Wisconsin Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling Question (2016)
| Wisconsin Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling Question | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Campaign finance | |
| Status Not on the ballot | |
| Type Advisory question | |
The Wisconsin Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling Question was not put on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Wisconsin as an advisory question.
The measure would have asked voters whether the Wisconsin congressional delegation should propose and support a constitutional amendment to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. F.E.C and whether the Wisconsin Legislature should ratify such an amendment.[1]
Text of measure
The proposed ballot question read as follows:[1]
| “ | The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United and related cases allow unlimited spending to influence local, state, and federal elections. To allow all Americans to have an equal say in our democracy, shall Wisconsin’s congressional delegation support, and the Wisconsin legislature ratify, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating:
|
” |
Background
The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) held that political contributions and spending were protected as "free speech."[3] In 2012, voters in both Montana and Colorado passed initiatives by 3 to 1 majorities asking their respective delegations to the U.S. Congress to support a constitutional amendment that would effectively overturn the high court's ruling.
Support
Arguments
- Lisa Subeck, executive director of United Wisconsin, argued, “Unlimited election spending by corporations and special interest groups has drowned out the voice of the people in our elections, and urgent action is needed to restore our democracy. Wisconsinites will continue raising their voices until fundamental reforms to our broken campaign finance system are enacted, starting with the reversal of Citizens United.”[4]
- Darin Von Ruden, president of the Wisconsin Farmers Union, claimed that the Citizens United ruling had a particularly negative effect on rural constituents. He said: “When I look at this, it seems to me that there’s a whole lot of money just going back and forth: campaign contributions from urban and suburban areas coming in, and tax dollars to urban and suburban areas going out. Those of us who are paying taxes in rural areas aren’t getting our full share of the American promise of representative government. We need to bring an end to unlimited and unaccountable campaign spending. That is why I and fellow members of Wisconsin Farmers Union support an end to the era of unlimited money in politics, and are advocating for a Constitutional amendment stating that unions, corporations and special interest groups are not people, and money is not speech.”[5]
Opposition
The following arguments were submitted as arguments in opposition to a constitutional amendment saying that corporations aren't persons and that spending money is not protected by freedom of speech:[6]
| “ |
|
” |
Opponents of efforts to overturn the Citizens United ruling also made the following arguments:[7]
- The Supreme Court was correct in its ruling. Spending money should be protected under free speech because spending money sends a message.
- Just because people don't like the fact that people with more money can create more opportunities for speech doesn't make spending money not an expression of free speech.
- Spending lots of money doesn't necessarily guarantee political influence. Lots of campaigns spend large sums of money and still lose.
Michael Kinsley wrote,[8]
| “ |
The First Amendment right of free speech is generally considered to be a liberal cause. So it's disappointing to see how quickly liberals abandon it when the speech is something they disagree with. Money isn't speech? Ridiculous. Of course it is. The very act of spending money sends a message, like “liking” something on Facebook. Also, it takes money to “speak.” It's precisely because people and organizations that have more money can speak more (more TV commercials, more lawn signs) and speak more loudly (perhaps a better class of political consultant) that the court's conclusion in Citizens United bothers people so much. At the same time, no amount of money automatically translates into a certain amount of influence over the political process.[2] |
” |
Media editorials
Support
- The Capital Times, supporting a similar proposal in 2014, said, "Scheduling two advisory referendums for this fall would be easy, and inexpensive — as Wisconsinites will already be voting for governor, statewide and county posts, legislative seats and Congress. It would also generate interest in the election, potentially drawing more voters to the polls. The people of Wisconsin, not out-of-state corporations and their Washington-based henchmen, should decide whether Wisconsin calls for changing the U.S. Constitution."[9]
Path to the ballot
The measure needed to pass through both chambers of the state legislature in order to place the nonbinding question on the ballot. In 2016, the state legislative session ran from January 12 through April 7.
First attempt
On January 21, 2013, a coalition looking to overturn the Citizens United decision delivered 24,000 petition signatures to the Wisconsin General Assembly. The petitions called on legislators to pass Assembly Joint Resolution 50.[4] On August 27, 2013, AJR 50 was introduced into the Wisconsin Legislature.[10] Democrats in the Wisconsin State Assembly tried to force the legislation to come up for a vote, but Republicans successfully blocked the measure in a 60 to 29 vote. On March 21, 2014, the assembly adjourned for the year without voting on the measure.
Second attempt
Rep. Lisa Subeck and Sen. Dave Hansen introduced a second resolution in January 2015 in an attempt to put the question before voters.[1] On February 5, 2015, Assembly Joint Resolution 8 was read and referred to the Constitution and Ethics Committee.[11]
Similar measures
- California Proposition 49, Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling Question (2014)
- California "Corporations Are Not People" Initiative (2012)
- Colorado Corporate Contributions Amendment, Amendment 65 (2012)
- Montana Corporate Contributions Initiative, I-166 (2012)
See also
External links
- Assembly Joint Resolution 8
- Senate Joint Resolution 12
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 The Rock River Times, "‘Citizens United’ referendum introduced in Wisconsin," January 21, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ SCOTUS Blog, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission," accessed February 13, 2014
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 The Capital Times, "Lisa Subeck: Pass resolution to put advisory on Citizens United to the voters," January 22, 2014
- ↑ La Crosse Tribune, "Guest View: Get big money out of politics," January 23, 2014
- ↑ Ballotpedia staff writer, "Email submission of arguments," November 8, 2016
- ↑ Vanity Fair, "DID THE SUPREME COURT MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION IN THE CITIZENS UNITED CASE AFTER ALL?" May 2016
- ↑ Cite error: Invalid
<ref>tag; no text was provided for refs namedVanity - ↑ The Capital Times, "Let Wisconsin vote on balanced budget, Citizens United," February 12, 2014
- ↑ Wisconsin Legislature, "Assembly Joint Resolution 50," accessed January 21, 2014
- ↑ [http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2015/proposals/reg/asm/joint_resolution/ajr8 Wisconsin State Legislature, " Assembly Joint Resolution 8," accessed December 1, 2015]
 |
State of Wisconsin Madison (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
