BILL ANALYSIS Ó
HR 37
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 10, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
HR 37 (Wieckowski) - As Amended: June 4, 2014
SUBJECT : Campaign contributions.
SUMMARY : States the Assembly's disagreement with the United
States (US) Supreme Court's decision in McCutcheon v. Federal
Election Commission (2014) No. 12-536 ( McCutcheon) .
Specifically, this resolution :
1)Makes the following findings and declarations:
a) The US Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310 ( Citizens
United ) upset longstanding precedent limiting the political
influence of corporations and unions.
b) The US Supreme Court's decision in McCutcheon further
eviscerates our nation's campaign finance laws by
overturning nearly 40 years of law upholding aggregate
limits on campaign contributions.
c) Aggregate contribution limits restrict the total amount
of money a donor may contribute to all federal candidates
and other political committees in an election cycle.
d) In holding that aggregate contribution limits are
invalid under the First Amendment, McCutcheon creates a
legal loophole that allows an individual donor to
contribute millions of dollars to political parties and
individual candidates.
e) The US Supreme Court has long recognized that campaign
finance laws are necessary not only to eliminate quid pro
quo corruption in elections by preventing the direct
exchange of money for official action, but also to curtail
undue influence by wealthy donors.
f) The democratic process depends on unfettered
communication between the people and their elected
representatives so that the government may act in response
to prevailing public opinion.
HR 37
Page 2
g) Campaign finance laws that allow limitless contributions
subvert this political process by enabling the voices of
the few to override the collective voice of the many.
h) Removing aggregate contribution limits also engenders an
appearance of corruption that undermines the public's faith
in government.
2)States the Assembly's respectful disagreement with the
majority opinion and decision of the US Supreme Court in
McCutcheon .
3)Calls upon the US Congress to restore constitutional rights
and fair elections to all people, not merely to those who can
afford it.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Resolution : According to the author:
Many citizens and scholars have been troubled by the
influence that special interest groups and individuals
have through using contributions to purchase access
and influence to legislative channels. Since the
challenge on FECA's regulations on the basis of free
speech in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court held
that regulations dealing with money in politics can
raise First Amendment concerns; yet all regulations
are not per se unconstitutional.
Recently, the United States Supreme Court decision in
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission on April 2,
2014 further eviscerates our [nation's] campaign
finance laws by overturning nearly 40 years of law
upholding aggregate limits on campaign contributions
since the ruling in Buckley v. Valeo. Aggregate
contribution limits restrict the total amount of money
a donor may contribute to all federal candidates and
other political committees in an election cycle. Prior
to the McCutcheon decision, individuals were limited
to aggregate contributions of $48,600 to all
candidates, plus $74,600 to all PACs and parties.
HR 37
Page 3
Accordingly, anyone wishing to donate the maximum
$5,200 per candidate would be constrained to nine
candidates before encountering the combined limit. In
McCutcheon, the Supreme Court overturned the aggregate
ceilings because they did not advance the
anti-corruption rationale underlying campaign finance
laws. In holding that aggregate contribution limits
are invalid under the First Amendment, McCutcheon v.
Federal Election Commission creates a legal loophole
that allows an individual donor to contribute millions
of dollars to political parties and individual
candidates. The United States Supreme Court has long
recognized that campaign finance laws are necessary
not only to eliminate quid pro quo corruption in
elections by preventing the direct exchange of money
for official action, but also to curtail undue
influence by wealthy donors.
Yet, this plurality is not being upheld. Per the
dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court in the
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, "in the
absence of limits on aggregate political
contributions, donors can and likely will find ways to
channel millions of dollars to parties and to
individual candidates, producing precisely the kind of
'corruption' or 'appearance of corruption' that
previously led the Court to hold aggregate limits
constitutional." As a result, these potential channels
of access can layout an opportunity for circumvention
by creating huge loopholes that will aid the
production of special access and corruption. In
removing aggregate limits, the Supreme Court ruling
has undermined what remained of campaign finance
reform.
2)McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission : In April of this
year, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in McCutcheon ,
a case concerning a federal law restricting the aggregate
amount that a donor may contribute in total to all federal
candidates and committees in an election cycle.
Federal campaign finance law contains two types of contribution
limits. The first, referred to as "base limits," cap the
amount that a donor can give to a candidate, a political
party, or a political action committee (PAC) that makes
HR 37
Page 4
contributions to candidates (for instance, a donor is
prohibited from making contributions to a federal candidate
totaling more than $5,200 per election cycle-$2,600 for the
primary election, and $2,600 for the general election). The
Supreme Court's decision did not address these limits, which
are similar to contribution limits that are in place in the
Political Reform Act.
The second type of contribution limits are aggregate limits,
which cap the total amount that an individual donor can
contribute in an election cycle. The aggregate limits permit
an individual to contribute a total of $48,600 to federal
candidates and a total of $74,600 to other political
committees (political parties and PACs) in each two-year
election cycle. The base limits and the aggregate limits work
in tandem, so a donor would be unable to give the maximum
$5,200 contribution to more than nine different federal
candidates in an election cycle.
It was these second type of limits-aggregate limits-that were
at issue in McCutcheon . The Supreme Court, on a 5-4 ruling,
struck down the aggregate limits, finding that the limits
impermissibly burden individuals' "expressive and
associational rights" because they limit the number of
candidates that a donor can support. Chief Justice Roberts'
opinion rejected arguments that the aggregate limits served an
important function in preventing corruption. By contrast, the
dissenting justices argued that the court's ruling applied an
unreasonably narrow definition of corruption, and maintained
that the aggregate limits serve an important role in limiting
undue influence by campaign donors.
California does not have aggregate limits of the type that
were struck down by the court in McCutcheon , though local
jurisdictions in California are free to adopt their own
campaign ordinances, and at least one (the City of Los
Angeles) has aggregate limits that are similar to the
aggregate limits that were struck down by the McCutcheon
court.
3)Related Legislation : SB 1272 (Lieu), which is also being
heard in this committee today, places an advisory question on
the November 4, 2014 statewide general election ballot asking
voters whether Congress should propose, and the Legislature
should ratify, an amendment or amendments to the US
HR 37
Page 5
Constitution to overturn Citizens United and other applicable
judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or
limitation of campaign contributions and spending.
AJR 1 (Gatto), which is pending in the Senate Judiciary
Committee, petitions Congress to call for a federal
constitutional convention for the purpose and hope of solely
amending the US Constitution with a single amendment to limit
"corporate personhood" for purposes of campaign finance and
political speech and declare that money does not constitute
speech.
4)Previous Legislation : AJR 22 (Wieckowski & Allen), Resolution
Chapter 69, Statutes of 2012, called upon the US Congress to
propose and send to the states for ratification a
constitutional amendment that would overturn Citizens United .
HR 37
Page 6
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Common Cause
Opposition
None on file.
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094