PROP
59

Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections. Legislative Advisory Question.

Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections. Legislative Advisory Question.

Summary

Asks whether California’s elected officials should use their authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United ruled that laws placing certain limits on political spending by corporations and unions are unconstitutional. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.

Shall California’s elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings?

Money Raised

Chart depicts total fundraising by all committees primarily formed for and against Prop 59.Totals are updated daily with contributions from Power Search opens new window and adjustments from the most recent Political Reform Division analysis. opens new window

Largest Contributions

Showing the 10 largest contributions to committees formed primarily for and against Prop 59 in the election cycle when it appeared on the ballot. Contributions in earlier election cycles and contributions between allied committees are excluded. For more information on funding for ballot measure campaigns, visit the Power Search opens new window campaign finance search engine.

Yes on Prop 59

NextGen CA Committee
09/05/2016
$61,000
The Atlantic Advocacy Fund Inc.
05/17/2016
$40,000
California Common Cause
10/14/2016
$25,000
The Atlantic Advocacy Fund Inc.
05/09/2016
$20,000
Voqal USA Philanthropy
10/05/2016
$15,000
Dolby, Dagmar
10/07/2016
$15,000
Proteus Fund
10/07/2016
$14,000
Woods, Laure L.
03/30/2016
$12,000
California Democratic Party
09/23/2016
$11,003
California Common Cause
10/22/2016
$10,916

No on Prop 59

No contributions have been reported to the No on 59 campaign in the election cycle when it appeared on the ballot.

What your vote means

Yes

A YES vote on this measure means: Voters would be asking their elected officials to use their constitutional authority to seek increased regulation of campaign spending and contributions. As an advisory measure, Proposition 59 does not require any particular action by the Congress or California Legislature.

No

A NO vote on this measure means: Voters would not be asking their elected officials to seek certain changes in the regulation of campaign spending and contributions.

More on Proposition 59

For background on Proposition 59, an analysis by the legislative analyst, endorsements for and against the measure, and more...

Arguments

Pro

Vote YES on Prop. 59 to tell Congress we want big money out of politics and overturn misguided Supreme Court rulings saying unlimited campaign spending is free speech and that corporations have the same constitutional rights as real people. Send a message to Congress that we’ll hold them accountable.

Con

The Legislature should stop wasting taxpayer dollars by putting do-nothing measures on the ballot that ask Congress to overturn the Supreme Court. Instead of wasting time and money on do-nothing ballot measures, politicians in Sacramento should focus on transparency and bringing jobs to California. Proposition 59 DOES NOTHING. Vote NO!

Campaigns

For

Derek Cressman
California Common Cause
(323) 536-1459
vote@yesonCAProp59.com
www.yesonCAProp59.com

Against

Dave Gilliard
Gilliard, Blanning & Associates
5701 Lonetree Blvd., Suite 301
Rocklin, CA 95765
(916) 626-6804
info@gbacampaigns.com