BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AJR 22|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AJR 22
Author: Wieckowski (D) and Allen (D), et al.
Amended: 3/14/12 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE ELECTIONS & CONST. AMEND. COMM. : 3-2, 5/8/12
AYES: Correa, De Le�n, Lieu
NOES: La Malfa, Gaines
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-1, 6/12/12
AYES: Evans, Corbett, Leno
NOES: Harman
NO VOTE RECORDED: Blakeslee
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-22, 3/22/12 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Campaign finance reform
SOURCE : Public Citizen
DIGEST : This resolution (1) memorializes the
Legislatures disagreement with the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election
Commission, and (2) calls upon the United States Congress
to propose and send to the states for ratification a
constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission and to restore constitutional
rights and fair elections to the people.
ANALYSIS : This resolution is in response to the decision
CONTINUED
AJR 22
Page
2
of the U.S. Supreme Court case Citizens United v. Federal
Election Commission (2010) 130 S.Ct. 876 which centered
around the provision in the federal Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 (known as the "McCain-Feingold"
Law) which prohibited corporations and unions from using
general treasury funds to make "independent expenditures"
for "electioneering communications" within 60 days of a
general election or within 30 days of a primary election.
In past cases the court upheld the right of Congress and
the states to regulate campaign financing. In Citizens
United the court overturned these decisions and struck down
the BCRA provisions restricting corporations and unions use
of making independent expenditures. Since this decision at
least two courts have weighed in on the issue, one which
appears to extend the Citizens United decision to
independent expenditures (SpeechNow.org v. FEC (2010) - a
Circuit Court of Appeal decision) and the other which seems
to limit it (Western Tradition Partnership v. Attorney
General of Montana, a Montana state Supreme Court
decision).
At the time of this writing, at least 13 resolutions
seeking to overturn Citizens United had been introduced in
either the U.S. House of Representatives or the U.S.
Senate. Although all seek to overturn Citizens United,
they do so in different ways. Some of the resolutions
simply call for overturning Citizens United without stating
which of the Court's several holdings would be overturned.
(See e.g., H.J. Res. 86, introduced by Rep. Sutton; S.J.
Res. 29, introduced by Senators Harkin et.al.) Some of the
resolutions introduced thus far proclaim, in one way or
another, that corporations are not "natural persons" and
thereby not protected by any of the rights protected by the
U.S. Constitution. (See e.g., H.J. Res. 90, introduced by
Rep. Deutch; S.J. Res. 33, introduced by Senator Sanders;
and H.J. 88 by Rep. McGovern.) Still others would overturn
Citizens United more narrowly by merely affirming Congress'
power to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures.
(See e.g., H.J. Res. 72, introduced by Rep. Schrader; H.J.
Res. 8, introduced by Rep. Kaptur.) State and local
resolutions calling upon Congress to propose and submit a
constitutional amendment similarly vary in terms of which
aspects of Citizens United should be overturned.
CONTINUED
AJR 22
Page
3
Existing law, pursuant to Amendment I of the U.S.
Constitution as applied to the states by Amendment XIV of
the U.S. Constitution, provides that neither Congress nor
the states may enact any law respecting the establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.
What the basic question this resolution presents is whether
or not corporations should be recognized as a "person"
under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution giving
them the protection of free speech or not. So far the
courts have held that corporate bodies are protected by the
First Amendment and by many other constitutional provisions
as well.
According to the authors, the "U.S. Supreme Court's ruling
in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ignored
precedent and opened the door for unlimited corporate
donations advocating for and against candidates. AJR 22
would put California's legislature on record in opposition
to this ruling and would call upon the U.S. Congress to
propose and send to the states for ratification a
constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United and
restore constitutional rights and fair elections to the
people." The authors contend that this resolution is part
of a "national grassroots movement" that believes that
"�c]orporations are not people and money is not speech."
The authors also contend that people's trust of government
is at an all-time low, and that decisions like Citizens
United only "further erode the public's faith that the
people's interest will come before those of wealthy special
interests." Quoting Justice Stevens' dissent in Citizens
United, the authors contend "legislators have a compelling
constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to
take measures designed to guard against the potentially
deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and
national elections." The authors believe that this
resolution will "send a message that we want Congress to
perform that democratic duty."
NOTE: See the Senate Judiciary Committee, Assembly
Judiciary Committee, and Senate Elections and
CONTINUED
AJR 22
Page
4
Constitutional Amendments Committee analysis for a
comprehensive discussion of the issue presented by
the resolution.
Related/Prior Legislation
SB 982 (Evans, 2012), among other things, requires a
corporation, as defined, to disclose to its shareholders
any campaign contributions or expenditures made in the
previous fiscal year in support of or in opposition to a
candidate, ballot measure campaign, or a
signature-gathering effort on behalf of a ballot measure,
political party, or political action committee in a fiscal
year-end report, and to provide prior notice of any such
contributions or expenditures, as specified. The bill is
in the Senate Banking and Financial Institutions Committee.
AB 2050 (Allen, 2012), among other things, prohibits a
domestic corporation from making any monetary contribution
to any candidate for local or state office in this state or
any other state, and to make specified disclosures when
making a monetary contribution in excess of $1,000 to any
candidate for federal office or any statewide ballot,
referendum, or initiative voted on in this state. The bill
is in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
AB 1648 (Brownley, 2012), among other things, adds
specified disclaimer and disclosure requirements with
respect to certain advertisements in connection with
elections. The bill is on the Assembly Floor.
AB 1148 (Brownley, 2012) was substantially similar to AB
1648 and failed a 2/3 passage on the Assembly Floor.
AJR 32 (Allen, Gatto, Wieckowski, 2012) would have called
upon Congress to call a constitutional convention to amend
the Constitution to bar "corporate personhood" and declare
that money does not constitute speech. The resolution died
in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: No
SUPPORT : (6/13/12)
Public Citizen (source)
CONTINUED
AJR 22
Page
5
Berkeley City Council
California Church Impact
California Faculty Association
California Labor Federation
California League of Conservation Voters
California Nurses Association
California Professional Firefighters
California Public Interest Research Group
California Teachers Association
City of Santa Monica
Common Cause
Consumer Watchdog
CREDO Action
Davis City Council
International Forum on Globalization
Laborers Local 777 and 792
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 48-22, 3/22/12
AYES: Alejo, Allen, Ammiano, Atkins, Beall, Block,
Blumenfield, Bonilla, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan,
Butler, Charles Calderon, Campos, Carter, Cedillo,
Chesbro, Davis, Dickinson, Eng, Feuer, Fong, Fuentes,
Galgiani, Gatto, Gordon, Hayashi, Roger Hern�ndez, Hill,
Huber, Hueso, Huffman, Lara, Ma, Mendoza, Mitchell,
Monning, Pan, Perea, V. Manuel P�rez, Portantino,
Solorio, Swanson, Torres, Wieckowski, Williams, Yamada,
John A. P�rez
NOES: Achadjian, Bill Berryhill, Conway, Cook, Donnelly,
Beth Gaines, Garrick, Grove, Hagman, Halderman, Jeffries,
Jones, Knight, Mansoor, Miller, Morrell, Nestande,
Nielsen, Olsen, Silva, Smyth, Wagner
NO VOTE RECORDED: Fletcher, Furutani, Gorell, Hall,
Harkey, Logue, Bonnie Lowenthal, Norby, Skinner, Valadao
DLW:k 6/13/12 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
AJR 22
Page
6
CONTINUED