The issue is that MoveOn.org takes an adversarial position and asks:
"We're asking every state legislator in the country to back adopting resolutions supporting the only remedy we have left to correct the Supreme Court's awful Citizens United decision: a constitutional amendment clarifying that corporations are not people. It will take a long term campaign but a constitutional amendment is the only way to permanently undo the ruling.
Citizens United already has a huge impact on our democracy. In 2010 spending on elections topped $4 billion, by far the most ever spent on a midterm election and even matching the total spent in the 2008 presidential election. We've amended our Constitution before in moments when we needed to make fundamental changes to how our country works.
Right now is one of those moments because giving corporations the full First Amendment rights of people is threatening the integrity of our democratic process.
A compiled petition with your individual comment will be presented to your state legislators. "
Quote from MoveOn.org
MoveOn.org Calls for the singing of a petition concerning this matter.
Full petition text:
"Corporations aren't people and shouldn't be able to corrupt our democracy. We need as many state legislatures as possible to get behind the call for a constitutional amendment to reverse the Citizens United ruling."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)
This was a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court. It held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment.
The 5–4 decision, in favor of Citizens United, resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act.
The January 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The lower court decision upheld provisions of the McCain–Feingold Act which prevented the film "Hillary: The Movie" from being shown on television within 30 days of 2008 Democratic primaries.
The Court struck down a provision of the McCain–Feingold Act that prohibited all corporations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and unions from broadcasting “electioneering communications.”
McCain–Feingold defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or thirty days of a primary.
The decision overruled the 1990 decision of "Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and partially overruled the 2003 decision of McConnell v.
Federal Election Commission".
The Court did uphold requirements for disclaimer and disclosure by sponsors of advertisements.
The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties.