SB 254,
as amended, Allen. Campaign finance:begin delete advisory election.end deletebegin insert voter instruction.end insert
This bill would call a special election to be consolidated with the November 8, 2016, statewide general election. The bill would require the Secretary of State to submit to the voters at the November 8, 2016, consolidated electionbegin delete 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 Constitutionend deletebegin insert a voter instruction asking whether California’s elected officials should use all of their constitutional authority, includingend insertbegin insert proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States
Constitution,end insert 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.begin insert The bill would require the Secretary of State, if prohibited by court order from submitting the voter instruction to the voters at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, as specified, to submit the voter instruction to the voters at the next occurring election.end insert
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:
This act shall be known and may be cited as the 2Overturn Citizens United Act.
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
18 accumulated 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
P3 1corporate spending to influence elections, candidate selection,
2policy decisions, and public debate.
3(f) In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Justices
4John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and
5Sonia Sotomayor noted in their dissent that corporations have
6special advantages not enjoyed by natural persons, such as limited
7liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of the accumulation
8and distribution of assets, that allow them to spend huge sums on
9campaign messages that have little or no correlation with the beliefs
10held by natural persons.
11(g) Corporations have used the
artificial rights bestowed on
12them by the courts to overturn democratically enacted laws that
13municipal, state, and federal governments passed to curb corporate
14abuses, thereby impairing local governments’ ability to protect
15their citizens against corporate harms to the environment,
16consumers, workers, independent businesses, and local and regional
17economies.
18(h) In Buckley v. Valeo (1976) 424 U.S. 1, the United States
19Supreme Court held that the appearance of corruption justified
20some contribution limitations, but it wrongly rejected other
21fundamental interests that the citizens of California find
22compelling, such as creating a level playing field and ensuring that
23all citizens, regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to have their
24political views heard.
25(i) In First
National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978) 435 U.S.
26765 and Citizens Against Rent Control/Coalition for Fair Housing
27v.begin insert City ofend insert Berkeley (1981) 454 U.S. 290, the United States Supreme
28Court
rejected limits on contributions to ballot measure campaigns
29because it concluded that these contributions posed no threat of
30candidate corruption.
31(j) In Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000) 528
32U.S. 377, United States Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens
33observed in his concurrence that “money is property; it is not
34speech.”
35(k) A February 2010 Washington Post-ABC News poll found
36that 80 percent of Americans oppose the ruling in Citizens United.
37(l) Article V of the United States Constitution empowers and
38obligates the people of the United States of America to use the
39constitutional amendment process to correct those egregiously
P4 1wrong decisions of the United States Supreme Court that go to the
2heart
of our democracy and the republican form of self-government.
3
(m) Article I of the California Constitution guarantees the right
4of the people to instruct their representatives, petition government
5for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the
6common good.
28 7(m)
end delete
8begin insert(n)end insert The people of California and of the United States have
9previously used ballot measures as a way of instructing their elected
10representatives about the express actions they want to see them
11
take on their behalf, including provisions to amend the United
12States Constitution.
13
(o) California’s United States Senators and Representatives
14would benefit from having instructions from California voters
15about the United States Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizen’s United
16and other judicial precedents in taking congressional action.
A special election is hereby called to be held
18throughout the state on November 8, 2016. The special election
19shall be consolidated with the statewide general election to be held
20on that date. The consolidated election shall be held and conducted
21in all respects as if there were only one election and only one form
22of ballot shall be used.
(a) Notwithstanding Section 9040 of the Elections
24Code, the Secretary of State shall submit the followingbegin delete advisory begin insert voter instructionend insert to the voters at the November 8, 2016,
25questionend delete
26consolidated election:
28“Shallbegin delete the Congress of the United States propose, and the begin insert
California’s elected officials use all of
29California Legislature ratify, an amendment or amendments to the
30United States Constitutionend delete
31their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to,
32proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United
33States Constitution,end insert to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election
34Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial
35precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign
36contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless
37of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make
38clear thatbegin delete the rights protected by the United States Constitution begin insert corporations should not
39are the rights of natural persons only?”end delete
40have the constitutional rights of human beings?end insertbegin insert”end insert
P5 2(b) Upon certification of the election, the Secretary of State
3shall communicate to the Congress of the United States the results
4of the election asking the question set forth in subdivision (a).
5(c) The provisions of the Elections Code that apply to the
6preparation of ballot measures and ballot materials at a statewide
7election apply to the measure submitted pursuant to this section.
(a) Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections
99040, 9043, 9044, 9061, 9082, and 9094 of the Elections Code or
10any other law, the Secretary of State shall submit Section 4 of this
11act to the voters at the November 8, 2016, statewide general
12election.
13(b) Notwithstanding Section 13115 of the Elections Code,
14Section 4 of this act and any other measure placed on the ballot
15by the Legislature for the November 8, 2016, statewide general
16election after the 131-day deadline set forth in Section 9040 of the
17Elections Code shall be placed on the ballot, following all other
18ballot measures, in the order in which they qualified as determined
19by
chapter number.
20(c) The Secretary of State shall include, in the ballot pamphlets
21mailed pursuant to Section 9094 of the Elections Code, the
22information specified in Section 9084 of the Elections Code
23regarding the ballot measure contained in Section 4 of this act.
begin insertIf the Secretary of State is prohibited from complying
25with Sections 4 and 5 of this act until after November 8, 2016, by
26court order pending resolution of an unsuccessful legal challenge
27to the validity of this act, then the Secretary of State shall submit
28Section 4 of this act to the voters at the next occurring election.end insert
This act calls an election within the meaning of Article
31IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect.
O
95