1) Limit all rights in the US Constitution to real persons (human beings) by default and then extend those protections as necessary to legal persons like corporations, organisations, unions and governments.
2) Clarify explicitly by statute that money and the ability to spend it is not free speech and thus not protected by the First Amendment.
3) Pass an amendment to the US Constitution making it legal to campaign and spend money on elections/nominations only 120 or 90 days before the actual election or nomination voting day(s) in any public spaces, including public communications spaces (real and virtual) the Internet, private places where the public has regular access (malls, stores, theatres, etc.). Private homes, either owned or rented, would be exempt from these limitations however unless they are being used by third parties or candidates to circumvent the new rules. This applies to candidates, political parties, political action committees, and all "interested parties" in the electoral process.
4) Pass laws and if necessary a constitutional amendment putting a cap on campaign spending which limits the upper limit for the amount of money each candidate can spend and delineates precisely what goods, services and other activities must be accounted towards that limit if a campaign uses them. If it is unclear whether an action is legal and accountable or not, then a candidate is not allowed to do it until it is approved by an election review board for the next election.
5) Make it a felony for any candidate or interested party to coerce or compel someone to "volunteer" to work for a political campaign against their will.
Well, little in there would actually overturn Citizens United
1) The case did not turn on the idea that "corporations are people" and in any event, by the reasoning of the case, it would be "necessary to extend it to legal persons."
2) Statutory limitations such as this violate the First Amendment. This would have no effect on Citizens United.
3) The anti-Hillary film in question was to be broadcast within 90-120 days of the election.
4) It was not produced by a candidate, but by Citizens United, an independent organization.
5) I don't have any idea where this comes from.
It also partially repeals the First Amendment because:
1) You already say you're "limiting" rights.
2) I explained in post #8 why declaring "money is not speech," even if it's in the form of an amendment, and not just a statute, guts the First Amendment:
Or, if that is your intended wording, then no law limiting expenditures related to speech/press would be unconstitutional, and the only thing the First Amendment would continue to protect would be standing in public and talking, because anything else requires expenditures.
Simply put, under this construct, limiting expenditures on any speech or press whatsoever to $0 would be constitutional. What good is freedom of the press if you can't buy ink or paper?
3) Completely preventing political speech except within a narrow window of time is absolutely a partial repeal of the First Amendment, no question whatsoever about it.
4) This, too, placing subject-matter and physical limits on speech, is blatantly a partial repeal of the First Amendment.
5) Again, I have no idea what this is supposed to address.