Vermont Was Third. Will California Be Next?
Printer-friendly version
Send by email
By Jonah Minkoff-Zern
Public Citizen
Vermont today became the third state to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision.
Which state will be next? It could very well be California.
If the state approves AJR 22, introduced in January by Assemblymembers Bob Wieckowski and Michael Allen, California would be the fourth state in the union to back an amendment (Hawaii and New Mexico are the first two). The resolution calls for an amendment that would prevent corporations from being granted the same rights as individuals. It would help create fair elections, in which Congress could regulate all forms of campaign spending.
The resolution passed the Assembly in March by a 48-22 vote. The Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing will be held on May 1.
Momentum for an amendment is growing. Thirteen California cities and towns have passed resolutions, including Los Angeles, Oakland, Fort Bragg, Richmond, Marina and Fairfax.]. Public Citizen and other organizations – including the CREDO Mobile. California League of Conservation Voters, CALPIRG, and Common Cause – have gathered signatures from tens of thousands of California voters who support an amendment. They know that corporations have an outsized influence over politics and want the balance of power restored in elections.
In addition, the California Teachers Association, California Professional Firefighters and California Faculty Association recently joined the growing chorus of California organizations supporting an amendment, which includes the California Labor Federation, the California Nurses Association and Environment California.
Citizens United, handed down in 2010, gave corporations the green light to spend unlimited sums to influence elections. Noted Wieckowski, “The Citizens United decision tilts the scales of campaign funding toward those who support wealthy special interests rather than working Americans. This resolution is designed to send a grassroots message to Washington about the urgent need to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling and restore fair elections to the people.”
California should be applauded for helping lead the charge to re-establish the principle that democracy means rule by the people, not giant corporations.
Also to be applauded are the state’s dedicated activists. It is because of them that elected officials are considering this resolution.
It’s not too late to get involved; Public Citizen is leading a coordinated effort to pass hundreds of similar resolutions at the local level the week of June 11 as part of Resolutions Week. The idea is to create a splash throughout the country and show that people are taking a stand to say that democracy is for people, not for corporations.
Visit www.democracyisforpeople.org.
Note: Public Citizen, through its Democracy Is For People campaign, worked with Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski to develop a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jonah Minkoff-Zern is Senior Organizer of Public Citizen's Democracy Is For People Campaign that has worked with Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski to develop a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.
- megan's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send by email
Constitutional Amendments can open door for more mischieves by those in power. We would be better off working on a clean sweep of crooked politicians and government officials that are accepting bribes. Having a constitutional amendment may open door to clear and piggy back amendments and laws that will enable and expand the power of our elected officials and install laws that will immunize them from retroactive and future wrongdoing, frauds, bribes, and corrupt activities. Such as the following Law that was paased by legislature, which was unconstitutional.
Former US Prosecutor Richard I Fine was detained in prison for 18 months when he blew the whistle at a corrupt Superior Judicial System for taking a bribe from the County of Los Angeles with our Tax Dollars. Remember the City of Bell in Southern California? We should demand investigation of our government and hold the corrupt official to account before a Grand Jury for misappropriation of TAX PAYERS Treasures. Someone has to be held accountable. We have to know how they were able to get away with looting our money for decades long.
This is the bill that was signed in 2009 without the public disclosure. Thanks to ONE HONEST litigator for exposing government corruption. Thank you Dr. Richard I Fine.
Senate Bill No. 11
CHAPTER 9
An act to add Sections 68220, 68221, and 68222 to the Government Code,
relating to judges.
[Approved by Governor February 20, 2009. Filed with
Secretary of State February 20, 2009.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 11, Steinberg. Judges: employment benefits.
The California Constitution requires the Legislature to prescribe
compensation for judges of courts of record. Existing law authorizes a county
to deem judges and court employees as county employees for purposes of
providing employment benefits. These provisions were held unconstitutional
as an impermissible delegation of the obligation of the Legislature to
prescribe the compensation of judges of courts of record.
This bill would provide that judges who received supplemental judicial
benefits provided by a county or court, or both, as of July 1, 2008, shall
continue to receive supplemental benefits from the county or court then
paying the benefits on the same terms and conditions as were in effect on
that date. The bill would authorize a county to terminate its obligation to
provide benefits upon providing 180 days’ written notice to the
Administrative Director of the Courts and the impacted judges, but that
termination would not be effective as to any judge during his or her current
term while that judge continues to serve as a judge in that court or, at the
election of the county, when that judge leaves office. The bill also would
authorize the county to elect to provide benefits for all judges in that county.
The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Senate Committee
on Budget and Fiscal Review, the Assembly Committee on Budget, and
both the Senate and Assembly Committees on Judiciary on or before
December 31, 2009, analyzing the statewide benefits inconsistencies.
This bill would provide that no governmental entity, or officer or employee
of a governmental entity, shall incur any liability or be subject to prosecution
or disciplinary action because of benefits provided to a judge under the
official action of a governmental entity prior to the effective date of the bill
on the ground that those benefits were not authorized under law.
This bill would provide that nothing in its provisions shall require the
Judicial Council to increase funding to a court for the purpose of paying
judicial benefits or obligate the state or the Judicial Council to pay for
benefits previously provided by the county, city and county, or the court.