When it ruled Monday that California lawmakers can ask for voters' opinions on campaign-spending laws, the state Supreme Court underscored "that the ultimate power of our government is vested in the people," Common Cause senior vice president Karen Hobert Flynn declared in the wake of the decision.
There a re a few ways this will go down. One is that the Citzens United will be overturned, but there will be a secretive 'dog ear' that noone will read and yet vote for, but will pass. Or Citizens United will not be affected and its business as usual (this is my bet). Or there will be a new interpretation of the law that will strengthen it, though itmight 'relax' the law. But, like I said, my bet is nothing will happen. How is California politicians going to make it on such poor mans wages...unless the laws dont change.
Why did the CA Supreme Court remove the advisory question [about Citizens United] from the ballot in 2014 -- in the first place ? The article doesn't explain this.
Of course the voters of any state ought to be able to place both advisory and lawmaking referendums on their respective state ballots ! As long as requisite qualifying procedures are followed, and then vetted by the state's AG and Sec. of State, and the advisory questions are about public policy and/or use of gov. power, such referendums must be allowed. We also need referendum options on the federal level -- along with campaign spending limits at all leves, to prevent private money from dominating the democratic process.
I'm not sure why anyone would care if they put this on the ballot or not. The US Congress cannot "overturn" a US Supreme Court ruling, no matter what the people of California want. The most that Congress could do is pass legislation that dramatically redefines and restricts the definition of a corporation under Federal law. The whole purpose of creating corporations is to create a legal entity to represent the collective interests of owners and shareholders, while limiting the personal liability of the owners/investors. Changing the nature of corporations is a very drastic move with far-reaching legal and social consequences. Congress isn't likely to enter into this lightly, even if it were controlled by Democrats. With either House of the Congress under the control of Republicans, the voters of California might as well tell Congress they'd like the moon to be made of cheese.
Some of the justices felt that an advisory proposition might not be allowable under the California Constitution, and tabled the measure until they could look into it further.
It is up to the states and/or Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution. 38 states would have to vote yes to ratify it.
''non-binding, advisory measure''
Doesn't mean a whole lot does it.
All these tiny "victories..." that take literally years of Herculean effort by dedicated people... do essentially zero to actually stop rampaging capital from continuing to remake the world in its own extractivist looting image...
We need to "keep our eyes on the prize," even when we do work toward "progressive reform." We need to live with the strategic goal of overturning the rule of capital, to institute a political economy with real accountability to communities and the ecology.
Sorry. Telling Congress that the people of California want Congress to "overturn" a SCOTUS ruling isn't the same thing as the legislature of California proposing an amendment to the Constitution or a Constitutional Convention. This ballot measure is not binding on either the California legislature or the US Congress. It is totally meaningless and without effect, other than making those who voted for it feel good about themselves. Which, quite frankly, seems to be enough for progressives.
Of course it isn't the same thing. It's a measure intended to raise awareness, nothing more. And of course it isn't enough for progressives who believe that the Supreme Court's rulings on money as speech and corporate personhood are wrong. That is why Move to Amend is working to get a Constitutional amendment enacted. It is why Wolf-Pac is working on getting the states to call an Article V. convention. It's why 99 Rise conducts protests to raise awareness. It's why people get involved with Common Cause, Represent.us, MOVI, etc.
'Are we a democracy of, by, and for the people, or are we to be ruled by an elite, moneyed class?'
Does this question even need to be asked?
The answer is blindingly obvious.
If US citizens really want to change things, they get organised, pick a few vulnerable candidates and concentrate upon them. Pick the ones who accept Jewish money. then get out and door knock, man the booths, provide transport.
The rich can give money, they cannot deliver votes if a community rallies against them. demonstrate over two or three elections that to accept money is to lose the election.
I'm all for a constitutional convention. With most state legislatures controlled by conservative-ish majorities, a new constitutional convention might get some good things done. "Overturning" the Citizen's United decision probably wouldn't be one of them, though.