#08 Support an amendment to US Constitution regarding corporate personhood (File Res. #2012-880)
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE MEMORANDUM
February 13, 2012
TO: Common Council
FROM: Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Action on a Proposed Resolution Supporting an Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution Regarding Corporate Personhood (File Resolution No. 2012
– 880)
FACTS
: Council Members Rashkin and Liebert requested that the City Administration
draft a resolution supporting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding corporate
personhood and place it on the next Council agenda.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
: Proposed File Resolution No. 2012-880 calls upon the
Congress of the United States to begin the process of amending the Constitution to
provide that that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of protections or "rights" of
natural persons, specifically so that the expenditure of corporate money to influence the
electoral process is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech, and puts the
Common Council of Janesville on record as so supporting.
City Manager Recommendation:
The City Manager does not have a specific recommendation on this item. The item will
not have a staff presentation.
SUGGESTED MOTION:
I hereby move to adopt Council File Resolution No. 2012-880.
DISCUSSION
: By adopting the attached Resolution, the Common Council of the City
of Janesville would on the record oppose the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the
Constitution in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010)
(“Citizens United”) where the United States Supreme Court on January 21, 2010,by a 5-
4 vote, issued its decision in Citizens holding that independent spending on elections by
corporations and other groups could not be limited by government regulations, and puts
the Janesville Common Council on record opposing the constitutional rights of
corporations and supporting amending the Constitution accordingly.
Council Members Yuri Rashkin and Samuel Liebert, sponsored this item and contend
that the decision in Citizens United rolled back the legal restrictions on corporate
spending in the electoral process, allowing for unlimited corporate spending to influence
elections, candidate selection, and policy decisions.
1
City Comparisons
Madison and Dane County voters approved resolutions via ballot initiative in support of
a similar personhood resolution; however, staff is unaware of any Wisconsin municipal
governing bodies that have approved a personhood resolution. The Cities of Duluth,
MN; Buffalo, NY; Portland, OR; Los Angeles, CA; and New York City, NY governing
bodies approved similar personhood resolutions to what is before the Council. (source:
http://movetoamend.org/resolutions-map)
Attachment (proposed File Resolution No. 2012-880).
2
CITY OF JANESVILLE RESOLUTION NO. 2012 - 880
A Resolution calling for a U.S. Constitutional amendment to abolish corporate personhood.
Specifically:
A Resolution opposing the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution in
Citizens United regarding the constitutional rights of corporations, supporting an amendment to
the Constitution to provide that corporations are not entitled to the entirety of protections or
"rights" of natural persons, specifically so that the expenditure of corporate money to influence
the electoral process is no longer a form of constitutionally protected speech, and calling on
Congress to begin the process of amending the Constitution.
Whereas, This Common Council is the governing body of the City of Janesville, a Wisconsin
municipal corporation, located in the County of Rock, conducting its principal business at 18
North Jackson Street, Janesville, WI 53545, and are in charge of the business of the City under
the Home Rule provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution, Article XI Section 3, and pursuant to
Sections 66.0101 and 62.11(5) of the Wisconsin Statutes; and
Whereas, Article V of the Constitution of the United States of America prescribes how an
amendment can become a part of the U.S. Constitution, reading as follows:
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall
propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of
two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this
Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or
by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may
be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to
the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its
Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”; and
Whereas, While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All twenty seven (27)
Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the
proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the
proposed Amendment. The other method of passing an amendment requires a Constitutional
Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can
propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved
by three-fourths of the states; and
Whereas, On January 21, 2010, the United States Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, issued its
decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 130 S. Ct. 876 (2010) (“Citizens
United”), holding that independent spending on elections by corporations and other groups
could not be limited by government regulations; and
Whereas, The decision in Citizens United rolled back the legal restrictions on corporate
spending in the electoral process, allowing for unlimited corporate spending to influence
elections, candidate selection, and policy decisions; and
Whereas, In reaching its decision, a majority of the Supreme Court, relying on prior decisions,
interpreted the First Amendment of the Constitution to afford corporations the same free speech
protections as natural persons; and
Whereas, The Court's decision in Citizens United severely hampers the ability of federal, state,
and local governments to enact reasonable campaign finance reforms and regulations regarding
corporate political activity; and
Whereas, Corporations should not be afforded the entirety of protections or "rights" of natural
persons, such that the expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is a
form of constitutionally protected speech; and
Whereas, Several proposed amendments to the Constitution have been introduced in Congress
that would allow governments to regulate the raising and spending of money by corporations to
influence elections; and
Whereas, The only way to reverse these rulings is an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States that:
A. Ends the judicial fiction of corporate Constitutional rights.
B. Requires Congress to regulate campaign finance.
C. Mandates public financing of public elections.; and
Whereas, Numerous other cities throughout the United States including, but not limited to, Los
Angeles, CA, New York, NY, Duluth, MN, Portland, ME, Portland, OR, and Pueblo, CO, have
each adopted similar resolutions
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
by the Common Council of the City of Janesville that:
1. Each and every of the above recitals is reiterated and incorporated by reference
herein into these empowerment provisions; and
2. The Common Council of the City of Janesville oppose the U.S. Supreme Court’s
interpretation of the Constitution in Citizens United regarding the constitutional rights of
corporations, and supports amending the Constitution to provide that corporations are not
entitled to the entirety of protections or "rights" of natural persons, specifically so that the
expenditure of corporate money to influence the electoral process is no longer a form of
constitutionally protected speech, and hereby specifically call on Congress to begin the process
of amending the Constitution; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
, that the City Manager and his designee(s), on behalf of the City
of Janesville, is/are hereby jointly and severally authorized and empowered to take whatever
additional actions that the City Manager may determine in his sole discretion, from time to time
and at any time, necessary and/or desirable in the public interest to effectuate the intent of this
Resolution.
ADOPTED:
MOTION BY:
APPROVED:
SECOND BY:
COUNCILMEMBER AYE NAY PASS ABSENT
Eric Levitt, City Manager
ATTEST:
DONGARRA-ADAMS
Jean Ann Wulf, City Clerk-Treasurer LIEBERT
McDONALD
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RASHKIN
STEEBER
Wald Klimczyk, City Attorney
VOSKUIL
Proposed by: Council Members Rashkin and Liebert
Prepared by: City Attorney