BILL NUMBER: SB 1272	AMENDED
	BILL TEXT

	AMENDED IN SENATE  MAY 27, 2014
	AMENDED IN SENATE  APRIL 30, 2014
	AMENDED IN SENATE  APRIL 8, 2014
	AMENDED IN SENATE  MARCH 28, 2014

INTRODUCED BY   Senator Lieu
   (Principal coauthor: Senator Jackson)
   (Coauthors: Senators DeSaulnier, Hancock, Padilla, and Torres)
   (Coauthors: Assembly Members  Wieckowski  
Muratsuchi,   V. Manuel Pérez,   Skinner, 
 Wieckowski,  and Williams)

                        FEBRUARY 21, 2014

   An act to submit an advisory question to the voters relating to
campaign finance, calling an election, to take effect immediately.


	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


   SB 1272, as amended, Lieu. Campaign finance: advisory election.
   This bill would call a special election to be consolidated with
the November 4, 2014, statewide general election. The bill would
require the Secretary of State to submit to the voters at the
November 4, 2014, consolidated election an advisory question asking
whether the Congress of the United States should propose, and the
California Legislature should ratify, an amendment or amendments to
the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable
judicial precedents, as specified. The bill would require the
Secretary of State to communicate the results of this election to the
Congress of the United States.
   This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as
an act calling an election.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: no.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  This act shall be known and may be cited as the
Overturn Citizens United Act.
  SEC. 2.  The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
   (a) The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are
intended to protect the rights of individual human beings.
   (b) Corporations are not mentioned in the United States
Constitution and the people have never granted constitutional rights
to corporations, nor have we decreed that corporations have authority
that exceeds the authority of "We the People."
   (c) In Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson
(1938) 303 U.S. 77, United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black
stated in his dissent, "I do not believe the word 'person' in the
Fourteenth Amendment includes corporations."
   (d) In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) 494 U.S. 652,
the United States Supreme Court recognized the threat to a
republican form of government posed by "the corrosive and distorting
effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with
the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation
to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas."
   (e) In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558
U.S. 310, the United States Supreme Court struck down limits on
electioneering communications that were upheld in McConnell v.
Federal Election Commission (2003) 540 U.S. 93 and Austin v. Michigan
Chamber of Commerce. This decision presents a serious threat to
self-government by rolling back previous bans on corporate spending
in the electoral process and allows unlimited corporate spending to
influence elections, candidate selection, policy decisions, and
public debate.
   (f) In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Justices
John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia
Sotomayor noted in their dissent 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 huge sums on
campaign messages that have little or no correlation with the beliefs
held by natural persons.
   (g) Corporations have used the artificial rights bestowed 
upon   on  them by the courts to overturn
democratically enacted laws that municipal, state, and federal
governments passed to curb corporate abuses, thereby impairing local
governments' ability to protect their citizens against corporate
harms to the environment, consumers, workers, independent businesses,
and local and regional economies.
   (h) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States
Supreme Court held that the appearance of corruption justified some
contribution limitations, but it wrongly rejected other fundamental
interests that the citizens of California find compelling, such as
creating a level playing field and ensuring that all citizens,
regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to have their political
views heard.
   (i) In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) 435 U.S.
765 and Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing v.
Berkeley (1981) 454 U.S. 290, the United States Supreme Court
rejected limits on contributions to ballot measure campaigns because
it concluded that these contributions posed no threat of candidate
corruption.
   (j) In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) 528 U.S.
377, United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens observed
in his concurrence that "money is property; it is not speech."
   (k) A February 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 80
percent of Americans oppose the ruling in Citizens United.
   (l) Article V of the United States Constitution empowers and
obligates the people of the United States of America to use the
constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously wrong
decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the heart of
our democracy and the republican form of self-government.
   (m) The people of California and of the United States have
previously used ballot measures as a way of instructing their elected
representatives about the express actions they want to see them take
on their behalf, including provisions to amend the United States
Constitution.
  SEC. 3.  A special election is hereby called to be held throughout
the state on November 4, 2014. The special election shall be
consolidated with the statewide general election to be held on that
date. The consolidated election shall be held and conducted in all
respects as if there were only one election and only one form of
ballot shall be used.
  SEC. 4.  (a) Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections Code,
the Secretary of State shall submit the following advisory question
to the voters at the November 4, 2014, consolidated election:

   "Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the
California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the
United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable
judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of
campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens,
regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to
make clear that the rights protected by the United States
Constitution are the rights of natural persons only?"

   (b) Upon certification of the election, the Secretary of State
shall communicate to the Congress of the United States the results of
the election asking the question set forth in subdivision (a).
   (c) The provisions of the Elections Code that apply to the
preparation of ballot measures and ballot materials at a statewide
election apply to the measure submitted pursuant to this section.
  SEC. 5.   This act calls an election within the meaning of Article
IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.