SENATE Final Reading May 9, 2012Second Regular Session Sixty-eighth General Assembly STATE OF COLORADO ENGROSSED LLS NO. R12-0889.01 Bob Lackner x4350 SJR12-034 SENATE SPONSORSHIP Carroll, Aguilar, Bacon, Boyd, Foster, Giron, Guzman, Heath, Hodge, Hudak, Johnston, Morse, Newell, Nicholson, Schwartz, Shaffer B., Steadman, Tochtrop, Williams S. HOUSE SPONSORSHIP Jones, Court, Casso, Duran, Ferrandino, Fields, Fischer, Hamner, Hullinghorst, Kagan, Kefalas, Kerr A., Labuda, Lee, Levy, McCann, McKinley, Miklosi, Pabon, Pace, Peniston, Ryden, Schafer S., Singer, Solano, Soper, Todd, Tyler, Vigil, Williams A., Wilson, Young Senate Committees House Committees SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 12-034 Concerning the expression by the Colorado General Assembly of its strong opposition to recent federal court rulings affecting campaign finance and urging the reversal of the doctrine of corporate personhood as set forth in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. WHEREAS, As with their compatriots across the nation, the people of Colorado are endowed with certain inalienable rights expressly conveyed to individuals by means of the United States Constitution and section 3 of article II of the Colorado Constitution; and WHEREAS, The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was enacted to protect the free speech rights of individuals, not corporations; and WHEREAS, Free and fair elections are essential to American democracy and effective self-governance; and WHEREAS, Corporations and labor unions are not natural persons but rather legal entities granted conditional legal rights by acts of legislative bodies; and WHEREAS, At the federal level, concerns about unchecked corporate spending on elections extends back to the first years of the twentieth century when President Theodore Roosevelt called for campaign reform in his annual messages to Congress in 1905 and 1906, culminating in the passage in 1907 of the Tillman Act, which, in an effort to distinguish between corporate and individual spending on elections, banned direct contributions by corporations to candidates for federal office; and WHEREAS, For decades, Congress has exercised its constitutional authority to regulate elections by seeking to prevent corporations from exercising undue influence or the appearance of undue influence over federal candidates, and the United States Supreme Court has over this course of time repeatedly and consistently upheld reasonable restrictions on corporate political activity; and WHEREAS, The 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), overturned precedent prohibiting corporations from freely spending their general treasury funds for the purpose of funding independent expenditures and also overturned part of an earlier decision that had authorized limits on the ability of corporations to expend general treasury moneys on so-called electioneering communications; and WHEREAS, Critical to the Court's holding in Citizens United is the principle that individuals do not lose their constitutional rights to free speech when they come together to form corporations or other similar entities, which determination is said to have given corporations and labor unions free speech rights equal to those enjoyed by natural persons; and WHEREAS, The Citizens United decision has invalidated state legislation and even state constitutional provisions, such as those in article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution that had prohibited corporations and labor unions from spending moneys from their general treasuries on electioneering communications and independent expenditures; and WHEREAS, Historically, in such landmark holdings as Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), the Supreme Court has regularly upheld regulations in the area of campaign finance in order to prevent the effects on the political process of either corruption or the appearance of corruption resulting from large and unrestricted campaign contributions from certain interests; and WHEREAS, Following the Citizens United decision, in the case of SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, 599 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2010), a federal appellate court held that so-called independent expenditure-only political committees, which have become better known as "Super PACs", may collect unlimited sums from corporations and other entities and individuals for the purpose of funding independent expenditures as long as such activities are not coordinated with those of a candidate; and WHEREAS, The holdings in these cases and subsequent opinions from the Federal Election Commission have allowed a torrent of money into the current election cycle unmatched by any campaign expenditure amounts in American history, and it has been estimated that, for the 2012 election, 250 Super PACs will spend from $600 million to $1 billion in an effort to elect the candidates they support; and WHEREAS, Corporations and labor unions are not citizens and do not, except in very limited circumstances at the local level, possess the right to vote, yet through the expenditure of seemingly unlimited amounts of money, they now have it within their power to significantly overwhelm the power of individual citizens and thereby disproportionately influence the outcome of elections; and WHEREAS, An individual may use his or her money to speak on his or her singular behalf, but the money corporations and labor unions use to speak belongs to their shareholders and members, who presumably represent disparate political ideologies; and WHEREAS, The corporations included in the relevant court cases and subject to any applicable restrictions include corporations organized under section 527 of the internal revenue code; and WHEREAS, These federal court decisions have created a new and unequal playing field on which citizens of average means are competing against some of the wealthiest corporations, labor unions, and individuals for influence in the political process and access to candidates; and WHEREAS, These federal court decisions also present a serious and direct threat to the future of our republic because they threaten to fatally dilute the political power of individual citizens and thereby compromise the principle of one person, one vote that is essential to the vitality of our democracy; now, therefore, Be It Resolved by the Senate of the Sixty-eighth General Assembly of the State of Colorado, the House of Representatives concurring herein: That we, the members of the Colorado General Assembly: (1) Express strong opposition to recent federal court rulings in the area of campaign finance opening the floodgates of unlimited and often undisclosed corporate spending on elections; and (2) Urge by appropriate legislative or judicial means the reversal of the federal court rulings and the doctrine of corporate personhood more generally; and (3) Urge clarification by appropriate legislative or judicial means that, in connection with the protection of free speech rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, such rights may only be exercised by a natural person; and (4) Support efforts by Congress to limit contributions or expenditures by any person or committee made in support of, in opposition to, or to otherwise influence the nomination or election of any person to federal office; and (5) Support efforts by the several states to limit contributions or expenditures by any person or committee made in support of, in opposition to, or to otherwise influence the nomination or election of any person to state or local office in the states. Be It Further Resolved, That copies of this Joint Resolution be sent to President Barack Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., United States Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives John Boehner, to each member of Colorado's congressional delegation, and to each member of the United States Supreme Court.