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