Amended in Assembly June 26, 2014

Amended in Senate May 27, 2014

Amended in Senate April 30, 2014

Amended in Senate April 8, 2014

Amended in Senate March 28, 2014

Senate BillNo. 1272


Introduced by Senator Lieu

(Principal coauthor: Senator Jackson)

(Coauthors: Senators DeSaulnier, Hancock,begin insert Leno,end insert Padilla, and Torres)

(Coauthors: Assembly Membersbegin insert Bocanegra, Buchanan, Dababneh,end insert Muratsuchi, V. Manuel Pérez, Skinner, Wieckowskibegin insert,end insert 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:

P2    1

SECTION 1.  

This act shall be known and may be cited as the 2Overturn Citizens United Act.

3

SEC. 2.  

The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

4(a) The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights are
5intended to protect the rights of individual human beings.

6(b) Corporations are not mentioned in the United States
7Constitution and the people have never granted constitutional rights
8to corporations, nor have we decreed that corporations have
9authority that exceeds the authority of “We the People.”

10(c) In Connecticut General Life Insurance Company v. Johnson
11(1938) 303 U.S. 77, United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo
12Black stated in his dissent, “I do not believe the word ‘person’ in
13the Fourteenth Amendment includes corporations.”

14(d) In Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) 494
15U.S. 652, the United States Supreme Court recognized the threat
16to a republican form of government posed by “the corrosive and
17distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are
18accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have
19little or no correlation to the public’s support for the corporation’s
20political ideas.”

21(e) In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)
22558 U.S. 310, the United States Supreme Court struck down limits
23on electioneering communications that were upheld in McConnell
24v. Federal Election Commission (2003) 540 U.S. 93 and Austin
25v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. This decision presents a
26serious threat to self-government by rolling back previous bans
27on corporate spending in the electoral process and allows unlimited
28corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection,
29policy decisions, and public debate.

30(f) In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Justices
31John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and
P3    1Sonia Sotomayor noted in their dissent that corporations have
2special advantages not enjoyed by natural persons, such as limited
3liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation
4and distribution of assets, that allow them to spend huge sums on
5campaign messages that have little or no correlation with the beliefs
6held by natural persons.

7(g) Corporations have used the artificial rights bestowed on
8them by the courts to overturn democratically enacted laws that
9municipal, state, and federal governments passed to curb corporate
10abuses, thereby impairing local governments’ ability to protect
11their citizens against corporate harms to the environment,
12consumers, workers, independent businesses, and local and regional
13economies.

14(h) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States
15Supreme Court held that the appearance of corruption justified
16some contribution limitations, but it wrongly rejected other
17fundamental interests that the citizens of California find
18compelling, such as creating a level playing field and ensuring that
19all citizens, regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to have their
20political views heard.

21(i) In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) 435 U.S.
22765 and Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing
23v. Berkeley (1981) 454 U.S. 290, the United States Supreme Court
24rejected limits on contributions to ballot measure campaigns
25because it concluded that these contributions posed no threat of
26candidate corruption.

27(j) In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) 528
28U.S. 377, United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
29observed in his concurrence that “money is property; it is not
30speech.”

31(k) A February 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll found
32that 80 percent of Americans oppose the ruling in Citizens United.

33(l) Article V of the United States Constitution empowers and
34obligates the people of the United States of America to use the
35constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously
36wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the
37heart of our democracy and the republican form of self-government.

38(m) The people of California and of the United States have
39previously used ballot measures as a way of instructing their elected
40representatives about the express actions they want to see them
P4    1take on their behalf, including provisions to amend the United
2States Constitution.

3

SEC. 3.  

A special election is hereby called to be held
4throughout the state on November 4, 2014. The special election
5shall be consolidated with the statewide general election to be held
6on that date. The consolidated election shall be held and conducted
7in all respects as if there were only one election and only one form
8of ballot shall be used.

9

SEC. 4.  

(a) Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections
10Code, the Secretary of State shall submit the following advisory
11question to the voters at the November 4, 2014, consolidated
12election:


14“Shall the Congress of the United States propose, and the
15California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the
16United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal
17Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable
18judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of
19campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens,
20regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and
21to make clear that the rights protected by the United States
22 Constitution are the rights of natural persons only?”


24(b) Upon certification of the election, the Secretary of State
25shall communicate to the Congress of the United States the results
26of the election asking the question set forth in subdivision (a).

27(c) The provisions of the Elections Code that apply to the
28preparation of ballot measures and ballot materials at a statewide
29election apply to the measure submitted pursuant to this section.

30begin insert

begin insertSEC. 5.end insert  

end insert

begin insert(a)end insertbegin insertend insertbegin insertNotwithstanding the requirements of Sections 9040,
319043, 9044, 9061, 9082, and 9094 of the Elections Code or any
32other law, the Secretary of State shall submit Section 4 of this actend insert

33begin insert to the voters at the November 4, 2014, statewide general election.end insert

begin insert

34(b) Notwithstanding Section 13115 of the Elections Code,
35 Section 4 of this act and any other measure placed on the ballot
36by the Legislature for the November 4, 2014, statewide general
37election after the 131-day deadline set forth in Section 9040 of the
38Elections Code shall be placed on the ballot, following all other
39ballot measures, in the order in which they qualified as determined
40by chapter number.

end insert
begin insert

P5    1(c) The Secretary of State shall include, in the ballot pamphlets
2mailed pursuant to Section 9094 of the Elections Code, the
3information specified in Section 9084 of the Elections Code
4regarding the ballot measure contained in Section 4 of this act.

end insert
5

begin deleteSEC. 5.end delete
6begin insertSEC. 6.end insert  

This act calls an election within the meaning of Article
7IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.



O

    94