Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutID-3196-HRC City of Palo Alto (ID # 3196) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting Date: 10/22/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: HRC Resolution in response to US Supreme Court Decision Citizen's United vs. FCC Title: Human Relations Commission Recommends Adoption of a Resolution In Support of an Amendment to the United States and California Constitutions to State "Corporations are Not People and Money is Not Speech" in Response to United States Supreme Court Decision of Citizen's United vs. Federal Communications Commission From: City Manager Lead Department: Community Services Recommendation The City of Palo Alto’s Human Relations Commission’s (HRC) recommends that the Council review and accept the HRC’s recommendation (6 votes affirmative, 1 member absent), to adopt a resolution in support of an amendment to the United States and California Constitutions to state that: 1) Only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with rights that are protected by the constitution, and 2) Money is not speech, and therefore the expenditure of money to influence the electoral process is not a form of constitutionally protected speech and therefore may be regulated. Background This policy issue was brought to the HRC by participants of Santa Clara County “Move to Amend,” a local chapter of a national movement which seeks to amend the United States and California Constitutions to state that “corporations are not people and money is not speech.” On September 13, 2012, the Human Relations Commission voted unanimously to request the Council to adopt a resolution, calling for an amendment to the United States and California Constitutions to recognize and establish that, first, only human beings, not corporations, have rights that are constitutionally protected and, second, the expenditure of money during City of Palo Alto Page 2 elections by corporations is not constitutionally protected speech, therefore, government may regulate these corporate expenditures. The resolution is promoted and inspired by Move to Amend, Santa Clara County chapter, a coalition of organizations and individuals with chapters around the country; its website advocates in favor of an amendment to the United States and California Constitutions “to unequivocally state that inalienable rights belong to human beings only, and that money is not a form of protected free under the First Amendment and can be regulated in political campaigns.” This constitutional amendment movement arose in response to the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court 5-4 decision in Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission. In Citizens United, Justice Kennedy, speaking for the majority, held that, under the First Amendment, government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker’s corporate identity, thus, section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which barred independent expenditures by corporations and unions from using their general treasuries to fund “electioneering communications,” was invalid on its face. In effect, Congress could not validly adopt a law to restrict independent political expenditures by corporations and unions that intend to engage in political speech, which a number of Court opinions have characterized as “indispensable to decision making in a democracy.” The majority decision determined that Section 203 adopted an outright ban on corporate political speech, backed by criminal sanctions, thus it suppressed that speech altogether. Justice Stevens, speaking for the minority, chided the majority decision for concluding that Section 203 was invalid on its face, when that argument was not presented by Citizens United in the first instance. The majority decision, Stevens observed, failed to recognize the impact of, and failed to defer to long- standing legislative determinations and actions to deal with the appearance of, corruption and undue influence in political elections, and it elided the distinction between corporations and individuals and the general societal interests at stake in campaign finance regulations. Corporations, Stevens noted, “are not themselves members of “We the People” by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.” The proposed resolution was first presented to the HRC at its meeting on June 14, 2012. At that time, the recommendation to Council to adopt the resolution was the subject of a vote of 3 ‘yes’ and 2 ‘abstain’. Those who abstained wanted to review the Supreme Court‘s decision, which was an impetus of the Move to Amend movement, before casting a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ votes. After the June HRC meeting, staff consulted with the City Attorney’s Office on the implication of the votes cast. The City Attorney’s Office opined that under Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.22.030(c), four affirmative votes are required to take action, and an “abstain” vote is not considered an “affirmative” vote. Therefore, the HRC reconsidered this matter at its September 13, 2012 regular meeting and the Santa Clara County chapter of the Move to Amend movement presented again. Among the many attachments provided to the HRC was a link to the full United States Supreme Court decision on Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Discussion Several members of the Santa Clara County Move to Amend movement addressed the HRC at its June, 2012 and September, 2012 meetings and made the following key points for consideration.  Corporations are not people and money is not speech: Corporations are not people in the same sense that natural humans are people, and money is not speech itself but a tool to amplify a speech.  The first ten amendments to United States Constitution as well as 14th amendment were written for the purpose of giving legal clarity to the rights of natural people. These amendments were not written with any concern of any rights of corporations.  The people need to clarify the U.S. and California Constitutions and to clarify that the Constitutions’ purposes are to define democratic relationships among natural people to govern themselves. Corporations should not have the same rights under the constitution as natural people do.  The Move to Amend movement is asking for regulations and limitations on the concept that corporations are an artificial construction of human society. They also spoke about the importance of corporations being regulated. As to why this issue should matter to Palo Altans, Debbie Mytels, a member of the Santa Clara County Move to Amend movement, stated that 1) local government and political decisions are vulnerable to disruption by massive corporate contributions to campaigns and other processes, and 2) change will not happen at the national level without strong local support. In preparation for the hearing of this matter at the September 12, 2012 HRC meeting, the HRC Chair Claude Ezran was persuaded by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’ dissent in the Citizens United case. Chair Ezran believes that saying that corporations are people defies common sense. People are influenced by political ads and that heavy spending by corporations can drown out any other voice; he feels that this is undemocratic. All these arguments apply to Palo Alto at the local level. For instance, Pacific Gas and Electric Company contributed close to $50M for Proposition 16 which, if it had passed, would have made it much harder for municipalities to start or expand their own power utility. Chair Ezran believes that starting this effort at the local level will be effective. Corporations are often motivated by profit. And while there is nothing wrong with this objective, corporations do not have same interest as the rest of the people. Corporations do not have the national interest in mind and they don’t necessarily have the best interest of people in mind. Commissioner Ray Bacchetti made a comment that local elections are not easily bought and local voters pay attention to issues. So this resolution expresses support for an initiative that is a benefit to the nation at the level where it has a best City of Palo Alto Page 4 chance of being thoughtfully considered, rather than influenced by someone with a particular outcome in mind and the money to influence that outcome. Resource Impact There is no resource impact associated with the adoption of this resolution. Policy Implications There are no policy implications associated with the adoption of this resolution. Attachments:  : Attachment A - Excerpt June 2012 HRC mtg (DOC)  : Attachment B - September 2012 HRC Agenda Packet (PDF)  : Attachment C - Excerpt Sept 2012 HRC mtg (DOC)  : Attachment D - 00710100 RESO Citizens United decision (PDF)  : Attachment E - Public Comments (PDF) 1 DRAFT EXCERPT FROM HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION – JUNE 14, 2012 2. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON RESOLUTION PRESENTED BY SANTA CLARA COUNTY MOVE TO AMEND CHAPTER REGARDING THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION Ms. Debbie Mytels, a Palo Alto resident spoke about how democracy matters to everyone. Human Rights are being excerpted by corporations. Corporations have too much power and there should be limits on the rights of corporations. She explained that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizen’s United vs. Federal Communications Commission cannot be changed without an amendment to the constitution. She is asking for the Commission to pass a resolution that corporations are not people and money is not speech. Mr. Gerald Gras, a Palo Alto resident spoke about the history of corporate personhood. Ms. Anne Wilson, a Palo Alto resident spoke about her concern that the aim of corporations by their charter is to make a profit. Mr. Paul George, Director of the Peninsula Peace and Justice Center spoke about how the Citizen’s United ruling was the most recent decision but is not the main reason for the resolution. Corporations have the rights but not the responsibilities that citizens have. That equality is thrown out of balance. Ms. Stephanie Reader, a Los Alto resident spoke about how many people are upset with this amendment and are concerned about the decision. Rich people are able to put unlimited amounts of money towards political campaigns. The League of Women Voters will be taking up this issue as well. Mr. Aram James, a Palo Alto resident said that The Peninsula Peace and Justice Center also participates in campaign contributions. We are lumping together for profit corporations as well as non-profit contributions. We have the most robust First amendment on the planet. The ACLU is taking the stand of the constitution. He strongly opposes this resolution and encouraged the commissioners to read the entire brief and decision. Commissioner Bacchetti said he wondered if there are two issues being confused. The question is not about the first amendment but more about regulating corporations. He likes the proposal because the capacity to distort processes is great. He thinks it is relevant to take up this issue locally and approve the resolution. Commissioner O’Nan said she is not sure that pouring money into a campaign is not a 2 guarantee of its success. Not all people are fooled by campaigns. Criminal law says that corporations can be prosecuted. Commissioner Ezran said electorates can be influenced and this is an important issue. He agrees that things are out of hand and he would support the resolution. Commissioner Savage said she thinks this is worthy but she is not sure about the wording. She would like to re-write the resolution to make it a positive statement. Commissioner Ezran recommended some language changes in the resolution. Commissioner O’Nan asked for more time because she would like to read the original decision so that she can make a more informed decision. Commissioner Ezran made a motion that the HRC approve the resolution and forward it to City Council for approval. Seconded by Commissioner Savage, who also added that the resolution include the changes suggested by Commissioner Ezran. Commissioner Ezran agreed. AYES: 3, ABSTAINED: 2. Councilmember Holman said that there may be a question from City Council as to why only 3 out of 5 commissioners voted tonight. She suggested postponing the vote for a future meeting, so that those who abstained have more time to make a decision. 1 DRAFT EXCERPT FROM HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 13, 2012 3. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ON RESOLUTION THAT CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE AND MONEY IS NOT SPEECH PRESENTED BY SANTA CLARA COUNTY MOVE TO AMEND. Presented by Santa Clara County Move to Amend Santa Clara County Move to Amend returned to the HRC to re-present their request that the HRC endorse a draft resolution and to forward the resolution to the City Council with the endorsement of the HRC. Ms. Mary Klein, Palo Alto resident, spoke and set the legal historical context. Corporations are not people and money is not speech these are to say corporations are not people in the same sense that natural humans are people and money is not speech itself but a tool to amplify a speech. Ms. Klein said the first ten amendments to US constitution as well as 14th amendments were written for the purpose of giving legal clarity to the rights of natural people. These Amendments were not written with any concern of any rights of corporations. Ms. Klein said that the people need to clarify the constitution and to clarify the constitution’ purpose is to define democratic relationships among natural people to govern themselves. The corporations do not have the same rights under the constitution as natural people do. Ms. Debbie Mytels, a Palo Alto resident, said the group is asking for regulations and limitations on corporation as an artificial construction of human society. Also spoke about the importance of these entities being regulated. Ms. Mytels spoke about why this issue matters to Palo Alto and also why local government should address it: Two reasons for Palo Alto to add voice: First reason, local government and political decisions are vulnerable to disruption by massive corporate contributions to campaigns and other processes. Second reason, a change will not happen at the national level without strong local support. Ms. also talked about 2 methods to add amendment to the constitution. Comments from public: Ms. Diane Rolphe, Palo Alto resident, called upon the HRC to uphold the resolution and said the democracy is impaired and threatened. Ms. Edie Keating said this is a very local issue and gave examples that corporate or business influences are too strong and their impact locally. 2 Ms. Stephanie Reader, President of peace and justice, (have to listen again on this) Any questions about the issues raised by ACLU‘s position. Mr. Gerry G. said the democracy is in a distress and many people believe corporation is part of the problem. Ms. Nancy Neff, Board member of California Clean Money campaign said Clean Money Campaign endorses the efforts to amend the constitution and encourage supporting this and asking the city council to support as well. Ms. Susan Stewart spoke about the extreme difficulty for the court to revisit this issue. Ms. Stewart talked about the avenue to try to curtail the concept that the corporations have the same rights as people. Chair Ezran noted 2 things to discuss and decide upon: 1. Whether HRC to endorse the resolution 2. If endorse, then discuss whether to refer resolution to City Council with HRC endorsement. HRC Chair Claude Ezran was persuaded by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s dissent summary of Citizens United vs. Federal Communication Commission. Chair Ezran believes that saying that corporations are people defies common sense. People are influenced by political ads and heavy spending by corporations can drown out any other voice; he feels that this is undemocratic. All these arguments apply to Palo Alto at the local level, for instance PG&E contributed close to $50M for Proposition 16 which, if passed, would have made it much harder for municipalities to start or expand their own power utility. Chair Ezran believes that starting at local level will be effective. Corporations are motivated by profit and while there is nothing wrong with this, they do not have same interest as the rest of the people. Corporations do not have the national interest in mind and they don’t have the best interest of people in mind. Commissioner Ray Bacchetti made a comment that local elections are not easily bought and people don’t think of it. So this resolution is a way of starting something that is a benefit to the nation at the level where it has a best chance of being thoughtfully considered rather than influenced by someone with a particular outcome. 1. Motion to approve by Commissioner Bacchetti and seconded by Commissioner Verma. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Savage absent. 2. Commissioner Bacchetti motion to move forward resolution to the City Council to approve, seconded by Commissioner Verma. Motion passed unanimously with Commissioner Savage absent. *NOT YET APPROVED* 21005 dm 00710100 Resolution No. _________ Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto In Support Of An Amendment To the United States and California Constitutions To State That Corporations Are Not People and Money Is Not Speech A. Democracy means governance by the people, the citizens of the City of Palo Alto, who hope to protect democracy in our community and our nation. B. Corporations are artificial entities separate from human beings and are not naturally endowed with conscience or the rights of human beings, yet they are creations of law and are only permitted to do what is authorized under law. C. Corporations are not mentioned in the United States Constitution, and the People have never granted constitutional rights to corporations. D. Corporations claim to be persons, possessing the rights of personhood, including free speech and other constitutional freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. E. Corporations have unduly influenced and unfairly interfered with democratic processes by pressuring our legislators and dominating election campaigns with virtually unlimited contributions. F. When freedom to speak is equated with freedom to spend money, millions of people who have less money are essentially disenfranchised, as their free speech is overwhelmed by the message of those spending millions of dollars. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does hereby resolve, as follows: SECTION 1. The Council of the City of Palo Alto, on behalf of the Palo Alto community, hereby proclaims its support for a call to amend the Constitutions of the United States and California to establish that: A. Only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with rights that are protected by the constitution. B. Money is not speech, and therefore the expenditure of money to influence the electoral process is not a form of constitutionally protected speech and may be regulated. // // // *NOT YET APPROVED* 21005 dm 00710100 SECTION 2. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby calls on our state and federal representatives to enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: ____________________________ _____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________ _____________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager _____________________________ Director of Utilities _____________________________ Director of Administrative Services