BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 644
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 9, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ELECTIONS AND REDISTRICTING
Paul Fong, Chair
AB 644 (Wieckowski) - As Introduced: February 20, 2013
SUBJECT : Campaign finance: advisory election.
SUMMARY : Requires a statewide advisory vote on the November
2014, general election ballot on amending the United States
Constitution to address campaign financing issues.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires the following advisory question to be placed on the
ballot at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election:
Shall the members of the Congress of the United States
representing California propose and support, and the
California Legislature ratify, an amendment to the United
States Constitution that reverses the Supreme Court's ruling
in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (2010) 558
U.S. 310, and limits campaign contributions and spending, to
ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express
their views to one another and their government on a level
playing field?
2)Contains the following Legislative findings and declarations:
a) Large campaign contributions to political candidates
create the potential for corruption and the appearance of
corruption;
b) Large campaign contributions made to influence election
outcomes allow wealthy individuals, corporations, and
special interest groups to exercise a disproportionate
level of influence over the political process;
c) The rising costs of campaigning for political office
prevent qualified citizens from running for political
office;
d) Because of early voting in California, timely notice of
independent expenditures is essential for informing the
electorate;
AB 644
Page 2
e) In recent years, the advent of significant spending on
electioneering communications has frustrated the purpose of
campaign finance requirements;
f) Independent research has demonstrated that the vast
majority of televised electioneering communications go
beyond issue discussion to express electoral advocacy;
g) Political contributions from corporate treasuries are
not an indication of popular support for the corporation's
political ideas and can unfairly influence the outcome of
California elections; and,
h) The interests of the public are best served by limiting
campaign contributions, establishing campaign spending
limits, providing for full and timely disclosure of
campaign contributions, independent expenditures, and
funding of electioneering communications, and strong
enforcement of campaign finance requirements.
EXISTING LAW authorizes each city, county, school district,
community college district, county board of education, or
special district to hold an advisory election on any date on
which that jurisdiction is permitted to hold a regular or
special election for the purpose of allowing voters within the
jurisdiction, or a portion thereof, to voice their opinions on
substantive issues, or to indicate to the local legislative body
approval or disapproval of the ballot proposal.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of the Bill : According to the author:
When Citizens United was handed down in 2010, many
were outraged and knew that this decision would
forever change the way elections were run. But the
consequences of Citizens United would not really be
felt until it could be put to the test. One
Presidential election cycle later, we have now seen
this abominable case's aftermath in the form of a
record $7 billion being spent. Of the 7, nearly $1
billion in new political spending was unleashed.
Media outlets and a small number of political
AB 644
Page 3
consulting firms raked in the bulk of the proceeds.
The Federal Election Commission released last
election's spending records. They show that
throughout the 2012 election, corporations, unions and
individuals that could take advantage of the Court's
ruling were responsible for about $933 million of the
estimated $6 billion spent during the contest.
AB 644 will allow Californians to have their voices
heard on the matter of Citizens United in the most
appropriate way - by a vote. The bill provides the
opportunity to resoundingly say "NO" to judicial
activism and nefarious corporate electioneering
facilitated through SuperPACs. One election with
Citizens United is enough to see the damage that can
be done and it is time to urge California members of
Congress to introduce legislation and/or support
legislation to overturn this calamitous holding. AB
644 seeks to ensure all citizens, regardless of
wealth, may express their views to one another and
their government on a level playing field.
2)Past Advisory Elections : While existing state law explicitly
authorizes cities, counties, school districts, community
college districts, county boards of education, and special
districts to hold advisory elections, there is no explicit
authorization, nor is there a statutory prohibition, for a
statewide advisory election. While statewide advisory
elections are uncommon, in at least two other instances in
California's history, one or more statewide advisory measures
have appeared on the ballot. At a statewide special election
in June 1933, voters rejected Propositions 9 and 10, which
asked the voters whether the Legislature should divert
gasoline tax revenues to the general fund to pay off highway
bonds. These two measures were put on the ballot by the
Legislature. Additionally, at the November 1982 statewide
general election, voters approved Proposition 12, a measure
that urged the United States government to propose to the
Soviet Union that both countries agree to immediately halt the
testing, production and further deployment of all nuclear
weapons, missiles and delivery systems in a way that could be
checked and verified by both sides. Unlike this bill,
however, the advisory question decided by the voters in 1982
was placed on the ballot by initiative.
AB 644
Page 4
Subsequent to the voters' approval of Proposition 12 in 1982,
the California State Supreme Court ruled in American
Federation of Labor v. Eu (1984) 36 Cal.3d 687, that placing
advisory questions before the voters was not a proper use of
the initiative power, because "an initiative which seeks to do
something other than enact a statute-which seeks to render an
administrative decision, adjudicate a dispute, or declare by
resolution the views of the resolving body-is not within the
initiative power reserved by the people." In that case, the
Court ordered an initiative measure which sought to compel the
Legislature to apply to Congress to hold a constitutional
convention to adopt a federal balanced budget amendment to be
removed from the ballot. The Court's decision in American
Federation of Labor did not, however, rule on whether it was
permissible for the Legislature to place an advisory question
before the voters.
3)Citizens United v. FEC : In January 2010, the United States
Supreme Court issued its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, a case involving a
nonprofit corporation (Citizens United) that sought to run
television commercials promoting a film it produced that was
critical of then-Senator and presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton. Because federal law prohibited corporations and
unions from using their general treasury funds to make
expenditures for "electioneering communications" or for
communications that expressly advocated the election or defeat
of a candidate, Citizens United was concerned that the
television commercials promoting its film could subject the
corporation to criminal and civil penalties. In its decision,
the Supreme Court struck down the 63-year old law that
prohibited corporations and unions from using their general
treasury funds to make independent expenditures in federal
elections, finding that the law unconstitutionally abridged
the freedom of speech.
4)California Has Already Called Upon Congress to Propose an
Amendment to Overturn Citizens United : Last session, the
Legislature approved AJR 22 (Wieckowski & Allen), Resolution
Chapter 69, Statutes of 2012, which called upon the United
States Congress to propose and send to the states for
ratification a constitutional amendment that would overturn
Citizens United . Given that the State of California already
has gone on record in support of an amendment to the United
AB 644
Page 5
States Constitution to overturn Citizens United , it is unclear
what would be accomplished by a statewide advisory election
that was not already accomplished through the passage of AJR
22.
5)Arguments in Support : In support of this bill, California
Common Cause writes:
Since the decision [in Citizens United ], Common Cause
has partnered with numerous groups across the nation
and in every state to build a grassroots movement to
support a constitutional amendment to overturn
Citizens United . The energy and passion expressed by
California voters has resulted in the cities of
Oakland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and many other
municipalities approving city council resolutions
calling for Citizens overturning. The cities of
Richmond and San Francisco and the states of Colorado
and Montana, all passed voter instruction measures,
like AB 644, in November 2012 by margins between 70-80
percent! The City of Los Angeles will vote on their
own voter instruction measure (Proposition C) this
May. Last session, the California Legislature?also
approved of Assembly Joint Resolution 22 (Wieckowski)
which stated the Legislature's disapproval of Citizens
United .
We strongly believe it is time for all California
voters to have the opportunity to express their
opinion by voting on this statewide question. Voters
of this state are eager to express their disapproval
of Citizens United and they should be given every
opportunity to do so. States and local jurisdictions
must take a leadership role in overturning this
decision, because Washington DC is looking to us for
guidance.
6)Related Legislation : AJR 1 (Gatto), which is pending on the
Assembly Floor, applies to the United States Congress to call
a constitutional convention for the sole purpose of proposing
an amendment to the United States Constitution that would
limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance
and political speech and would further declare that money does
not constitute speech and may be democratically limited.
AB 644
Page 6
7)Previous Legislation : AB 78 (Mendoza) of 2011, would have
placed a question before voters at the June 5, 2012, statewide
primary election asking whether the President and the Congress
should create a pathway to citizenship for certain
undocumented immigrants. AB 78 was gutted-and-amended and
used for another purpose, and was never heard in committee.
AB 2826 (Mendoza) of 2008, was similar to AB 78 of 2011, except
that the advisory question would have been considered by
voters at the November 4, 2008, statewide general election.
AB 2826 was never heard in committee.
SB 924 (Perata) of 2007, would have placed a question before the
voters at the February 5, 2008, statewide presidential primary
election asking whether the President should end the United
States occupation of Iraq. SB 924 was vetoed by Governor
Schwarzenegger, who argued that "[p]lacing a non-binding
resolution on Iraq on the?ballot, when it carries no weight or
authority, would only?divide voters and shift attention from
other critical issues that must be addressed."
AB 3 (Statham) of 1993, would have placed a question before the
voters at the November 8, 1994, statewide general election
asking whether the Legislature should send a plan to Congress
requesting the division of the state of California into three
states. AB 3 was approved by the Assembly, but was never
heard in a committee in the Senate.
8)Bill Calling an Election : Because this bill calls an election
within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution, this
bill would go into immediate effect if signed by the Governor.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Common Cause
California State Grange
CALPIRG
Public Citizen
Opposition
None on file.
AB 644
Page 7
Analysis Prepared by : Ethan Jones / E. & R. / (916) 319-2094