Sample Resolve Language for a Standard Resolution

(This is sample resolve language to use as a starting point for a resolution that
would be voted on by your local
government)
RESOLVED, [That the Citizens/City Council/Legislature of _________] calls uon the !nite" States
Congress to ass an"
sen" to the states for rati#cation a constitutional a$en"$ent to re%erse Citizens United v.
Federal Election Commission;
an" to clarify that&
Cororations are not entitle" to the Constitutional rotections or 'rights' of natural ersons(
And/Or
)*oney is not seech, an" therefore regulating election+relate" sen"ing is not e,ui%alent to
li$iting olitical seech-.
And
RESOLVED, that /e instruct the [City/State reresentati%es of_____+] to $a0e the nee" an"
suort for a constitutional a$en"$ent 0no/n to our state1s Congressional "elegation, an" to
the Congress at large an" to as0 for their osition on such an a$en"$ent-
Sample Resolve Language for a Referral Resolution
(This is sample resolve language to use as a starting point for a resolution
that would be voted your local government and that would put a similar
question on the local ballot for voters to consider as well)
2E 3T RESOLVED that the %oters of [4City/State] shoul" ha%e the oortunity on the 5o%e$6er
7897 6allot to instruct
[:uris"iction1s] congressional reresentati%e[s]as "irect agents of the eole, to "o e%erything
/ithin their "elegate" authority to roose( [an" our state legislators to ratify]( an
a$en"$ent to the !nite" States Constitution that /oul" o%erturn the "ecision of the !nite"
States Sure$e Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission-
That a$en"$ent shoul" $a0e clear that Cororations are not entitle" to the Constitutional
rotections or 'rights' of natural ersons [an"/or] that $oney is not seech, an" therefore
that regulating election+relate" sen"ing is not e,ui%alent to li$iting olitical seech, an"
Congress an" the States $ay lace li$its on election contri6utions an" e;en"itures(
T<ERE=ORE [this 6o"y] here6y refers the follo/ing ,uestion to 6e resente" to [:uris"iction]
%oters on the 5o%e$6er 7897 6allot&
Do you /ant to instruct [:uris"iction1s] congressional reresentati%es to roose,
an" [:uris"iction1s] state legislators to ratify, an a$en"$ent to the !nite" States
Constitution to clarify that cororations are not entitle" to the constitutional
rights of natural eole, an" to allo/ li$its on olitical ca$aign sen"ing>
The [Secretary of State/local election o?cial] shall tally the results- 3f a $a:ority of %oters
suort the ,uestion the
[Secretary of State] shall sen" a /ritten notice to [:uris"iction1s congressional "elegation] on the
t/enty+#rst of @anuary of each year until Congress has roose" an a$en"$ent as ro%i"e" for
in Article V of the !nite" States Constitution to a""ress these issues infor$ing the$ of the
instructions fro$ their constituents-
Mix and Match Whereas Clauses
Be reco$$en" ic0ing an" choosing fro$ the follo/ing Bhereas clauses-
ream!le clauses" Corporations are #O$ eople% and their political spending is not
protected speech
B<EREAS, the rotections aCor"e" 6y the =irst A$en"$ent to the !nite" States
Constitution to the eole of our nation are fun"a$ental to our "e$ocracy( an"
B<EREAS, the =irst A$en"$ent to the !nite" States Constitution /as "esigne" to rotect
the free seech rights of in"i%i"ual hu$an 6eings D)natural ersons.E, not cororations( an"
B<EREAS, Cororations are not eole 6ut instea" are arti#cial entities create" 6y the la/ of
states an" nations( an"
B<EREAS, cororations are not $entione" in the Constitution an" The Feole ha%e ne%er
recognize" the e;tension of fun"a$ental constitutional rights to cororations, nor ha%e Be
"ecree" that cororations ha%e authority that e;cee"s the authority of )Be the Feole(. an"
B<EREAS, for the ast three "eca"es, a "i%i"e" !nite" States Sure$e Court has transfor$e"
the =irst A$en"$ent into a o/erful tool for cororations an" e;tre$ely /ealthy in"i%i"uals
see0ing to e%a"e an" in%ali"ate "e$ocratically+enacte" refor$s( an"
B<EREAS, the !nite" States Sure$e Court hel" in Buckley v Valeo D9GHIE that the aearance
of corrution :usti#e" li$its on contri6utions to can"i"ates, 6ut /rongly hel" that $oney sent
in elections is a for$ of seech that $ay not 6e restricte" "ue to such co$elling interests as
ensuring a le%el laying #el", an" ensuring that all citizensJregar"less of /ealthJha%e an
oortunity to ha%e their olitical %ie/s hear"( an"
Criti&ues of the Supreme Court's (udicial activism and overturning of precedent
B<EREAS, cororate $isuse of the =irst A$en"$ent an" the Constitution reache" an e;tre$e
conclusion in the !nite"
States Sure$e Court1s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission D7898E( an"
B<EREAS, the Court1s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC o%erturne" longstan"ing rece"ent
rohi6iting cororations fro$ sen"ing their general treasury fun"s in our elections( an"
B<EREAS, the $a:ority in Citizens United v FEC ignore" the case an" contro%ersy lace"
i$$e"iately 6efore the$ an" re,ueste" a""itional argu$ents e%en after the laintiCs ha"
argue" their case on the 6asis of statutory interretation an" a $ore narro/ as+alie"
constitutional challenge, instea" choosing to reach out an" $a0e a s/eeing constitutional
ruling( an"
B<EREAS, Citizens United v. FEC o%erturne" the Court1s earlier "ecision in Austin v Michigan
Chamber o Commerce
D9GG8E, /hich correctly recognize" the threat to a reu6lican for$ of go%ern$ent ose" 6y )the
corrosi%e an" "istorting eCects of i$$ense aggregations of /ealth that are accu$ulate" /ith
the hel of the cororate for$ an" that ha%e little or no correlation to the u6lic1s suort for
the cororation1s olitical i"eas(. an"
B<EREAS, Citizens United v FEC also o%erturne" asects of the Court1s $ore recent "ecision in
McConnell v FEC D788KE, /hich 6y contrast ha" uhel" the 2iartisan Ca$aign Refor$ Act of
7887 D2CRAE, an act /hose $o"est refor$s /ere 6eing challenge" in Citizens United( an"
Criti&ues of the Supreme Court's illogical )ndings
B<EREAS, the $a:ority in Citizens United v FEC hel" that only ,ui"+ro+,uo corrution or the
aearance thereof can :ustify li$its on in"een"ent e;en"itures in ca$aigns, re:ecting the
co$$on sense that has gui"e" o%er 988 years of state an" fe"eral eCorts to re%ent electoral
sen"ing fro$ 6eco$ing a for$ of inLuence 6uying( an"
B<EREAS, the $a:ority in Citizens United v FEC /rote that )in"een"ent e;en"itures,
inclu"ing those $a"e 6y cororations, "o not gi%e rise to corrution or the aearance of
corrution(. an"
B<EREAS, the $a:ority in Citizens United v FEC roerly uhel" the 2CRA1s "isclosure
ro%isions, 6ut erroneously resu$e" that "isclosure of cororate e;en"itures to
sharehol"ers an" to the u6lic su?ciently e;ist an" can alone su?ciently rotect "e$ocracy
fro$ the urchasing of referre" access to electe" o?cials( an"
B<EREAS, Citizens United v. FEC erroneously e,uate" the "esire of large cororations to
inLuence olitical "ecision+$a0ing through $assi%e electoral e;en"itures /ith the seech of
"isa"%antage" in"i%i"uals an" grous see0ing to $a0e their %oices hear"( an"
B<EREAS, @ustice @ohn Faul Ste%ens1 oinion for the four "issenting :ustices in Citizens
United v. FEC note" that cororations ha%e secial a"%antages not en:oye" 6y natural
ersons, such as li$ite" lia6ility, eretual life, an" fa%ora6le treat$ent of the
accu$ulation an" "istri6ution of assets, that allo/ the$ to sen" ro"igious su$s on
ca$aign $essages that ha%e little or no correlation /ith the 6eliefs hel" 6y natural
ersons( an"
B<EREAS, the Citizens United v FEC "issenters o6ser%e" that, )Cororations hel structure an"
facilitate the acti%ities of hu$an 6eings, to 6e sure, an" their Mersonhoo"M often ser%es as a
useful legal #ction- 2ut they are not the$sel%es $e$6ers of MBe the FeoleM 6y /ho$ an" for
/ho$ our Constitution /as esta6lishe"(' an"
B<EREAS, the Citizens United v FEC "issent correctly o6ser%e" that $oney sent on 6ehalf of
can"i"ates is a $eans of a$lifying seech an" not a for$ of olitical seech itself, an"
restrictions on cororate sen"ing are $ore roerly %ie/e" as restrictions on the ti$e, lace
an" $anner of seech( an"
$he direct impact of Citizens United " more corporate mone* and po+er% less
democrac*
B<EREAS, as a result of the "ecision in Citizens United v. FEC, the olitical sen"ing of
cororations an" /ealthy in"i%i"uals recei%es a constitutional resu$tion of rotecte" status,
/hereas the restrictions on the rights of in"i%i"ual citizens to rotest the auctioning of our
"e$ocracy are su6:ect to a $ore "eferential for$ of re%ie/( an"
B<EREAS relying on Citizens United v FEC in !"eech#o$.org v. FEC D7898E, the DC Circuit
Court of Aeals o%erturne" li$its on in"een"ent e;en"itures, a%ing the /ay for the so+
calle" )Suer FACs. that are at the heart of torrent of secial+interest $oney loo$ing o%er our
local, state an" fe"eral elections( an"
B<EREAS, Citizens United v. FEC has in fact unleashe" a torrent of cororate $oney in our
olitical rocess un$atche" 6y any ca$aign e;en"iture totals in !nite" States history( an"
B<EREAS, 6ase" on "ata gathere" 6y OenSecrets-org, a resecte" non+artisan /e6site that
trac0s $oney in A$erican olitics, sen"ing 6y non+arty co$$ittees "uring the 7898
Congressional elections Dthe #rst fe"eral elections to occur after Citizens UnitedE increase" to
aro;i$ately NO8P-H million, four ti$es the le%el of such sen"ing in 788I( an"
B<EREAS, contrary to the Citizens United $a:ority1s assu$tion that "isclosure /oul" allo/ for
u6lic accounta6ility, half of the "rastically increase" sen"ing "uring the 7898 elections /as 6y
secreti%e olitical co$$ittees not re,uire" to "isclose their "onors( an"
B<EREAS, sen"ing in the 7897 elections is ro:ect to total at least NQ 6illion, an" sen"ing 6y
)Suer FACs. has laye" a "o$inant an" "eleterious role in shaing the resi"ential election
thus far( an"
B<EREAS, Citizens United v. FEC urorts to in%ali"ate state la/s an" e%en state
Constitutional ro%isions searating cororate $oney fro$ elections, $any of the$ o%er 988
years ol"( an"
B<EREAS, the oinion of the *ontana Sure$e Court in %estern &radition 'artnershi" v
Attorney (eneral D7899E an"
@ustice 5elson1s reluctant "issent in that case "e$onstrate the long+stan"ing, continue"
co$elling interest in re%enting corrution an" lac0 of faith in "e$ocratic "ecision+
$a0ing that $oti%ates reasona6le restrictions on cororate ca$aign sen"ing( A5D
B<EREAS, the laintiC see0ing to in%ali"ate *ontana1s century+ol" 6an on cororate electoral
sen"ing in %estern &radition 'artnershi", an out+of+state organization oose" to
en%iron$ental regulations, "eli6erately 6oaste" of its "esire an" a6ility to inLuence olicy
through secreti%e an" unaccounta6le $eans, telling "onors that, 'no olitician, no 6ureaucrat,
an" no ra"ical en%iron$entalist /ill e%er 0no/ you hele" $a0e this rogra$ ossi6le(' A5D
Bhereas, the !nite" States Sure$e Court1s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC reresents a serious
an" "irect threat to our "e$ocracy( an"
,istorical )ndings and &uotes
B<EREAS, The general u6lic an" olitical lea"ers in the !nite" States ha%e recognize",
since the foun"ing of our country, that the interests of cororations "o not al/ays correson"
/ith the u6lic interest an" that, therefore, the olitical inLuence of cororations shoul" 6e
li$ite"( an"
B<EREAS, 3n 9Q9I, for$er Fresi"ent Tho$as @eCerson /rote, )3 hoe /e shall crush in its 6irth
the aristocracy of our $oneye" cororations, /hich "are alrea"y to challenge our go%ern$ent
to a trial of strength an" 6i" "e#ance to the la/s of our country.( an"
B<EREAS, 3n his 9G98 )5e/ 5ationalis$. seech, for$er Fresi"ent Theo"ore Roose%elt state"
that, )3t is necessary that la/s shoul" 6e asse" to rohi6it the use of cororate fun"s "irectly or
in"irectly for olitical uroses( it is still $ore necessary that such la/s shoul" 6e thoroughly
enforce"- Cororate e;en"itures for olitical urosesRha%e sulie" one of the rincial
sources of corrution in our olitical aCairs-.
B<EREAS, in his "issenting oinion in Citizens United v FEC, @ustice @ohn Faul Ste%ens o6ser%e"
that )At 6otto$, the Court1s oinion isRa re:ection of the co$$on sense of the A$erican
eole, /ho ha%e recognize" a nee" to re%ent cororations fro$ un"er$ining self
go%ern$ent since the foun"ing, an" /ho ha%e fought against the "istincti%e corruting
otential of cororate electioneering since the "ays of Theo"ore Roose%eltR-Bhile A$erican
"e$ocracy is i$erfect, fe/ outsi"e the $a:ority of this Court /oul" ha%e thought its La/s
inclu"e" a "earth of cororate $oney in olitics-.
Conclusion and Resolved Clauses
B<EREAS, Article V of the !nite" States Constitution e$o/ers an" o6ligates the eole
an" states of the !nite" States of A$erica to use the constitutional a$en"$ent rocess to
correct those egregiously /rong "ecisions of the !nite" States Sure$e Court that go to the
heart of our "e$ocracy an" reu6lican self+go%ern$ent( an"
B<EREAS, 5ot/ithstan"ing the "ecision in Citizens United v. FEC, legislators ha%e a "uty to
rotect "e$ocracy an" guar" against the otentially "etri$ental eCects of cororate
sen"ing in local, state, an" fe"eral elections(