Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

How Move To Amend Is Challenging Corporate Power, One Resolution at a Time

Jennie Spanos (left) and Alfonso Saldaña (right), co-directors of Move to Amend.

Photo provided

Alfonso Saldaña entered political activism during the early years of the Obama administration, motivated by a sense of optimism for real change in healthcare reform, addressing economic inequality, and reducing corporate influence over politics.

“I was excited when he won,” he said. “I thought things were going to get fixed.”


It didn’t take Saldaña long to see how private interests would interfere with the same system issues he thought he was helping fix.

Years later, that reality hit close to home. A powerful explosion at a nearby SpaceX facility in Texas went largely underreported. Saldaña wasn’t surprised.

“They have the money to cover it up,” he said. “That’s what corporate personhood looks like.”

He is now co-director of Move to Amend, a national grassroots coalition formed in 2009 in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The group advocates for a constitutional amendment that would assert two key principles: that constitutional rights belong only to natural persons, and that political spending is not protected as a form of free speech.

The amendment, known in Congress as House Joint Resolution 54, has garnered more than 60 co-sponsors and has been endorsed by over 800 organizations nationwide. At the local level, over 725 municipalities have passed resolutions in support.

Amend's focus is structural. Rather than pursue campaign finance reforms through statute, the group is working to change the underlying legal framework that enables corporations and other entities to spend unlimited funds in elections.

“I realized that lasting change requires not just electing the right leaders but dismantling the systems that prevent progress,” Saldaña said. “Like corporate personhood and the flood of money in politics.”

His counterpart, co-director Jennie Spanos, came to the movement from a background in journalism. While reporting in northwest Florida during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, she witnessed firsthand the effects on her own community.

After the Citizens United ruling in 2010, she began volunteering with Move to Amend and later joined the national staff.

“A lot of people don’t recognize or realize that corporations have these alienable rights,” said Sopranos. “A win is when we go into a space that we haven’t been before, and they’ve already started understanding this issue.”

Amend's proposed language differs from other constitutional reform efforts in that it mandates, rather than permits, regulation of political spending. The amendment would also clarify that corporations and other artificial entities do not hold constitutional rights, a position the group argues is necessary to prevent future court rulings that further insulate private power.

Spanos said public support has grown significantly, backed by more than 800 organizational endorsers and over 500,000 petition signers mobilized in support of the amendment.

“Recently, organizations that have come on have not only endorsed the We the People amendment, but they have taken it on as part of their strategic plan to get it passed,” said Spanos.

She pointed to Veterans for Peace, an official endorser that now incorporates the issue of corporate power into its broader advocacy. In 2024, the group partnered with Move to Amend for a Walk to End Corporate Rule, linking their anti-war platform to the effort to confront the outsized influence of corporations in U.S. politics and policy.

While the organization operates with a small staff, it supports a nationwide network of volunteers. It employs a horizontal leadership model and consensus-based decision-making, reflecting the democratic values it seeks to promote.

Although Move to Amend has built momentum at the grassroots level, the group still faces institutional pushback. Spanos cited a court decision in Minnesota that upheld constitutional protections for corporations, even as advocates tried to restrict foreign influence in elections.

“There was a case in Minnesota about foreign spending, and the court said, well, these corporations have constitutional rights,” she said. “That’s why we need this amendment.”

As Move to Amend marks 15 years, its leaders emphasize that the campaign is about more than a single amendment. “It’s about political education and about connecting the dots,” Spanos said. “We’re talking about how power works.”

Both co-directors say the movement’s success depends on long-term public engagement. “It’s a marathon,” Spanos said. “Not a sprint.”

Angeles Ponpa is a graduate student at Northwestern Medill in the Politics, Policy, and Foreign Affairs specialization, and a Fulcrum summer intern.

The Fulcrum is committed to nurturing the next generation of journalists. To learn about the many NextGen initiatives we are leading, click HERE.

Please help the Fulcrum in its mission of nurturing the next generation of journalists by donating HERE!

Read More

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.

Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less