Pass: 235,517 / 76.6% Yes votes ...... 72,070 / 23.4% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

Summary Prepared by the Ballot Simplification Committee:

THE ISSUE:
Shall the voters adopt a resolution that there should be limits on political campaign spending and that corporations should not have the constitutional rights of human beings and instruct Los Angeles elected officials and area legislative representatives to promote that policy through amendments to the United States Constitution?

THE SITUATION:
Existing laws regulate the funding of political campaigns, and include limits on contributions to candidates and disclosure requirements in campaign advertisements. Past laws prohibited corporations from funding campaign material independently of candidates. However, due in part to U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the Citizens United v FEC and Buckley v Valeo cases, limits on corporate independent expenditures were ruled unconstitutional.

THE PROPOSAL:
This measure proposes to support an Amendment to the US Constitution that would overturn portions of the Supreme Court's rulings in Buckley v Valeo and Citizens United v FEC to state that corporations do not have the constitutional rights of human beings and do not engage in constitutionally protected speech when spending corporate money to influence elections, and to make it permissible to set limits on political spending to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to have their political views heard.

A YES VOTE MEANS:
You want the people of the City to support an Amendment to the US Constitution that would limit the rights of corporations so that spending money on campaigns is not constitutionally protected speech, and that ensures all citizens can have their views heard.

A NO VOTE MEANS:
You do not want the people of the City to support an Amendment to the US Constitution that would limit the rights of corporations so that spending money on campaigns is not constitutionally protected speech, and that ensures all citizens can have their views heard.

Fiscal Impact from Miguel A. Santana City Administrative Officer:

This measure is not expected to result in any additional cost to the City or to taxpayers.

Impartial Analysis from Gerry F. Miller Chief Legislative Analyst

This ballot measure proposes that the City support an amendment to the United States Constitution which limits the rights of corporations to make unlimited independent campaign expenditures and allows for laws placing further limits on political spending.

Approval of this measure would not directly initiate or ratify an amendment, but would express the City's support of such an amendment. Any proposed amendment to the Constitution must be initiated either by a two-thirds majority of both the US Senate and the US House of Representatives, or by a Constitutional Convention called by two-thirds of the States. Once initiated, a proposed amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the States before it can become effective.

Specifically, this ballot measure would instruct the City's Congressional Delegation to propose and support an amendment to the US Constitution that would overturn portions of the Supreme Court's rulings in Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v FEC that conflict with the following objectives: (1) Corporations do not have the Constitutional rights of human beings; (2) Corporations do not engage in constitutionally protected speech when spending corporate money to influence the electoral process; and (3) It is permissible to set limits on political spending that promote the goals of the First Amendment by ensuring that all citizens, regardless of wealth, have an opportunity to have their political views heard.

Federal, State, and local laws govern the funding of political campaigns. Some of those laws require campaign materials to disclose their funding sources, limit the contribution amounts candidates are allowed to accept from one source, and place other requirements and restrictions on campaigns. Past laws also limited the independent expenditure of funds by corporations on campaigns.

In January, 2010, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case Citizens United v FEC that stated, in part, that it is a violation of the US Constitution's First Amendment to "restrict political speech based on a speaker's corporate identity," and that "political speech of corporations or other associations should [not] be treated differently under the First Amendment because such associations are not natural persons." Additionally, while campaign finance laws can limit the contributions a candidate may accept from a single source, in 1976 the Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that there is no limit on the amount of money candidates can contribute to their own campaigns.

As a result of the ruling in Citizens United, laws that had previously limited corporations from independently paying for campaign speech were deemed unconstitutional. In response, Los Angeles modified its own campaign finance laws to comply with the ruling. The Council also adopted a Resolution opposing the Supreme Court's ruling and expressing support for an Amendment to the Constitution that would limit the rights of corporations. This measure would reaffirm the Resolution through a vote of the electorate.

This measure will become effective if approved by a majority of voters.