Citizens United: California Poised

[xxqqqzme]

To Become Largest Electorate To Vote On Constitutional Amendment

"...California Assemblymember Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) introduced a bill, AB 644, Wednesday to put a measure on the state's 2014 ballot urging Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 Citizens United ruling, which lifted restrictions on political spending by corporations and labor unions. Independent spending in federal elections has exploded since the ruling.

"It's one thing for a legislator to say he wants this," Wieckowski said. "It's another thing for Congress to have direct instruction from the voters. There comes a tipping point where people are upset with billionaires having a disproportionate impact on our electoral system...."..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/citizens-united-california-constitutional-amendment_n_2728560.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

[Auggie]

1. This should be easy

[xxqqqzme]

2. That is my hope!

[JayhawkSD]

3. Won't stand up for a minute

The Supreme Court of the US has ruled. No state may pass laws contrary to US laws. California does ths and it will be struck down as fast as a law limiting free speech would be, or a law permitting searches without warrant.

[Jim Lane]

4. Sure it will, because it's only advisory.

If California were to pass a law limiting corporate spending in state elections, in ways not permitted under Citizens United, then it would be contrary to the Constitution (as currently interpreted) and it would be struck down. As the OP makes clear, however, and as the linked article confirms, the bill does nothing more than urge Congress to amend the Constitution. That's perfectly OK.

[JayhawkSD]

5. Ah, yes, I misread the post. Thanks. n/t