizations. They believe that corporations should have the same rights as individuals under the Constitution. Overall, Bill 119 hjres 54 is a controversial proposal that aims to address the issue of corporate influence in politics and clarify the rights of natural persons under the Constitution. It is currently being debated in Congress, and its outcome remains uncertain.
Congressional Summary of HJRES 54
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment providing that the rights protected and extended by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only. Artificial entities, such as corporations, shall have no rights under the Constitution and are subject to regulation.
The amendment requires federal, state, and local governments to (1) regulate, limit, or prohibit election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate's own contributions and expenditures, to ensure equal access of citizens to the political process, regardless of economic status; and (2) require that any permissible contributions and expenditures be publicly disclosed.
Additionally, the judiciary is prohibited from construing the spending of money to influence elections to be speech under the First Amendment.





