Overturning Citizens United and Redefining Money as Speech: The Money is Not Speech Act (MINSA)

Background:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) has significantly altered the political landscape by equating corporate expenditures with free speech under the First Amendment. This ruling has led to an influx of money in politics, often perceived as corrupting the democratic process. This policy proposal aims to address these concerns by:

  1. Legally Distinguishing Between Money and Speech.
  2. Setting New Precedents for Corporate and Individual Political Spending.
  3. Enhancing Transparency and Accountability in Political Spending.

Policy Objectives:

  • Overturn Citizens United through legislative and constitutional means.
  • Define clear boundaries where money does not equate to free speech.
  • Establish mechanisms for stricter regulation of political contributions and expenditures.

Key Provisions:

  1. Constitutional Amendment:

    • Proposal: Introduce and push for the ratification of a constitutional amendment that explicitly states:
      • “The rights protected by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons only.”
      • “Artificial entities, such as corporations, limited liability companies, and other corporations established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state shall have no rights under this Constitution and are subject to regulation by the People, through Federal, State, or local law.”
  2. Federal Legislation:

    • The Money is Not Speech Act:
      • Definition Clause: Clearly define that money used for political purposes is not to be considered a form of protected free speech under the First Amendment.
      • Spending Limits: Establish caps on individual and group spending in elections, including primaries, general elections, and special elections.
      • Disclosure Requirements: Mandate that all political spending, regardless of the source, must be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours of expenditure.
      • Foreign Influence Prohibition: Strengthen laws against foreign contributions, ensuring that no foreign entity, individual, or government can influence U.S. elections through financial means.
  3. Judicial Review and Enforcement:

    • Special Court for Election Law: Establish a specialized court to handle cases related to election law, ensuring consistent and expert interpretation of laws concerning political finance.
    • Enforcement Agency: Create or empower an existing agency to enforce these laws with significant powers to investigate, penalize, and prosecute violations.
  4. Public Financing Option:

    • Introduce a robust public financing system for federal elections to reduce the reliance on private money, thereby reducing the influence of wealth in politics.
  5. Educational Campaign:

    • Launch a national educational campaign to inform citizens about the implications of equating money with speech, aiming to build public support for the amendment and legislative changes.

Implementation Strategy:

  • Legislative Advocacy: Mobilize bipartisan support in Congress to pass the federal legislation and propose the constitutional amendment.
  • Public Engagement: Utilize grassroots movements, media campaigns, and educational platforms to garner public support.
  • Legal Strategy: Prepare for potential constitutional challenges by developing preemptive legal arguments and strategies in collaboration with constitutional scholars.

Expected Outcomes:

  • A clearer legal separation between the rights of individuals and those of corporations.
  • Reduced influence of money in politics, leading to a more representative democracy.
  • Increased transparency and accountability in electoral funding.

Challenges:

  • Overcoming resistance from vested interests who benefit from the current system.
  • Navigating the complexities of constitutional amendment processes.
  • Ensuring the new laws stand up to judicial scrutiny.

This proposal aims to restore the integrity of democratic processes by fundamentally redefining the relationship between money, speech, and political influence in the United States.

Timeline for Implementation:

  • Year 1:

    • Drafting and Advocacy: Finalize the constitutional amendment and legislative text. Begin advocacy efforts with legal scholars, political leaders, and public figures to garner support.
    • Public Awareness Campaign: Launch an aggressive public information campaign explaining the issues with Citizens United and the benefits of MINSA.
  • Year 2:

    • Congressional Introduction: Introduce the amendment and legislation in Congress. Begin the process of hearings and debates.
    • State Support: Engage state governments to support the amendment, understanding their role in the ratification process.
  • Year 3-4:

    • Legislative Passage: Aim for passage through both houses of Congress. If successful, move the amendment to the states for ratification.
    • Legal Preparation: Prepare legal defenses and interpretations in anticipation of court challenges.
  • Year 5 onwards:

    • Ratification Process: If the amendment passes Congress, work with states to achieve the necessary 38 state approvals for constitutional amendment ratification.
    • Implementation: Once ratified or passed, implement the new laws, including setting up the new court, enforcement mechanisms, and public financing systems.

Monitoring and Evaluation:

  • Establish an independent body to monitor the effectiveness of the new laws in reducing the influence of money in politics.
  • Regular reviews (every 5 years) to assess the impact on election outcomes, voter perception of electoral integrity, and any necessary adjustments to the laws.

International Cooperation:

  • Engage in dialogue with international bodies and other democracies to share insights on campaign finance reforms, potentially influencing global standards for transparent and fair elections.

Funding:

  • Propose a temporary increase in certain taxes or allocate portions of existing federal funds to finance the public awareness campaign, legal battles, and initial setup costs of new institutions like the special court.

Conclusion:
The Money is Not Speech Act aims to be a cornerstone in redefining political finance in the United States. By explicitly separating money from speech, and through rigorous enforcement mechanisms, this policy seeks to restore faith in the democratic process, ensuring that every voice, not just those with financial power, can influence political outcomes. This proposal not only addresses a critical flaw in current campaign finance laws but also sets a precedent for democratic governance worldwide. The success of this initiative will depend heavily on sustained public support, effective legal strategy, and the political will to enact and defend these changes.

1 Like

There are many things wrong with our current government. Some are due to root causes and some are just symptoms of what is wrong. The overwhelming cause of dystopian government is power, the power to tax , the power to control through regulation by unelected bureaucrats. Corruption follows this great power. You can measure the level of power by the exorbitant cost of elections. If the government had no power to meddle in our lives but only to guarantee law and order and national defense, there would be no incentive to run for public office except to serve. Think of it in medical terms: There is the disease and there are symptoms of the disease. Cure the disease and the symptoms go away naturally. Trying to micromanage the money in politics is a symptom. Cure the disease (power)

When elections are sold to the highest bidder, the most corruptible will bid.

A total reduction in federal overreach is absolutely required. Starving the oxygen (money) out of the system via campaigns and fiscal irresponsibility by congress are the solutions.

You may consider reading my other four proposals to achieve these results…

This one requires massive declassification and a modernization of FOIA: Enhanced Government Transparency and FOIA Modernization Act

This one states that any time there is a deficit any sitting member of congress is ineligible for reelection: Fiscal Responsibility and Congressional Accountability Act

This one imposes term limits on all members of congress and non-elected bureaucrats in leadership positions: Enhancing Democratic Accountability: A Policy Proposal for Congressional and Leadership Term Limits

This one enhances direct representation via a keyword organizing algorithm allowing for query-able concerns from the electorate by the elected: Enhancing Congressional Accountability and Public Engagement through Direct Communication and AI Integration

There’s another large thread on this. You may request a merge with it: Overturning Citizens United and Enforcing Transparency in Political Spending

1 Like