Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

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

News

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

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less