```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1275 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1275

 Expressing disapproval of the decision issued by the Supreme Court in 
            Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 20, 2010

 Mr. Yarmuth (for himself, Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Larson of Connecticut, 
     Ms. Pingree of Maine, and Mr. Cohen) submitted the following 
       resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House 
Administration, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for 
a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing disapproval of the decision issued by the Supreme Court in 
            Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Whereas the majority opinion issued by the Supreme Court of the United States on 
        January 21, 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 
        overturns long-standing Supreme Court precedent barring corporations 
        from making independent expenditures from general treasury funds to 
        expressly support or oppose candidates in Federal elections;
Whereas in issuing such opinion, the majority engaged in judicial activism by 
        expanding the scope of their decision from a determination of whether an 
        advertisement for a politically charged film made by the non-profit 
        corporation Citizens United that was critical of a candidate for 
        President constituted an electioneering communication under the 
        Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to a sweeping decision on the 
        constitutionality of corporate use of general treasury funds for 
        independent expenditures on political advertisements in Federal 
        elections;
Whereas pursuant to the majority opinion in Citizens United, Federal law now 
        permits the expansion of the role that special interest groups, 
        including oil companies, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies, 
        unions, trade associations, and companies that received money under the 
        Troubled Asset Relief Program created by the Emergency Economic 
        Stabilization Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-343) are able to play in 
        politics;
Whereas under such opinion, Federal law now permits Government-owned entities, 
        including American International Group, the Federal National Mortgage 
        Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and automobile 
        companies that are now subject to Federal control to spend taxpayer 
        dollars to expressly support or oppose candidates in Federal elections;
Whereas under such opinion, Federal law now permits domestic corporations owned 
        or controlled by foreign governments, foreign corporations, and foreign 
        individuals to make independent expenditures to expressly support or 
        oppose candidates in United States Federal elections, including--

    (1) CITGO Petroleum Corporation, which is owned and operated by the 
Government of Venezuela;

    (2) Saudi Aramco and Motiva Enterprises, which are fully or partially 
owned by the Government of Saudi Arabia; and

    (3) Lenovo Group Limited, Haier Group, China Telcom Corporation, 
Limited, and the China State Construction Engineering Corporation, which 
are fully or partially owned by the Government of China;

Whereas in treating corporations and living persons equally with respect to free 
        speech rights under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has 
        effectively bestowed on corporations aspects of personhood, which, as 
        the dissenting opinion stated, ``have no consciences, no beliefs, no 
        feelings, no thoughts, no desires'';
Whereas in effectively bestowing on corporations aspects of personhood, the 
        majority opinion ensures that the voices of individual citizens of the 
        United States must now compete against voices funded by the vast 
        resources of multibillion dollar, multinational corporations, thus 
        diminishing the individual right of freedom of speech guaranteed to 
        every individual citizen of the United States by the First Amendment to 
        the Constitution;
Whereas according to the Small Business Administration, half of all the 
        individuals employed in the United States in the private sector are 
        employed by small businesses;
Whereas pursuant to the majority opinion in Citizens United, Federal law now 
        permits large corporations to use general treasury funds to influence 
        public policy and to advocate for regulations and promote deregulation 
        designed to favor large corporations over small businesses;
Whereas pursuant to such opinion, Federal law now permits corporations to 
        exercise vast power to advocate for the type of deregulation policies 
        favoring large corporations that led to the 2008 global economic crisis 
        and continue to jeopardize economic recovery in the United States;
Whereas legal experts have stated that such opinion will unleash a flood of new 
        corporate money into the democratic process in the United States that 
        will separate voters from their representatives and make candidates more 
        beholden to special interests;
Whereas, on January 21, 2010, more than 40 current and former corporate 
        executives sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 
        Nancy Pelosi, expressing the ``corrosive influence of special interest 
        money'' and urging the House of Representatives to act to address the 
        Citizens United decision and reform the current campaign finance system;
Whereas pursuant to the majority opinion, Exxon Mobil Corporation could expend 
        $8,000,000 on each congressional race in the United States, which would 
        account for less than 10 percent of the corporation's profits in 2008;
Whereas the dissenting opinion asserted that after the decision by the majority, 
        ``[C]orporations with large war chests to deploy on electioneering may 
        find democratically elected bodies becoming much more attuned to their 
        interests.''; and
Whereas the dissenting opinion stated that the majority opinion in Citizens 
        United--

    (1) ``[T]hreatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions 
across the Nation.'';

    (2) ``[I]s a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who 
have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-
government since its founding, and who have fought against the distinctive 
corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore 
Roosevelt.'';

    (3) ``[O]perates with a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when it 
strikes down one of Congress's most significant efforts to regulate the 
role that corporations and unions play in electoral politics.''; and

    (4) ``[C]reates new opportunities for the mirror image of quid pro quo 
deals: threats, both explicit and implicit.'': Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) believes that multinational corporations, such as CITGO 
        Petroleum Corporation, which is controlled by the Government of 
        Venezuela, should not have a greater voice in the democratic 
        process in the United States than citizens of the United 
        States;
            (2) disapproves of the majority opinion in Citizens United 
        v. Federal Election Commission, because it allows the interests 
        of corporations, both foreign and domestic, to supersede the 
        voices of citizens of the United States in the democratic 
        process;
            (3) believes the majority opinion in Citizens United will 
        further increase the flow of money into elections in the United 
        States and have a corrosive effect on the electoral process, 
        the cornerstone of democracy in the United States, by 
        separating the people from their elected representatives; and
            (4) encourages the House of Representatives and the Senate 
        to work in a bipartisan manner to limit the influence of 
        special interest groups in Federal elections in light of the 
        decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Citizens United.
                                 <all>
```