2nd reading ofJRS15 passed the VT Senate 26-3:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives:

That the General Assembly expresses its disagreement with the holdings ofthe U.S. Supreme Court in Buckley and in Citizens that money is speech and urges Congress to adopt Senate Joint Resolution 29, and be it further

Resolved: That the General Assembly urges Congress to consider therequest of many Vermont cities and towns to propose a U.S. constitutionalamendment for the state’s consideration that provides that money is not speechand corporations are not persons under the U.S. Constitution and that alsoaffirms the constitutional rights of natural persons, and be it further

Resolved: That the General Assembly does not support an amendment tothe U.S. Constitution that would abridge the constitutional rights of any personor organization including freedom of religion or freedom of the press, and be it further

Resolved: That the Secretary of State be directed to send a copy of thisresolution to the Vermont Congressional Delegation.

The proposed Amendment (S.J.Res.29):

`Section 1. Congress shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to Federal elections, including through setting limits on–

• `(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, Federal office; and
• `(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates. 

`Section 2. A State shall have power to regulate the raising and spending of money and in kind equivalents with respect to State elections, including through setting limits on–

• `(1) the amount of contributions to candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to, State office; and
• `(2) the amount of expenditures that may be made by, in support of, or in opposition to such candidates. 

`Section 3. Congress shall have power to implement and enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'.

Of course Franklin County's GOP Senator voted against it:

Mr. President, This resolution is overly broad and linguistically imprecise.Were the Congress to enact a constitutional amendment based upon thisresolution as drafted, it could lead to unintentional consequences that wouldthrow into question two hundred years of law and precedent.

I'm sure similar arguments were made against the 14th Amendment as well.  Of course, there were actually unintended consequences: corporations have been given more protection under it than African-Americans!  So I can see why Sen Brock would be worried…

ntodd