CORRECTED COPY
LRB-0932/1
CMH:wlj
2021 - 2022 LEGISLATURE
September 10, 2021 - Introduced by Representatives Subeck, Anderson, Brostoff,
Andraca, Cabrera, Conley, Considine, Hebl, Hesselbein, Milroy, Neubauer,
Ohnstad, Shankland, Snodgrass, Spreitzer and Vining, cosponsored by
Senators Smith, Larson, Carpenter, Agard, Johnson and Ringhand.
Referred to Committee on Constitution and Ethics.
AJR78,1,1
1Relating to: an advisory referendum on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Analysis by the Legislative Reference Bureau
In the case of Citizens United v. F.E.C., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
corporations are “persons" for the purpose of political speech, thus allowing
corporations to make unlimited expenditures in political campaigns. The U.S.
Constitution grants Congress the power to propose amendments to the Constitution
that become effective when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
Amendments can have the effect of overturning—in effect repealing—prior decisions
of the Supreme Court. This resolution places a question on the November 2022 ballot
to ask the people if Congress should propose an amendment to overturn
Citizens
United v. F.E.C.
AJR78,1,4
2Resolved by the
assembly, the senate concurring, That the following
3question be submitted, for advisory purposes only, to the voters of this state at the
4general election to be held in November 2022:
AJR78,2,2
5Question 1: Overturning Citizens United. “The U.S. Supreme Court's
6decisions in
Citizens United and related cases allow unlimited spending to influence
7local, state, and federal elections. To allow all Americans to have an equal say in our
1democracy, shall Wisconsin's congressional delegation support, and the Wisconsin
2Legislature ratify, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating:
AJR78,2,43
1. Only human beings—not corporations, unions, nonprofit organizations, or
4other artificial entities—are endowed with constitutional rights; and
AJR78,2,65
2. Money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and
6spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech?"
