BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 1272|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 1272
Author: Lieu (D), et al.
Amended: 5/27/14
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONSTITUTIONAL AMEND. COMM. : 4-1, 4/22/14
AYES: Torres, Hancock, Jackson, Padilla
NOES: Anderson
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : 5-2, 5/23/14
AYES: De León, Hill, Lara, Padilla, Steinberg
NOES: Walters, Gaines
SUBJECT : Campaign finance: advisory election
SOURCE : Money Out, Voters In
DIGEST : This bill requires the Secretary of State (SOS) to
submit an advisory question to the voters which will be placed
on the November 4, 2014 ballot.
ANALYSIS : 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.
CONTINUED
SB 1272
Page
2
This bill:
1.Requires the following advisory question to be placed on the
statewide ballot at a special election consolidated with the
statewide general election on November 4, 2014:
"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?"
2.Requires the SOS, upon certification of the election, to
communicate to the Congress of the United States the results
of the advisory question posed to California voters.
3.Contains the following legislative findings and declarations:
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
CONTINUED
SB 1272
Page
3
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 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.
CONTINUED
SB 1272
Page
4
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."
AA. A February 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll found that
80 percent of Americans oppose the ruling in Citizens
United.
BB. 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.
CC. 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.
Background
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
CONTINUED
SB 1272
Page
5
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.
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.
Comments
According to the author, the United States Constitution and the
Bill of Rights explicitly intend to protect the rights of
individual human beings as indicated by the phrase "We the
people" in the preamble to the Constitution. But in the case of
Citizens United v. FEC (2010), corporations have been granted
the same rights as people and free speech is now being equated
with money, especially as it pertains to political and campaign
donations. And, in February 2010, a Washington Post-ABC News
poll found that 80% of Americans oppose the U.S. Supreme Court
Citizens United ruling. The most recent Supreme Court ruling is
McCutcheon v. FEC which was handed down April 2, 2014, and
decided that it is permissible for individuals to make limitless
contributions to federal campaign and federal candidate
committees.
CONTINUED
SB 1272
Page
6
However, it is important to note that corporations are not
mentioned in the Constitution, nor have The People ever granted
Constitutional rights to corporations and money does not equal
speech as stated by United States Supreme Court Justice Stevens
in the case Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) that
"money is property, it is not speech."
Given that 80% of Americans oppose the Citizens United Ruling
and are likely to be equally opposed to the McCutcheon ruling,
this bill advances the efforts to reverse the Supreme Court's
ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission
and other applicable judicial precedents, including McCutcheon
v. Federal Election Commission.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, one time
ballot printing/mailing costs of approximately $275,000 -
$550,000 depending on the number of pages and based on an
estimated cost per page of $55,000. (General)
The actual costs could be higher or lower depending on the
length of the title, summary, text, LAO analysis, proponents and
opponents arguments, as well as the overall size of the ballot
pamphlet. Larger ballots generally result in less printing and
mailing costs per page. The average number of pages per measure
since 2008 is ten and the minimum per measure has been five
pages.
SUPPORT : (Verified 5/23/14)
Money Out, Voters In (source)
American Sustainable Business Council
Beach Cities Democratic Club
California Clean Money Campaign
California Public Interest Research Group
California School Employees Association
Common Cause
Democracy for America
Free Speech for People
LAX Area Democratic Club
Miracle Mile Democratic Club
Rebuild the Dream
CONTINUED
SB 1272
Page
7
The Sierra County Central Committee
West LA Democratic Club
OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/23/14)
Department of Finance
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : The California Clean Money Campaign
agrees with the bill's findings and supports the bill's call for
the Legislature to place the Overturn Citizens United Act on the
statewide ballot. "This will give all Californians the
opportunity to directly respond to these disastrous rulings and
advise Congress to propose, and then the California Legislature
to pass, an amendment to overturn Citizens United and other
applicable judicial precedents and to allow the full regulation
or limitation of campaign contributions and spending."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The Department of Finance opposed
this bill because it results in additional costs to the state
inconsistent with the current budget.
RM:MW:nl 5/27/14 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED