SJR82,,112023 SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 82 October 30, 2023 - Introduced by Senators Smith, Larson, Carpenter, Hesselbein and Spreitzer, cosponsored by Representatives Subeck, J. Anderson, C. Anderson, Andraca, Baldeh, Bare, Billings, Cabrera, Conley, Drake, Emerson, Joers, Ohnstad, Palmeri, Shankland, Shelton, Sinicki, Snodgrass and Jacobson. Referred to Committee on Licensing, Constitution and Federalism.
SJR82,,22Relating to: an advisory referendum on an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. SJR82,,33Analysis 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 2024 ballot to ask the people if Congress should propose an amendment to overturn Citizens United v. F.E.C.
SJR82,,55Resolved by the senate, the assembly concurring, That the following question be submitted, for advisory purposes only, to the voters of this state at the general election to be held in November 2024: SJR82,,66Question 1: Overturning Citizens United. “The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United and related cases allow unlimited spending to influence local, state, and federal elections. To allow all Americans to have an equal say in our democracy, shall Wisconsin’s congressional delegation support, and the Wisconsin Legislature ratify, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution stating: SJR82,,771. Only human beings are endowed with constitutional rights—not corporations, unions, nonprofit organizations, or other artificial entities; and SJR82,,882. Money is not speech, and therefore limiting political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech?”
