California Proposition 59, Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question (2016)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
California Proposition 59
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 8, 2016
Topic
Campaign finance and Federal constitutional issues‎
Status
Approveda Approved
Type
Advisory question
2016 measures
Seal of California.png
June 7
Proposition 50 Approveda
November 8
Proposition 51 Approveda
Proposition 52 Approveda
Proposition 53 Defeatedd
Proposition 54 Approveda
Proposition 55 Approveda
Proposition 56 Approveda
Proposition 57 Approveda
Proposition 58 Approveda
Proposition 59 Approveda
Proposition 60 Defeatedd
Proposition 61 Defeatedd
Proposition 62 Defeatedd
Proposition 63 Approveda
Proposition 64 Approveda
Proposition 65 Defeatedd
Proposition 66 Approveda
Proposition 67 Approveda
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

The California Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question (Senate Bill 254), also known as Proposition 59, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an advisory question. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported advising the state's elected officials to use their authority to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, potentially through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
A "no" vote opposed this measure advising the state's elected officials to use their authority to overturn the Citizens United v. FEC decision.

Election results

Proposition 59
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 6,845,943 53.18%
No6,027,08446.82%
Election results from California Secretary of State

Overview

Background of Proposition 59

The United States Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) held that political contributions and spending were protected as "free speech" under the First Amendment.[1]

A nearly identical legislative referral was slated to appear as Proposition 49 in 2014, but litigation kept the measure off the ballot until 2016. In the California Legislature, 64 percent of legislators recommended placing Proposition 59 on the ballot, while 32 percent opposed such action.

Measure design

Proposition 59 called on California’s elected officials to work on overturning Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and other similar judicial precedents, whether through a constitutional amendment or other means. Furthermore, the measure asked officials to allow for “the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending” and “make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings.” As an advisory question, Proposition 59 did not legally require officials to act as the measure advised them to.

State of the ballot measure campaigns

Supporters of Proposition 59 raised $491,600. Tom Steyer’s NextGen California Committee contributed $61,390. Supporters of the measure included Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), the California Teachers Association, and the California Democratic Party. There was no organized opposition to Proposition 59, although most Republican state senators and representatives voted against placing the measure on the ballot in the California Legislature.

Text of measure

Ballot question

The ballot question was as follows:[2]

“

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?[3]

”

Ballot summary

The long-form ballot summary was as follows:[4]

“
  • 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.
  • States that the proposed amendment should clarify that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings.[3]
 ”

The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:[4]

“

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. [3]

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement for this measure was:[4]

“
  • No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.[3]
 ”

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Support

YesOn59logo.jpg

Overturn Citizens United, also known as Yes on 59, led the campaign in support of Proposition 59.[5]

Supporters

The Yes on 59 campaign website listed the following endorsements for Proposition 59:

Officials

Former officials

Parties

Organizations

Individuals

Arguments

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 59:[4]

  • The proposition would overturn the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court ruling, and would ensure that the voice of the people is not drowned out by corporations and billionaires.
  • The proposition would limit excessive political spending.

Official arguments

Sen. Ben Allen (D-26), Michele Sutter, co-founder of Money Out Voters In, and Kathay Feng, executive director of California Common Cause, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 59 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[4]

Vote YES on Proposition 59 to help get big money out of politics and restore a government of, by, and for the people.

Corporations and billionaires should not be allowed to continue to buy our elections.

But that's exactly what the United States Supreme Court did in the disastrous Citizens United v FEC ruling. This misguided decision gave corporations the same "rights" as human beings and freed them to spend unlimited amounts of money in our elections. Other recent decisions overturned long-standing laws limiting how much billionaires could spend in an election.

As a result, corporations and their billionaire owners are spending unprecedented amounts of money to tilt the outcomes of our elections in their favor.

Corporations and billionaires should not have a greater voice in our elections than California voters. Corporations spend huge amounts of money to influence election results and make it harder for our voices to be heard.

The Supreme Court was wrong and must be corrected.

Corporations play a vital role in our economy. But corporations aren't people. They don't vote, get sick, or die in wars for our country. The Constitution was written to protect human beings, not corporations. The rights granted to corporations by the Supreme Court allow them to drown out the voices of real people — as voters, consumers, workers, and small business owners.

We The People should have the right to set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others to influence elections.

Vote YES on Prop and tell Congress to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that puts an end to this corrosive political spending.

California voters have used ballot measures to instruct and improve our state and local governments before. Prop6q allows us to do this on this critical issue.

Real campaign finance reform can only happen with a groundswell of grassroots support from across the country, Let's do our part and vote YES on Proposition 59.

Help send a message to Congress to act now to strengthen our democracy. Vote YES on Proposition 51.

Opposition

Opponents

Officials

Legislature

The following members of the California Legislature voted against placing Proposition 59 on the ballot.[17]

Senate
Assembly

Individuals

  • Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones[18]

Arguments

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 59:[4]

  • The proposition is a non-binding advisory question, and therefore would clog the November ballot and act as a "feel-good" measure.
  • The proposition would hurt small businesses and other entities that are incorporated as corporations.
  • The proposition would be ineffective, because it fails to prohibit or limit corporate and union contributions to candidates, elected officials, and political parties.
  • The proposition would allow California congress members to tinker with the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which contains important citizen rights that should not be changed lightly.

Official arguments

Sen. Jeff Stone (R-28) and Asm. K.H. Achadjian (R-35) wrote the official argument in opposition to Proposition 59 found in the state voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[4]

PROPOSITION 59 IS A BIG WASTE OF YOUR TIME AND OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

The LEGISLATURE placed this NON-BINDING ADVISORY measure on the ballot to say they want campaign finance reform and want to curb the power of special interests in Sacramento, but it actually does nothing of the kind. Instead, it argues that FREE SPEECH SHOULD NOT APPLY TO small businesses and others who choose to incorporate as a corporation. What this measure fails to accomplish is:

  • It FAILS to prohibit or limit corporate contributions to candidates and elected officials.
  • It FAILS to prohibit or limit union contributions to candidates or elected officials.
  • It FAILS to prohibit or limit corporate contributions to political parties.
  • It FAILS to prohibit or limit union contributions to political parties.

Instead, Proposition 59 asks the California members of Congress to change the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Do you really want THIS CONGRESS to tinker with the FIRST AMENDMENT which guarantees and protects:

  • Your right to practice your religion?
  • Your right to FREE SPEECH?
  • Your right to a FREE PRESS?
  • Your right to peaceably assemble and associate with others?
  • Your right to petition your government?

Supporters of Proposition 59 argue that "corporations aren't people." But, many Churches are incorporated, Newspapers and Television networks are incorporated. Facebook, Google, and Twitter are incorporated. Even organizations like Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are incorporated. People shouldn't lose their Constitutional rights just because they choose to become involved in a company or organization that is incorporated.

Our BALLOTS should NOT be clogged with pointless NON-BINDING measures.

This is the first, but if you vote "yes" it surely won't be the last. Instead, your NO VOTE sends a clear message to the Legislature:

  • Stop WASTING OUR MONEY — This measure costs taxpayers half a million dollars, or more.
  • Stop CLOGGING OUR BALLOT with meaningless measures that DO NOTHING.
  • Start DISCLOSING political contributions WITHIN 24 HOURS of receipt year-round.
  • Start DOING YOUR JOB. Fix our broken education system. Fix our broken roads. Protect us from crime.

Nobody likes the current state of Politics in America or California. But PROPOSITION 59 is just a "feel-good" measure that does NOTHING to increase disclosure of money being spent in politics.

Please VOTE NO on PROPOSITION 59. IT DOES NOTHING.

Campaign finance

Total campaign contributions:
Support: $491,600.48
Opposition: $0.00

As of February 1, 2017, the support campaign for Proposition 59 raised $491,600.48, and the opposition campaign did not form a committee.[19]

Support

As of February 1, 2017, the following PACs were registered to support Proposition 59, and the total amount raised and expended was current as of the same date.[20]

PAC Amount raised Amount spent
MAKE THEM LISTEN - YES ON 59 $6,268.35 $6,268.35
YES ON 59, CALIFORNIA CLEAN MONEY ACTION FUND TO OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED $42,485.70 $70,592.13
MOVE TO AMEND YES ON PROP 59 $0.00 $0.00
CALIFORNIA COMMON CAUSE -- YES ON 54 AND 59 $77,333.69 $78,658.69
OVERTURN CITIZENS UNITED, YES ON 59 $269,922.62 $269,922.62
PROTEUS ACTION LEAGUE NON-PROFIT 501 (C)(4) ORGANIZATION, OPPOSING MEASURE 66 AND SUPPORTING MEASURES 54 AND 59 $96,790.12 $96,790.12
Total $491,600.48 $521,031.91

As of February 1, 2017, the top six largest donors in support of Proposition 59 were:[20]

Donor Amount
NextGen California Committee $61,389.99
California Democratic Party $38,236.59
Laure L. Woods $12,000.00
Jeffrey Clements $5,000.00
Holly Mosher $5,000.00
John Watson $5,000.00

Opposition

As of February 1, 2017, there were no PACs registered to oppose Proposition 59.[20]

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

  • The Bakersfield Californian: "The Citizens United decision, which in part classifies corporations as 'citizens,' giving them the ability to contribute to political campaigns, is credited with pouring special interest money into campaigns. Clearly this buying of America is a bad thing."[21]
  • East Bay Express: "American politics needs campaign-finance reform. This measure is toothless, sure. But the need for change is critical. Send a message. Vote yes."[22]
  • The Hanford Sentinel: "We agree with the argument in favor of Proposition 59, which says that unions and corporations are not people. They don’t vote. They don’t get sick. They don’t fight and die in wars. They should not be granted the same rights as people."[23]
  • The Mercury News: "Voters who believe that money is not speech and corporations are not individual people, and who want California to fight for campaign finance reform, should vote yes on Proposition 59. Unlike Citizens United, it can't do any harm."[24]
  • The Record: “Vote yes. This is nothing more than an advisory vote, so we question why it’s even on the ballot. But since it is, 'yes' is the best call.”[25]
  • The Sacramento Bee: “We weren’t thrilled, however, about cluttering the ballot with an advisory measure urging California elected officials to use their power to overturn the 2010 ruling … But now that Proposition 59 is before voters, it is worth supporting, if only to avoid sending the wrong message.”[26]
  • San Diego City Beat: “But since we don’t support corporations funneling money into campaigns, we stand by the California Democratic Party in voicing opposition to Citizens United in the hope that something is done in the future.”[27]
  • The San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 59.[28]
  • San Francisco Chronicle: "We understand why some voters will be tempted to reject Proposition 59 on principle: send a message to lawmakers to stop piling advisory measures on an already too-crowded ballot, and stop thwarting reforms such as those designed to end fundraising during peak legislative sessions and to provide greater transparency on hearings and bills. Fortunately, the latter issue is being addressed by Prop. 54, a citizens’ initiative that requires hearings to be live-streamed on the Internet and legislation to be in print 72 hours before a vote. [...] Prop. 59 would affirm this state’s commitment to genuine campaign finance reform. Vote yes."[29]
  • San Francisco Examiner: "We support this as a half-measure, even though we wish the mandate would be legally binding."[30]

Opposition

  • The Desert Sun: "Proposition 59, however, is just a distraction from the actual business at hand in this already overwhelming election season. Shooting it down will send a message that this type of hollow, ballot-crowding initiative is anything but appreciated."[31]
  • Los Angeles Daily News: "The language of Prop. 59 raises many more questions than it answers, forcing voters to just guess as to what the First Amendment would look like after legislators were finished with it. Its guidance is vague and overbroad. It does not offer voters a law to approve, but an opinion poll."[32]
  • Los Angeles Times: "We recommend a No vote, for two reasons. First, amending the Constitution is a difficult process by design, and not every unwise Supreme Court decision justifies the attempt. [...] That brings us to our second concern about Proposition 59: Like a similar measure approved by Los Angeles city voters in 2013, Proposition 59 doesn’t specify what a proposed constitutional amendment would actually say. [...] We share the frustration over Citizens United (the decision) and 'Citizens United' (the metaphor for the outsize role of money in politics). We also recognize that the very reason we opposed placing this question on the ballot — that it’s purely advisory — could be offered as a justification for voting Yes; why not take advantage of this opportunity to 'make a statement'? Fair enough, but if that statement is: 'Amend the Constitution; details to follow,' we don’t think it’s a message worth sending."[33]
  • Orange County Register: "With its muddled advisory intent, Proposition 59 would set a harmful and wasteful precedent in the service of ill-advised constitutional meddling. These problems underscore the mischief of advisory measures. Even if well-intentioned, they can end up malicious. The First Amendment is fine just the way it is, and Californians do not need to vote on polls."[34]
  • San Diego Union-Tribune: "This editorial board offers no opinion on Citizens United, the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Proposition 59 targets. But we think having advisory measures such as this clutters and complicates the ballot, and that anyone who doesn’t want a future in which every election has similar nonbinding, time-consuming measures should vote no. .... A yes vote isn’t just taking a symbolic but meaningless stand against a 6-year-old court decision. It’s an invitation to political strategists to aggressively push future symbolic measures onto already-crowded ballots. No thanks."[35]
  • San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a 'No' vote on Proposition 59.[36]
  • Santa Cruz Sentinel: "If you hate the Citizens United ruling, vote for a presidential candidate who will nominate Supreme Court justices who may overturn the ruling the right way. Or for legislators who will fight for campaign finance reform that will shed light on the influence of 'dark' money in political campaign [sic]. We recommend voting no on Proposition 59."[37]

Other positions

  • Ventura County Star recommended not voting on the measure: "Our concern is our ballots already are too long. If we begin loading them up with advisory measures, they will be impossible to maneuver. We support overturning Citizens United, but we recommend you skip voting on Prop. 59. A no vote seems like it supports the decision. A yes vote is useless and would only encourage more advisory measures."[38]

Polls

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls
  • In mid October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 59. Support among respondents was 47 percent and opposition was 19 percent.[39]
California Proposition 59 (2016)
Poll Support OpposeUndecidedMargin of errorSample size
CALSPEAKS
10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016		 47.0%19.0%34.0%+/-7.0622
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Senate Bill 1272

See also: California Proposition 49, Amendment to Overturn Citizens United Ruling Question (2014)

Senate Bill 1272, also known as Proposition 49, was introduced in the California state legislature in February 2014. It passed the California Senate in May 2014 and the California Assembly in June 2014. The bill called for the submission of an advisory question that would ask voters whether to overturn the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision. On July 16, 2014, the measure was approved for the ballot. Governor Jerry Brown did not sign the legislation, however.[40]

Lawsuit

In July 2014, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit challenging the Citizens United advisory question. Specifically, the group questioned the legitimacy of placing any legislatively referred advisory questions on the ballot. The California Supreme Court ordered supporters to withdraw the measure from the ballot while court review was pending. On January 4, 2016, the California Supreme Court ruled that the advisory question could be placed on the ballot. It was concluded that Senate Bill 1272 could not be used to place the measure on the 2016 ballot, because the legislation specified that a question be placed on the November 2014 ballot. Consequently, Senate Bill 254 served as the impetus for placing an advisory question regarding Citizens United on the ballot instead.[41]

Path to the ballot

Below is the history of Senate Bill 254 in the California state legislature:

  • On February 18, 2015, the bill was introduced in the state legislature.[42]
  • On May 12, 2016, the bill passed the California Assembly, with 51 voting in support and 26 against.[42]
  • On May 27, 2016, the bill passed the California State Senate, with 26 voting in support and 12 against.[42]
  • On June 9, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown approved the bill.[43]


State profile

USA California location map.svg
Demographic data for California
 CaliforniaU.S.
Total population:38,993,940316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):155,7793,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:61.8%73.6%
Black/African American:5.9%12.6%
Asian:13.7%5.1%
Native American:0.7%0.8%
Pacific Islander:0.4%0.2%
Two or more:4.5%3%
Hispanic/Latino:38.4%17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:81.8%86.7%
College graduation rate:31.4%29.8%
Income
Median household income:$61,818$53,889
Persons below poverty level:18.2%11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)
Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California.
**Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in California

California voted for the Democratic candidate in all six presidential elections between 2000 and 2020.


More California coverage on Ballotpedia

Related measures

No measures concerning Federal constitutional issues are certified for the ballot in 2016. They will be listed below if and when any are certified for the ballot.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California Proposition 59 Citizens United 2016. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

California Proposition 59, Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question (2016) - Google News


See also

External links

Basic information

Support

Other resources

Footnotes

  1. ↑ SCOTUS Blog, "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission," accessed July 10, 2014
  2. ↑ California Legislative Information, "Senate Bill No. 254," accessed June 9, 2016
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 California Secretary of State, "California General Election November 8, 2016, Official Voter Information Guide," accessed August 18, 2016
  5. ↑ Yes on 59, "Homepage," accessed September 16, 2016
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Our Revolution, "Our Ballot Initiatives," accessed August 26, 2016
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Yes on 59, "Endorsements," accessed September 16, 2016
  8. ↑ Green Party of California, “Green Party positions on Statewide Propositions - November 2016 General Election,” October 3, 2016
  9. ↑ Peace and Freedom Party, "Peace and Freedom Party recommends," accessed September 17, 2016
  10. ↑ Harvey Milk Democratic Club, “Official Endorsements for the November 8, 2016 Election,” August 17, 2016
  11. ↑ Santa Monica Daily Press, “Endorsements surge as campaigns heat up,” September 17, 2016
  12. ↑ California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, “2016 Environmental Justice Voter Guide,” accessed October 5, 2016
  13. ↑ Highland Community News, “Nurses Endorse Gun Safety, Death Penalty Repeal Measures,” September 26, 2016
  14. ↑ Represent.Us, "2016 initiatives," accessed October 11, 2016
  15. ↑ Washington Times, "Democrat mega-donor Tom Steyer backs California initiative to get money out of politics," September 8, 2016
  16. ↑ Sierra Sun Times, “Congressman Tom McClintock Comments on California Ballot Propositions,” October 14, 2016
  17. ↑ California Legislative Information, "SB-254 Campaign finance: voter instruction. (2015-2016)," accessed September 2, 2016
  18. ↑ Mother Jones, “California Voters Were Hit With a Blizzard of Ballot Propositions. Here’s Your Cheat Sheet,” October 18, 2016
  19. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Power Search Campaign Finance database," accessed August 16, 2016
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 20.2 Cal-Access, "PROPOSITION 059- SB 254 (CHAPTER 20, STATUTES OF 2016), ALLEN. CAMPAIGN FINANCE: VOTER INSTRUCTION," accessed February 1, 2017
  21. ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "Vote YES on Prop. 59; stem election money flow," September 12, 2016
  22. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
  23. ↑ The Hanford Sentinel, "Yes on Proposition 59," October 15, 2016
  24. ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop 59 to fight Citizens United ruling," August 17, 2016
  25. ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
  26. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Take a stand on Citizens United," September 5, 2016
  27. ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
  28. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
  29. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: Yes on state Prop. 59," September 6, 2016
  30. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
  31. ↑ The Desert Sun, "Proposition 59 sheer waste of time on a crowded ballot," October 22, 2016
  32. ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "No on Prop. 59 — ballot no place for opinion poll: Endorsement," October 10, 2016
  33. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Prop 59: Don't amend the Constitution over Citizens United," September 6, 2016
  34. ↑ Orange County Register, "No on Proposition 59," October 11, 2016
  35. ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "Proposition 59: Ballot clutter sets bad precedent," September 7, 2016
  36. ↑ San Mateo Daily Journal, "Editorial: Daily Journal proposition endorsements," October 28, 2016
  37. ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial: No on ‘feel-good’ Prop. 59, Citizens United," September 6, 2016
  38. ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Do not vote on Prop. 59," September 30, 2016
  39. ↑ CALSPEAKS, "General Election October 2016 Survey of Californians," October 20, 2016
  40. ↑ California Legislative Information, "Senate Bill No. 1272," accessed June 9, 2016
  41. ↑ The Brad Blog, "CA Legislature Asks State Supremes to Finally Put 'Overturn Citizens United' Prop 49 on 2016 Ballot," January 25, 2016
  42. ↑ 42.0 42.1 42.2 Open States, "SB 254," accessed June 9, 2016
  43. ↑ Courthouse News Service, "California Will Vote on Repealing Citizens United," June 9, 2016
v • e
2016 ballot measures
I&R States
Non I&R States
Political topics
Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay
Other
v • e
Ballotpedia
About
Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Michelle Robinson, Senior Product Manager, Education & School Boards

Communications: Alison Graves • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Andrew Heath • Moira Delaney • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Policy: Caitlin Styrsky • Molly Byrne • Jon Dunn • Jimmy McAllister • Annelise Reinwald
Research: Josh Altic
Tech: Matt Latourelle • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Trevor Pollo • Joseph Sanchez

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen
Editorial
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=California_Proposition_59,_Overturn_of_Citizens_United_Act_Advisory_Question_(2016)&oldid=9328742"