BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AJR 3|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AJR 3
Author: Nava (D), et al
Amended: 3/1/10 in Senate
Vote: 21
PRIOR VOTES NOT RELEVANT
SUBJECT : Political campaign funding
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : Senate Floor Amendments of 8/1/09 deleted the
subject matters dealing with offshore drilling.
This resolution now memorializes the Legislatures
disagreement with the decision of the United States Supreme
Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and
requests the Congress of the United States to pass and send
to the states for ratification a constitutional amendment
that allows Congress and state legislatures to place
appropriate limits on political campaign contributions and
expenditures made by corporations in connection with
elections.
ANALYSIS :
This resolution makes the following legislative findings:
1.The protections afforded by the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution to the people of our nation
CONTINUED
AJR 3
Page
2
are fundamental to our democracy.
2.The First Amendment was intended to ensure that the
government could not infringe on the right of the people
to freely assemble and to express their beliefs and
opinions freely.
3.While corporations make important contributions to our
society, corporations, as legally created economic
entities, do not and should not share all of the same
rights and privileges as natural persons, such as the
right to vote and the right to seek public office.
4.The opinion of the four dissenting justices in the
recent United States Supreme Court case Citizens United
v. Federal Election Commission (2010), No. 08-205, noted
that corporations have special advantages not enjoyed by
natural persons, such as limited liability, perpetual
life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation and
distribution of assets, that allow them to spend
prodigious sums on campaign messages that have little or
no correlation with the beliefs held by natural persons.
5.Under previous Supreme Court decisions and existing
campaign finance law, the individual shareholders of
every corporation remain entirely free to state their
opinions and to contribute money so that their opinions
and beliefs can be disseminated by whatever media they
choose and to the extent they choose outside of the
corporate form.
6.In the unanimous decision in the United States Supreme
Court case Federal Election Commission v. National Right
to Work Committee (1982) 459 U.S. 197, Justice William
Rehnquist wrote for the Court that Congress's
"legislative adjustment of the federal electoral laws,
in a cautious advance, step by step, to account for the
particular legal and economic attributes of corporations
... warrants considerable deference" and "reflects a
permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those
entities to the electoral process," and, as Justice
Rehnquist went on to write, "The governmental interest
in preventing both actual corruption and the appearance
of corruption of elected representatives has long been
AJR 3
Page
3
recognized, and there is no reason why it may not be
accomplished by treating corporations, and similar
organizations differently from individuals."
7.The general public and political leaders in the United
States have recognized, since the founding of our
country, that the interests of corporations do not
always correspond with the public interest and that,
therefore, the political influence of corporations
should be limited.
8.In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "I hope we shall crush
in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed
corporations, which dare already to challenge our
government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to
the laws of our country."
9.In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln wrote, "As a result
of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era
of corruption in high places will follow, and the money
power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign
by working upon the prejudices of the people until all
wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is
destroyed."
10.In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt said, "All
contributions by corporations to any political committee
or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law;
directors should not be permitted to use stockholders'
money for such purposes; and, moreover, a prohibition of
this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective
method of stopping the evils aimed at in corrupt
practices acts."
11.In 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said, in
reference to the rise of defense industry corporations,
"In the councils of government, we must guard against
the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought
or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The
potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power
exists and will persist."
12.In 2002, recognizing the deleterious effects that
corporate influence can have on democracy, Democrats and
AJR 3
Page
4
Republicans in Congress worked in a bipartisan manner to
limit corporate contributions to election campaigns
through legislation sponsored by Senators John McCain
and Russell Feingold known as the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act of 2002.
13.Congress has placed special limitations on campaign
spending by corporations ever since passage of the
Tillman Act in 1907.
14.The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission invalidated
critical provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act of 2002, which sought to limit the influence of
special interests, especially corporations, in
elections.
15.The decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission overruled the United States Supreme Court's
previous decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of
Commerce (1990) 494 U.S. 652 and overruled in part the
Court's previous decision in McConnell v. Federal
Election Commission (2003) 540 U.S. 93.
16.Notwithstanding the decision in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission , legislators have a duty to
protect democracy and guard against the potentially
detrimental effects of corporate spending in local,
state, and federal elections.
This resolution specifies that the Legislature of the State
of California respectfully disagrees with the majority
opinion and decision of the United States Supreme Court in
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ; and that
the Legislature of the State of California respectfully
requests that the Untied States Congress pass and send to
the states for ratification a constitutional amendment to
restore the power of Congress and state legislatures to
safeguard democracy by placing appropriate limits on the
ability of corporations to influence the outcome of
elections through political campaign contributions and
other expenditures.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: No
AJR 3
Page
5
RJG:do 3/2/10 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: NONE RECEIVED
**** END ****