ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 64
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
214th LEGISLATURE
INTRODUCED MARCH 4, 2010
Sponsored by:Assemblyman HERB CONAWAY, JR.District 7 (Burlington and Camden) SYNOPSIS
Expresses strong opposition to U.S. Supreme Court decision in CitizensUnited v. Federal Elections Commission; calls upon Congress to proposeamending U.S. Constitution.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
AR64
CONAWAY2
A
N
A
SSEMBLY
R
ESOLUTION
expressing strong opposition to the1recent United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United2v. Federal Elections Commission concerning corporation3campaign spending and calling upon the United States Congress4to propose an amendment to the United States Constitution.5 6
W
HEREAS
,
A divided United States Supreme Court, in a 5-to-47decision issued on January 21, 2010 in Citizens United v. Federal8Elections Commission, overturned two important precedents by9lifting a 20-year ruling in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of 10Commerce, that restricted campaign spending by corporations in11support of or in opposition to political candidates; and12
W
HEREAS
,
The Court also overturned part of its 2003 decision in13McConnell v. Federal Elections Commission by rejecting a large14portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, commonly15called McCain Feingold, which restricted campaign spending by16corporations and unions by banning broadcast, cable or satellite17transmissions of electioneering communications paid for by18corporations or labor unions from their general funds in the 30 days19before a presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general20election; and21
W
HEREAS
,
In his 80-page dissent in the Citizens United case, Justice22Stevens called the decision “a radical change in the law” that23ignores “the overwhelming majority of justices who have served on24this court” and stated that “In the context of election to public25office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is26significant . . . [Corporations] cannot vote or run for office.27Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their28interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of 29eligible voters”; and30
W
HEREAS
,
President Obama recently criticized the ruling as “a green31light to a new stampede of special interest money,” and declared “It32is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance33companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power34every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday35Americans”; and36
W
HEREAS
,
Senator John McCain who co-wrote the 2002 campaign37reform law with Senator Russell Feingold, said he was38“disappointed” by the decision, and Senator Feingold called the39decision “a terrible mistake” ignoring “important principles of 40judicial restraint and respect for precedent”; and41
W
HEREAS
,
For decades, Congress has exercised its constitutional42authority to regulate elections by seeking to prevent corporations43and unions from exerting undue influence or the appearance of 44undue influence over federal candidates; and45
W
HEREAS
,
It is fitting and proper for the General Assembly of this46State to express its opposition to the Citizens United decision and to47call upon the Congress of the United States to propose an48
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
AR 64 - Introduced Version - New Jersey Legislature via MyGov365.com
Expresses strong opposition to U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission; calls upon Congress to propose amending U.S. Constitution.
80
Reads
0
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
Get Scribd Mobile
To get Scribd mobile enter your number and we'll send you a link to the Scribd app for iPhone & Android.We've sent a link to the Scribd app. If you didn't receive it, try again.
We'll never share your phone number.
Notes
Load more
