The most current version of this reference material is maintained online at peopleprimaries.com. The online edition may include annotations, updated commentary, and supplemental analysis not reflected in this printed version.

The Legal Foundation of Corporate Power and Money in Politics

The following six Supreme Court decisions created the legal framework that the US Majority Amendment is designed to overturn. Each case expanded the constitutional rights of corporations and the protection of money in politics. Together, they constitute the judicial infrastructure of corporate capture.

1. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886)

Citation

118 U.S. 394 (1886)

The Question

Did the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause apply to corporations?

The Decision

The Court did not issue a written opinion on the question of corporate personhood. Instead, the Court Reporter, J. C. Bancroft Davis, included a headnote—a summary written by the reporter, not the Court—stating:

“The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.”

This headnote, not the actual decision, became the precedent for treating corporations as “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Impact

For 139 years, courts have treated corporations as constitutional persons entitled to equal protection, due process, and other rights reserved for human beings—all based on a court reporter’s summary, not an actual Supreme Court ruling.

What the Amendment Does

Section 1 explicitly overturns this doctrine by stating that constitutional rights “are the exclusive rights, protections, and immunities of natural persons.”

2. Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Citation

424 U.S. 1 (1976)

The Question

Did the Federal Election Campaign Act’s contribution and expenditure limits violate the First Amendment?

The Decision

The Court struck down expenditure limits on campaigns and independent spending while upholding contribution limits to candidates. The critical holding:

“A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached.”

The Court held that spending money to influence elections is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment.

The Impact

This decision established the “money is speech” doctrine. It meant that any attempt to limit political spending faced strict scrutiny—the highest level of judicial review. Campaign finance reform became constitutionally suspect.

What the Amendment Does

Section 2 explicitly overturns Buckley by stating that “the expenditure of money to influence elections… shall not be considered speech or expression protected by the First Amendment.”

3. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)

Citation

435 U.S. 765 (1978)

The Question

Could Massachusetts prohibit corporations from spending money to influence ballot initiative campaigns?

The Decision

The Court struck down the prohibition, holding that corporations have First Amendment rights to spend money on political causes:

“The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual.”

The Impact

This decision extended corporate First Amendment rights beyond candidate elections to ballot initiatives and referenda. It established that corporations could spend unlimited sums on political campaigns as a form of “speech.”

What the Amendment Does

Section 1 strips corporations of First Amendment protections, overturning the premise that corporate and human speech are entitled to equal protection.

4. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Citation

558 U.S. 310 (2010)

The Question

Could the government restrict corporations from spending money on independent political advertising?

The Decision

The Court struck down restrictions on corporate independent expenditures, holding:

“If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”

The Court overturned precedent (Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce) and held that corporations cannot be restricted from spending treasury funds on political advertising.

The Impact

Citizens United opened the floodgates for unlimited corporate spending in elections. Super PACs emerged. Dark money exploded. The decision cemented the doctrines of corporate personhood and money-as-speech into constitutional law.

Key Statistics Since Citizens United

What the Amendment Does

Sections 1 and 2 together overturn Citizens United by removing corporate First Amendment rights and establishing that money is not speech.

5. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)

Citation

572 U.S. 185 (2014)

The Question

Could the government impose aggregate limits on the total amount an individual could contribute to all candidates and parties?

The Decision

The Court struck down aggregate contribution limits, holding:

“The Government may no more restrict how many candidates or causes a donor may support than it may tell a newspaper how many candidates it may endorse.”

The Impact

Before McCutcheon, an individual could contribute a maximum of $123,200 total to all federal candidates and parties combined. After McCutcheon, there was no aggregate limit—only base limits per candidate. A wealthy donor could now contribute the maximum to every candidate in the country.

What the Amendment Does

Section 2 restores the power of Congress to set contribution limits without strict scrutiny review.

6. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

Citation

573 U.S. 682 (2014)

The Question

Could a for-profit corporation claim religious exemption from federal law based on the owners’ religious beliefs?

The Decision

The Court held that closely held corporations could exercise religion under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act:

“Protecting the free-exercise rights of corporations like Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel protects the religious liberty of the humans who own and control those companies.”

The Impact

This decision extended religious exercise rights to for-profit corporations. It meant that corporations could claim exemptions from laws—such as the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate—based on the religious beliefs of their owners.

The Broader Pattern

Hobby Lobby demonstrates how corporate personhood expands. Once corporations are treated as constitutional persons, they can claim not just First Amendment speech rights, but religious exercise rights, Fourth Amendment privacy rights, Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights. Each expansion builds on the last.

What the Amendment Does

Section 1 explicitly removes First Amendment protections from corporations, preventing future claims of corporate religious exercise rights.

Summary: The Constitutional Framework of Corporate Power

How the US Majority Amendment Overturns This Framework

Section 1: Corporate Personhood Limited

• Overturns Santa Clara (1886), Bellotti (1978), and Hobby Lobby (2014)
• Establishes that constitutional rights belong exclusively to natural persons
• Removes First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment claims from corporations

Section 2: Money Is Not Speech

• Overturns Buckley (1976), Citizens United (2010), and McCutcheon (2014)
• Establishes that political spending is not constitutionally protected speech
• Removes strict scrutiny review from campaign finance regulations
• Restores power to Congress and States to regulate money in politics

Section 3: Protection of Human Labor and Economic Participation

• Establishes for the first time a constitutional right to engage in fairly compensated labor
• Protects the right of workers to associate, organize, and engage in concerted action
• Declares that AI, automation, and technological systems are tools, not persons or rights-holders
• Requires pre-certification of any displacement by a federal Labor Displacement Review Board with worker-majority composition
• Mandates self-executing minimum protections: advance notice, transition support, continuation of benefits, and Community Stabilization Fund payments

The Constitutional Reset

The US Majority Amendment does not merely reform the system. It overturns 139 years of judicial precedent that transformed corporations from legal conveniences into constitutional persons with rights superior to human beings.

The Amendment restores the Constitution to its original purpose: “We the People” means human beings, not legal fictions.