League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
	Butte County, CA November 6, 2012 Election
	Measure K Shall the voters approve a resolution to amend the U.S. Constitution? City of Chico Majority Approval Required Pass: 17747 / 58.82% Yes votes ...... 12423 / 41.18% No votes See Also: Index of all Measures

Arguments For Measure K

Arguments Against Measure K

Don't let your right to vote in free elections be bought by the highest bidder. Join citizens across the country in objecting to the U.S. Supreme Court's dangerous decision in the Citizens United case that threw out all past efforts by Congress to limit campaign spending by corporations to protect free elections. Corporations can now spend vast, unlimited money supporting candidates they choose for public office. The Court majority decided that massive corporate spending is somehow the same as the average citizen's right to "free speech." Now, the old expression "money talks" is the law of the land. But how many of us can "speak" as loudly as some of the world's wealthiest corporations and individuals are doing today by using their wealth for ads and mail to influence our elections and further increase their power? Corporations aren't citizens, can't vote, and shouldn't be allowed to control our elections. Your ability to donate to candidates is strictly limited by Chico ordinance, state and federal campaign laws, and your personal finances. But big corporations can now completely avoid these limits, and are. That's why Chico voters of all political persuasions are uniting to ask Congress to take every necessary action to correct this injustice. This is a local matter of great national importance. Every election at every level is threatened by massive corporate spending. As the Enterprise Record put it, Congress needs to rein in huge destructive donations by organizations and corporations that can now anonymously wield extreme influence on elections. This is your chance to tell Congress to overcome the corporate abuse and grave threats to our democracy unleashed by this radical, unprecedented Court decision. Vote "Yes" on Measure and do your part to stop corporate electoral tyranny. Only your vote should occupy the ballot box, not corporate dollars. s/ Ann Schwab, Mayor s/ Jim Walker, Vice Mayor s/ Mary Goloff, Council Member s/ Andy Holcombe, Council Member s/ Scott Grundl, Council Member FOR INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: Ann Schwab 555 Vallombrosa Ave, #74, Chico, CA 95926 530-518-7383 friendsofannschwab@yahoo.com Rebuttal to Arguments For Protect our 1st Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of assembly, vote NO on Measure ___. You alone should control your information consumption, not government bureaucrats. Do not give government bureaucrats the power to decide who may and who may not speak. Corporations are merely groups of people who are lawfully assembled. The Supreme Court ruled that these groups of people, any group of people, maintain full rights under our constitution. This includes their right to free speech uncontrolled and uncensored by government bureaucrats. You and your fellow citizens are free, and are intelligent enough to decide who is and who is not a trustworthy source of information without government control and censorship. Vote NO on Measure ___. s/ Mark Sorensen, Council Member, Business Owner s/ Robert W. Evans, Council Member FOR INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: Mark Sorensen 1789 Manzanita, Chico 95926 530-588-0020 MARK@MARKSORENSEN.NET

Support our constitutional rights to free speech and freedom of assembly, vote NO on Measure ___. The 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..." The Supreme Court already ruled on this issue. Their ruling fell on the side of protecting constitutional freedoms. The following are all excerpts from their decision ...the FEC has created a regime that allows it to select what political speech is safe for public consumption by applying ambiguous tests. If parties want to avoid litigation and the possibility of civil and criminal penalties, they must either refrain from speaking or ask the FEC to issue an advisory opinion approving of the political speech in question. Government officials pore over each word of a text to see if, in their judgment, it accords with the 11-factor test they have promulgated. This is an unprecedented governmental intervention into the realm of speech. By taking the right to speak from some and giving it to others, the Government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech to strive to establish worth, standing, and respect for the speaker's voice. ... The Government may not by these means deprive the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. The First Amendment protects speech and speaker, and the ideas that flow from each. When Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves. s/ Mark Sorensen, Council Member, Business Owner s/ Robert W. Evans, Council Member FOR INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: Mark Sorensen 1789 Manzanita, Chico 95926 530-588-0020 MARK@MARKSORENSEN.NET Rebuttal to Arguments Against Don't be confused by false claims of protecting free speech. Measure_ is not about infringing upon free speech. It is about stopping corporations from receiving special treatment for their big spending by calling it "free speech". Your "yes" vote for Measure___is needed to ensure fair elections for all voters. Measure___ asks for a return to reasonable limits on the ability of corporations to overwhelm your free speech by spending thousands of times more to influence elections than most of us earn in a week. Reasonable limits on freedom of speech are nothing new. Free speech does not include the right to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. It does not mean someone has the right to lie about you with the intent to harm you or your reputation. Such speech is abusive, disrespectful, and against the law. In a democracy, there must be limits on abusive practices that threaten our democracy's very existence. That's what Measure___ is about. The Chico Municipal Code imposes a $500 limit on your right to individually donate. Before the Supreme Court's misguided Citizens United decision, Congress imposed the same limit on corporations. Unlimited corporate campaign donations under the pretense of free speech should not be the law of the land. It is just plain wrong. Speak up while you still can. Don't let your voice be drowned out by the shouting of corporate dollars. Speak loudly and clearly against this injustice by voting "yes" on Measure___. s/ Ann Schwab, Mayor s/ Andy Holcombe, Chico City Council Member s/ Jim Walker, Chico City Council Member s/ Betsy Kruger, President, League of Women Voters s/ Rick Tofanelli, Owner, Nantucket Home, Inc. FOR INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: Andy Holcombe 411 Main Street, Chico, CA 530-520-7626

Full Text of Measure K

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHICO SUPPORTING A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT STATING THAT CORPORATIONS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO POLITICAL FREE SPEECH WHEREAS, the ability of corporations to expend unlimited amounts of money to influence political campaigns allows corporations to unduly influence and impact those political campaigns in a manner which is detrimental to the democratic process: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the People of the City of Chico as follows: The ability of corporations to expend money on political campaigns should be regulated and, to the extent that such regulation is currently impermissible, the United States Constitution should be amended to allow such regulation and to establish that: 1 . Corporations are not entitled to a constitutional right to political free speech; and 2. The expenditure of money by corporations to support or oppose political campaigns is not entitled to the free speech protections of the First Amendment and should be regulated, limited and clearly disclosed. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Chico at its meeting held on , by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DISQUALIFIED: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: I HEREBY ATTEST THAT THIS RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED by the voters of the City of Chico in an election held for that purpose on , 2012. ATTEST: Deborah R. Presson, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: s/ Lori J. Barker, City Attorney