As Ms. Warren notes, fixing the problems of Citizen's United ruling is essential (making sure that there is no corporate personhood, and that unless places in the constitution say "artificial person", a corporation should not get "rights" given to them if "person" isn't fully qualified as "natural person". The term "person" by itself should be defined as "natural person".
We need to clarify that money is NOT "free speech". The term FREE speech implies that money shouldn't be defined as such, otherwise the term "FREE speech" is an oxymoron!
And finally, if we aren't careful how we fix these two issues, and don't fix the problems of protecting our privacy by clarifying how the fourth amendment fits our modern online world, you will have corporations like google, facebook, and others throw up their hands in an effort to divide us (and to get both of these efforts undone), by saying...
"Sorry customers, we aren't persons any more. We no longer have the 'rights' to protect online data you've got on our servers any more! NSA and the government can't be stopped from coming in to look at it now!." They will seek to get those wanting to protect online privacy to look to overturn any constitutional amendment we make for overturning Citizen's United by doing that.
We need to have people carefully look at OUR data that's being housed online and clarify that WE own the privacy of that data, and that no huge legal "consent form" that are designed for people to sign away their rights before getting access to a resource like Facebook, or Google, takes that away from us. They might try to claim that you can't "own" data that is online or on someone else's computer, because the fourth amendment only applies to material possessions that you have in your house or on your personal property. Well, we need to remind them that copyright laws DO give copyright holders legal rights over raw data WHEREVER it is, and the right to prosecute the misuse of that data WHEREVER it is, and just because they have the support of big money entities that want to still collect money off of this virtually owned property doesn't mean they should have any more rights than the average person has over their private data being kept on someone else's servers/property. This needs to be carefully defined in an amendment that defines how the principles of the 4th amendment should be applied to today's world.
Without doing both, or at least carefully writing the amendment for Citizen's United to have clauses in it that clarify that taking away corporate personhood doesn't take away from the need and requirement for "corporations" to continue to protect the privacy of our data that they hold. We can't afford to have corporations who are being used online to house OUR private data to seek to split us as a voting populace on these two very important areas of needed reform.
= new reply since forum marked as read