BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    �



                                                                  SB 1272
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   June 18, 2014

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                  Mike Gatto, Chair

                     SB 1272 (Lieu) - As Amended:  May 27, 2014 

          Policy Committee:                              ElectionsVote:5-0

          Urgency:     Yes                  State Mandated Local Program:  
          No     Reimbursable:               

           SUMMARY  

          This bill calls a special election, to be consolidated with the  
          statewide general election on November 4, 2014, to submit an  
          advisory question to the voters asking whether the Congress  
          should overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizen United decision  
          and other applicable judicial precedents.

           FISCAL EFFECT  

          One-time General Fund printing cost of at least $275,000, based  
          on $55,000 per page, to include in the statewide ballot pamphlet  
          the text of the measure, title and summary, Legislative  
          Analyst's Office analysis, and arguments in support and  
          opposition.

           COMMENTS  

           1)Background  . In January 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its  
            ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission  
            (2010) 558 U.S. 310, a case involving a nonprofit corporation  
            (Citizens United) that sought to run television commercials  
            promoting a film it produced that was critical of then-Senator  
            and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.  Because federal  
            law prohibited corporations and unions from using their  
            general treasury funds to make expenditures for  
            "electioneering communications" or for communications that  
            expressly advocated the election or defeat of a candidate,  
            Citizens United was concerned that the television commercials  
            promoting its film could subject the corporation to criminal  
            and civil penalties.  In its decision, the Supreme Court  
            struck down the 63-year old law that prohibited corporations  
            and unions from using their general treasury funds to make  








                                                                  SB 1272
                                                                  Page  2

            independent expenditures in federal elections, finding that  
            the law unconstitutionally abridged the freedom of speech.

           2)Purpose  . According to the author, "? 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, the 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.

            The author contends SB 1272 would advance the efforts to  
            reverse Citizens United and other applicable judicial  
            precedents, including McCutcheon v. Federal Election  
            Commission.

           3)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, the Legislature has placed one or more  
            statewide advisory measures on the ballot.  In November 1892,  
            voters approved an advisory measure asking whether United  
            States Senators should be directly elected by a vote of the  
            people. 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.

           4)Calling an Election  . Because this bill calls an election  
            within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution, it would  
            go into immediate effect if signed by the Governor. The  
            statutory deadline for including legislative ballot measures  
            on the November ballot is June 26, 2014.

           5)Related Legislation  . AJR 1 (Gatto), pending in the Senate,  
            encourages the United States Congress to call a constitutional  
            convention for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment to  








                                                                  SB 1272
                                                                  Page  3

            the United States Constitution that would limit corporate  
            personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political  
            speech and further declares that money does not constitute  
            speech and may be legislatively limited.  AJR 1 is pending in  
            Senate Judiciary Committee.

            SB 1402 (De Le�n), pending in Assembly Rules, places an  
            advisory question on the November ballot asking voters whether  
            Congress should reform the nation's immigration laws.

            HR 37 (Wieckowski), pending in the Assembly, states the  
            Assembly's disagreement with the McCutcheon decision.

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081