Why did the Arkansas AG reject the corporate election-spending ballot measure?

Arkansas AG Opinion 2013-113: Corporate Election Spending

Plain-English summary

Opinion 2013-113 rejected the popular name and ballot title for an initiated act intended to restrict corporate spending in Arkansas elections. The proposal combined a state-law prohibition with a resolution urging a federal constitutional amendment, but those two parts rested on inconsistent premises.

"I must reject your proposal as submitted (1) because there is a fundamental inconsistency between these two main portions of your proposal and (2) because of other ambiguities in your proposal’s text."
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

One section tried to prohibit spending that the opinion said Citizens United held could not be prohibited, while another section sought a federal constitutional amendment to overturn that decision. The proposal also used language that could suggest Congress members were legally required to propose an amendment, said the Supreme Court had treated corporations as "human beings," and used a corporate-spending popular name even though parts of the text also called for limits on individual contributions and expenditures.

"So your proposal is internally inconsistent, which means that your measure cannot be clearly, concisely, and fairly summarized in a ballot title."
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

"the term ‘charge’ could cause a voter to believe that the proposal is mandating or requiring that Arkansas’s congressional delegation take action under Article V of the USS. Constitution."
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

"The Court has never held that corporations are ‘human beings.’"
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

"the proposal also calls for limits on the contributions and expenditures of citizens."
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2013. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

What were the proposal's two main parts?

It contained a prohibition on corporate spending to influence elections and a resolution concerning a federal constitutional amendment on campaign-finance regulation.

"Your proposal ... essentially addresses two distinct issues: a prohibition on corporate spending to influence elections and a resolution regarding a federal constitutional amendment."
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Why were those parts inconsistent?

The resolution treated a federal amendment as necessary to overturn Citizens United, while section one tried to impose at the state level the spending prohibition that the decision had invalidated.

"On the one hand, the resolution part of your proposal calls for an amendment to the federal constitution that ‘overturns the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.’"
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

"And yet, on the other hand, Section 1 of your proposal attempts to prohibit the very thing that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Citizens United, said cannot be prohibited."
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Why was "corporations are human beings" a problem?

The opinion said the Supreme Court had never made that holding, so wording built on that premise was likely to mislead voters.

"Several provisions in your proposal expressly or impliedly state that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that corporations are ‘human beings’ for purposes of the First Amendment. The Court has never held that corporations are ‘human beings.’"
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

What campaign-finance terminology was too vague?

The proposal used "spending limits" without consistently distinguishing contributions from expenditures, even though the opinion described that difference as constitutionally significant.

"Your proposal frequently uses the term ‘spending limits’ with no regard for the constitutionally significant distinction between ‘contributions’ and ‘expenditures.’"
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Could the sponsor revise and resubmit?

Yes. The opinion directed a redesign and allowed resubmission after the stated problems were addressed.

"You may, after addressing the matters discussed above, resubmit your proposed amendment, along with a proposed popular name and ballot title, at your convenience."
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Background and statutory framework

The proposed popular name was "An Act to Restrict Corporate Spending to Influence Elections in Arkansas." Section one sought to bar corporations active in Arkansas from spending funds to influence federal, state, or local elections through identified donations, communications, and other expenditures.

"The prohibition, which is found in Section 1 of your measure, seeks to prohibit all corporations from spending any money to ‘influence[] public perception of a clearly identifiable candidate or ballot issue.’"
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

A.C.A. § 7-9-107 required an accurate and impartial ballot summary. The opinion said uncertainty about a proposal's effect made certification impossible.

"Where the effects of a proposed measure on current law are unclear or ambiguous, it is impossible for me to perform my statutory duty to the satisfaction of the Arkansas Supreme Court without clarification of the ambiguities."
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Holding

The AG rejected the ballot title and instructed the sponsor to redesign the measure and title.

"My statutory duty, under these circumstances, is to reject your proposed ballot title (for the foregoing reasons) and instruct you to ‘redesign’ the proposed measure and ballot title."
Source: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Citations and references

Statutes discussed by Opinion 2013-113:

• "A.C.A. § 7-9-107" Official opinions search
• "A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b)" Official opinions search
• "A.C.A. § 7-5-522" Official opinions search
• "A.C.A. § 4-36-101" Official opinions search

Cases cited by Opinion 2013-113:

• "Citizens United v. Fed. Election Commn., 558 U.S. 310 (2010)" Official opinions search
• "Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)" Official opinions search
• "Fed. Election. Commn. v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003)" Official opinions search

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

STATE OF ARKANSAS

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DusTIN McDANIEL

Opinion No. 2013-113

September 19, 2013

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair

Regnat Populus

Post Office Box 1087

Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-1087

Dear Mr. Spencer:
This is in response to your request for certification, pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-107
(Repl. 2007), of the following popular name and ballot title for a proposed

constitutional amendment:

Popular Name

AN ACT TO RESTRICT CORPORATE SPENDING
TO INFLUENCE ELECTIONS IN ARKANSAS

Ballot Title

An act providing that no corporate entity organized under the laws of
Arkansas nor any corporate entity organized under the laws of any
other state which conducts business in, owns real property in or
performs any other activity in Arkansas may spend funds to
influence any federal, state or local election in Arkansas by donating
to any approved political action committee, ballot question
committee, legislative question committee, political party, county
political party committee, a political action committee or
independent expenditure committee; prohibiting the purchase of any
broadcast, print, cable or satellite communication to be disseminated
within sixty days of an election which refers to a clearly identifiable
candidate for federal or state office or refers to a clearly identifiable

323 CENTER STREET, SUITE 200 * LitTLE Rock, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE (501) 682-2007 * Fax (501) 682-8084
INTERNET WEBSITE * hitp://www.ag.state.ar.us/

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus

Opinion No. 2013-113
Page 2

pending ballot issue; prohibiting making any other purchase,
expenditure, or donation with the intention of influencing public
perception of a clearly identifiable candidate or ballot issue;
providing that the expenditures prohibited do not apply to any news
story, commentary or editorial distributed through any broadcasting
station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication;
providing that the principles of limited liability of corporate entities
and their investors shall not apply to any corporate entity that fails to
comply with the act; providing that the public policy of Arkansas is
that corporations are not human beings and directing that state and
federal elected officials whenever possible promote this policy by
directing that the people of Arkansas regard money as property and
not speech and that the rights protected under the United States
Constitution belong to human beings and not corporations; charging
the congressional delegation of Arkansas with proposing a joint
resolution to the United States Constitution that establishes that
corporations are not human beings with constitutional rights,
establishing that campaign contributions or expenditures by
corporations may be prohibited by a political body and authorizing
congress and the states to impose content-neutral limitations on

• private campaign contributions, campaign spending and independent
  political campaign expenditures.

The Attorney General is required, pursuant to A.C.A. § 7-9-107, to certify the
popular name and ballot title of all proposed initiative and referendum acts or
amendments before the petitions are circulated for signature. The law provides that
the Attorney General may substitute and certify a more suitable and correct
popular name and ballot title, if he can do so, or if the proposed popular name and
ballot title are sufficiently misleading, may reject the entire petition. Neither
certification nor rejection of a popular name and ballot title reflects my view
of the merits of the proposal. This Office has been given no authority to
consider the merits of any measure.

In this regard, A.C.A. § 7-9-107 neither requires nor authorizes this office to make
legal determinations concerning the merits of the act or amendment, or concerning
the likelihood that it will accomplish its stated objective. In addition, consistent
with Arkansas Supreme Court precedent, unless the measure is “clearly contrary to

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus

Opinion No, 2013-113
Page 3

law,” this office will not require that a measure’s proponents acknowledge in the
ballot title any possible constitutional infirmities. As part of my review, however,
I may address constitutional concerns for consideration by the measure’s
proponents.

Consequently, this review has been limited primarily to a determination, pursuant
to the guidelines that have been set forth by the Arkansas Supreme Court,
discussed below, of whether the popular name and ballot title you have submitted
accurately and impartially summarize the provisions of your proposed amendment.

The purpose of my review and certification is to ensure that the popular
name and ballot title honestly, intelligibly, and fairly set forth the purpose of
the proposed amendment or act.”

The popular name is primarily a useful legislative device.’ It need not contain
detailed information or include exceptions that might be required of a ballot title,
but it must not be misleading or give partisan coloring to the merit of the
proposal.’ The popular name is to be considered together with the ballot title in
determining the ballot title’s sufficiency.”

The ballot title must include an impartial summary of the proposed amendment or
act that will give the voter a fair understanding of the issues presented.° According
to the court, if information omitted from the ballot title is an “essential fact which
would give the voter serious ground for reflection, it must be disclosed.”” At the

' See Kurrus v. Priest, 342 Ark. 434, 445, 29 S.W.3d 669, 675 (2000); Donovan v. Priest, 326
Ark, 353, 359, 931 S.W.2d 119, 121 (1996); Plugge v. McCuen, 310 Ark. 654, 841 S.W.2d 139
(1992).

2 See Arkansas Women’s Political Caucus v. Riviere, 283 Ark. 463, 466, 677 S.W.2d 846 (1984).
3 Pafford v, Hall, 217 Ark. 734, 739, 233 S.W.2d 72, 75 (1950).

4 E.g., Chaney v. Bryant, 259 Ark. 294, 297, 532 S.W.2d 741, 743 (1976). ; Moore v. Hall, 229
Ark. 411, 316 S.W.2d 207 (1958).

May y. Daniels, 359 Ark. 100, 105, 194 S.W.3d 771, 776 (2004).
® Becker v. Riviere, 270 Ark. 219, 226, 604 S.W.2d 555, 558 (1980).

” Bailey v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 277, 285, 884 S.W.2d 938, 942 (1994).

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus

Opinion No, 2013-113
Page 4

same time, however, a ballot title must be brief and concise (see A.C.A. § 7-9-
107(b)); otherwise voters could run afoul of A.C.A. § 7-5-522’s five minute limit
in voting booths when other voters are waiting in line.® The ballot title is not
required to be perfect, nor is it reasonable to expect the title to cover or anticipate
every possible legal argument the proposed measure might evoke.’ The title,
however, must be free from any misleading tendency, whether by amplification,
omission, or fallacy; it must not be tinged with partisan coloring.'” The ballot title
must be honest and impartial,'! and it must convey an intelligible idea of the scope
and significance of a proposed change in the law.’

Furthermore, the Court has confirmed that a proposed amendment cannot be
approved if “[t]he text of the proposed amendment itself contribute[s] to the
confusion and disconnect between the language in the popular name and the ballot
title and the language in the proposed measure.”'? The Court concluded that
“internal inconsistencies would inevitably lead to confusion in drafting a popular
name and ballot title and to confusion in the ballot title itself.”’* Where the effects
of a proposed measure on current law are unclear or ambiguous, it is impossible
for me to perform my statutory duty to the satisfaction of the Arkansas Supreme
Court without clarification of the ambiguities.

Having analyzed your proposed amendment, as well as your proposed popular
name and ballot title under the above precepts, it is my conclusion that I must
reject your proposed popular name and ballot title due to ambiguities in the text of
your proposed measure. A number of additions or changes to your ballot title are,
in my view, necessary in order to more fully and correctly summarize your
proposal. I cannot, however, at this time, fairly or completely summarize the
effect of your proposed measure to the electorate in a popular name or ballot title

8 Id. at 288, 884 S.W.2d at 944,

• Id. 293, 884 S.W.2d at 946-47.

'° Td. at 284, 884 S.W.2d at 942.

" Becker v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 482, 489, 798 S.W.2d 71, 74 (1990).

". Christian Civic Action Committee v. McCuen, 318 Ark. 241, 245, 884 S.W.2d 605, 607 (1994)
(internal quotations omitted).

° Roberts v, Priest, 341 Ark. 813, 825, 20 S.W.3d 376, 383 (2000).

'4 7.

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus

Opinion No. 2013-113
Page 5

without the resolution of the ambiguities. I am therefore unable to substitute and
certify a more suitable and correct popular name and ballot title pursuant to
A.C.A. § 7-9-107(b).

Your proposal, which is composed of a preamble followed by six separately-
enumerated sections, essentially addresses two distinct issues: a prohibition on
corporate spending to influence elections and a resolution regarding a federal
constitutional amendment. The prohibition, which is found in Section 1 of your
measure, seeks to prohibit all corporations from spending any money to
“influence[] public perception of a clearly identifiable candidate or ballot issue.”
Sections 2 and 3 contain the resolution, which would encourage Arkansas’s
congressional delegation to propose an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that
would be designed to accomplish several goals related to campaign-finance
regulation.

I must reject your proposal as submitted (1) because there is a fundamental
inconsistency between these two main portions of your proposal and (2) because
of other ambiguities in your proposal’s text.

The fundamental inconsistency

As currently worded, the two main parts of your proposal—the prohibition and the
resolution—are inconsistent. On the one hand, the resolution part of your proposal
calls for an amendment to the federal constitution that “overturns the U.S.
Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.” As
your proposal notes elsewhere, Citizens United struck down a federal statute that
prohibited corporations from spending money to encourage others to vote for or
against a specific candidate or ballot issue.’ Thus, you seem to recognize that a
constitutional amendment is required if corporations can again be barred from
such spending. And yet, on the other hand, Section 1 of your proposal attempts to
prohibit the very thing that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Citizens United, said
cannot be prohibited. So your proposal is internally inconsistent, which means that
your measure cannot be clearly, concisely, and fairly summarized in a ballot title.
This internal inconsistency renders your intent unclear.

If you intend Section 1 of your proposal to enact a statute that, either wholly or
partially, flouts the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, then you
should be aware of the: limitations attending Amendment 7’s initiative power. The
Arkansas Supreme Court has noted that the “voters of this state essentially have,

'S See Citizens United v. Fed. Election Commn., 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus

Opinion No. 2013-113
Page 6

within constitutional limits, a right to change any law or any provision of our
constitution they deem appropriate....”'° As noted by the Arkansas Supreme
Court, Amendment 7 cannot empower the people of the State of Arkansas to
initiate a law that falls outside the powers reserved to the states and their citizens
by the United States Constitution:

The voters of this state essentially have, within constitutional limits,
a right to change any law or any provision of our Constitution they
deem appropriate through Amendment 7 to the Constitution. Clearly
those constitutional limitations derive from both the United States
Constitution and this state’s constitution. On the federal level, the
rights reserved to the states and to the people of the states originate
from the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which
provides that ‘[t]he powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.’ Thus, our Amendment 7
cannot empower the people of this state to initiate any measure,
law, or amendment which falls outside the powers reserved to the
states and their citizens by the United States Constitution.’

If your intent behind Section 1 is to enact a state statute that is, for all practical
purposes, identical to the federal statute that was struck down in Citizens United,
then your proposal raises serious constitutional issues.

This internal conflict between your proposal’s prohibition and resolution sections
prevents me from certifying a ballot title for your measure. As explained above,
the ballot title must convey to the voter an intelligible idea of the scope and
significance of your proposed amendment. Where the effects of a proposal are
unclear, however, this cannot be accomplished. Because the fundamental intent
behind Section | is unclear, there is little point (at this stage) in combing its text
for ambiguities. '*

'© Dust v. Riviere, 277 Ark. 1, 4, 638 S.W.2d 663, 665 (1982) (emphasis added).

Donovan vy. Priest, 326 Ark. 353, 357-58, 931 S.W.2d 119, 120-21 (1996) (emphasis added,
internal quotations omitted).

'8 It should be noted that Section 4 of your proposal is also constitutionally problematic. This part
of your proposal states: “This act shall not be limited, voided, or altered by any conflicting laws
in any section of the Arkansas Code including, but not limited to, any section of Title 7.” This is
clearly unconstitutional because, pursuant to Amendment 7, the General Assembly has the

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus
Opinion No. 2013-113

Page 7

Ambiguities in the text of the resolution

Sections 2 and 3 of your measure propose what amounts to a resolution relating to
federal campaign-finance law. These two sections contain ambiguities, the most
general and recurrent of which are noted below.

Section 3 frequently speaks in terms of Arkansas’s congressional
delegation being “charged with” proposing a joint resolution to amend the
U.S. Constitution. In my opinion, the term “charge” could cause a voter to
believe that the proposal is mandating or requiring that Arkansas’s
congressional delegation take action under Article V of the USS.
Constitution. But, as Article V makes clear, the states lack the authority to
initiate a constitutional amendment in that way. Accordingly, in my view,
the term “charge’”—which appears in both the proposal’s text and ballot
title—is likely to mislead the voter.

Several provisions in your proposal expressly or impliedly state that the
U.S. Supreme Court has held that corporations are “human beings” for
purposes of the First Amendment. The Court has never held that
corporations are “human beings.” Accordingly, the use of this terminology
is likely to mislead the voter. .

Your proposed popular name refers to “restrict[ing] corporate spending to
influence elections.” (Emphasis added.) Yet several provisions in these two
sections speak about enacting a constitutional amendment designed to limit
the contributions and expenditures of persons who are “wealthy” or have
“private wealth.” Thus, your proposal is not merely aiming to restrict
corporate spending to influence elections. Rather, the proposal also calls for
limits on the contributions and expenditures of citizens. This disconnect
between the proposal’s popular name and its text is, in my view, likely to
mislead or confuse the voter. Without clarification, this part of your
proposed amendment cannot be adequately summarized for the voter in a
ballot title.

authority to “amend or repeal” initiated acts “upon a yea and nay vote on roll call of two-thirds of
all the members elected to each house....” Art. 5, § 1, under “General Provisions.” Therefore, the
power to initiate such a provision falls outside the Amendment 7 power. You may be unaware of
this constitutional limitation.

Paul J. Spencer, Co-Chair
Regnat Populus

Opinion No. 2013-113
Page 8

e Your proposal frequently uses the term “spending limits” with no regard for
the constitutionally significant distinction between “contributions” and
“expenditures.”"? Yet other provisions in your proposal do reference this
distinction. The failure to consistently use the more precise, constitutionally
tested and defined terms results in vagueness and ambiguity regarding the
meaning of “spending limits.” As a consequence, I am unable to substitute
and certify a ballot title that adequately summarizes this aspect of your
measure,

I cannot begin to certify a ballot title for your proposed amendment in the face of
the deficiencies and ambiguities noted above. You must remedy these confusing
and ambiguous points before I can perform my statutory duty.

My office, in the certification of ballot titles and popular names, does not concern
itself with the merits, philosophy, or ideology of proposed measures. I have no
constitutional role in the shaping or drafting of such measures. My statutory
mandate is embodied only in A.C.A. § 7-9-107 and my duty is to the electorate. I
am not your counsel in this matter and cannot advise you as to the substance of
your proposal.

My statutory duty, under these circumstances, is to reject your proposed ballot title
(for the foregoing reasons) and instruct you to “redesign” the proposed measure
and ballot title. You may, after addressing the matters discussed above, resubmit
your proposed amendment, along with a proposed popular name and ballot title, at
your convenience. I anticipate, as noted above, that some changes or additions to
your submitted popular name and ballot title may be necessary. I will be pleased
to perform my statutory duties in this regard in a timely manner after
resubmission.

Sincerely

USTIN MCDANIE
Attorney General

DM/cyh

Enclosure

”” See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976); Fed. Election. Commn. v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003);
Citizens United v. Fed. Election Commn., 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

Popular Name
An Act to Restrict Corporate Spending to Influence Elections in Arkansas

Ballot Title

AN ACT PROVIDING THAT NO CORPORATE ENTITY ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS
OF ARKANSAS NOR ANY CORPORATE ENTITY ORGANIZED UNDER THE LAWS OF
ANY OTHER STATE WHICH CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN, OWNS REAL PROPERTY IN
OR PERFORMS ANY OTHER ACTIVITY IN ARKANSAS MAY SPEND FUNDS TO
INFLUENCE ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL ELECTION IN ARKANSAS BY
DONATING TO ANY APPROVED POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE, BALLOT
QUESTION COMMITTEE, LEGISLATIVE QUESTION COMMITTEE, POLITICAL PARTY,
COUNTY POLITICAL PARTY COMMITTEE, A POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE OR
INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE; PROHIBITING THE PURCHASE OF ANY
BROADCAST, PRINT, CABLE OR SATELLITE COMMUNICATION TO BE
DISSEMINATED WITHIN SIXTY DAYS OF AN ELECTION WHICH REFERS TO A
CLEARLY INDENTIFIABLE CANDIDATE FOR FEDERAL OR STATE OFFICE OR
REFERS TO A CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE PENDING BALLOT ISSUE; PROHIBITING
MAKING ANY OTHER PURCHASE, EXPENDITURE, OR DONATION WITH THE
INTENTION OF INFLUENCING PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF A CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE
CANDIDATE OR BALLOT ISSUE; PROVIDING THAT THE EXPENDITURES
PROHIBITED DO NOT APPLY TO ANY NEWS STORY, COMMENTARY OR EDITORIAL
DISTRIBUTED THROUGH ANY BROADCASTING STATION, NEWSPAPER, MAGAZINE
OR OTHER PERIODICAL PUBLICATION; PROVIDING THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF
LIMITIED LIABILITY OF CORPORATE ENTITIES AND THEIR INVESTORS SHALL
NOT APPLY TO ANY CORPORATE ENTITY THAT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE ACT;
PROVIDING THAT THE PUBLIC POLICY OF ARKANSAS IS THAT CORPORATIONS
ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS AND DIRECTING THAT STATE AND FEDERAL ELECTED
OFFICIALS WHENEVER POSSIBLE PROMOTE THIS POLICY BY DIRECTING THAT
THE PEOPLE OF ARKANSAS REGARD MONEY AS PROPERTY AND NOT SPEECH AND
THAT THE RIGHTS PROTECTED UNDER THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
BELONG TO HUMAN BEINGS AND NOT CORPORATIONS; CHARGING THE
CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION OF ARKANSAS WITH PROPOSING A JOINT
RESOLUTION TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION THAT ESTABLISHES THAT
CORPORATIONS ARE NOT HUMAN BEINGS WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,
ESTABLISHING THAT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS OR EXPENDITURES BY
CORPORATIONS MAY BE PROHIBITED BY A POLITICAL BODY AND AUTHORIZING
CONGRESS AND THE STATES TO IMPOSE CONTENT-NEUTRAL LIMITATIONS ON
PRIVATE CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, CAMPAIGN SPENDING AND INDEPENDENT
POLITICAL CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:

Preamble.

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas seek to create a democracy that is truly of, by and
for the People and not bought and paid for by corporations, unions, and the wealthy; and

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas recognize that the US Supreme Court in Citizens
United v. FEC equated corporations with people under the US Constitution and overturned a
century of precedent barring corporate money in elections; and

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas recognize that the US Supreme Court in Buckley
v. Valeo equated money with speech and struck down congressional campaign spending limits,
leading to today’s system of unlimited campaign spending dominated by big money interests; and

WHEREAS, the People of Arkansas seek to reverse those wrongly decided and unjust rulings
which have resulted in undue financial and commercial influence by a wealthy elite over our
elections and government, fostered corruption, alienated voters, and undermined the public’s
confidence in the integrity of our democracy; and

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas seek to uphold the fundamental promise of
political equality for all and to ensure that corporations and big money interests are not able to
drown out the voices of ordinary citizens; and

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas seek to limit the damage inflicted by Citizens
United and related cases by exercising the state’s continued authority to set its own corporate
charter and liability laws and enacting changes to both; and

WHEREAS, the People of the State of Arkansas support an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States that will reestablish that the rights enshrined therein belong to real persons and not
corporate entities, and that will restore the authority of Congress and the states to regulate political
spending;

Section 1. Changes to Corporate Charter Regulations and to Principles of Limited Liability.
The people of the State of Arkansas do enact as follows:

Chapter 36 is added to the Arkansas Code Annotated Title 4, Subtitle 3, and is titled the
“Prohibition of Corporate Contributions and Expenditures in Arkansas Elections Act” and reads:

Changes to Corporate Charter Regulations and to Principles of Limited Liability:
A.C.A. § 4-36-101:

(1)(A)No corporate entity organized under the laws of this state, nor any corporate entity organized
under the laws of any other state, which conducts business in, owns real property in, or performs

ii.

mono sp

any other activity in the state of Arkansas, may spend funds to influence any federal, state or local
election in Arkansas by:

donating to any approved political action committee, as they are defined in A.C.A. § 7-6-
201(1)(A), or to any other person or groups of people who will use those funds to influence an
election or public policy, including but not limited to:

a ballot question committee;

a legislative question committee;

a political party;

a county political party committee;

a political action committee; or

an independent expenditure committee;

purchasing any broadcast, print, cable or satellite communication to be disseminated within sixty
(60) days of an election which:

refers to a clearly identifiable candidate for federal or state office; or

refers to a clearly identifiable pending ballot issue.

making any other purchase, expenditure, or donation with the intention of influencing public
perception of a clearly identifiable candidate or ballot issue.

Exemptions

The expenditures prohibited in this section do not apply to any news story, commentary, or
editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or
other periodical publication.

(B) Principles of limited liability otherwise applicable to corporate entities and their investors by

common law, statute, regulation or otherwise under Arkansas law, shall not apply with respect to
any corporate entity that fails to comply with the requirements of Section 1(A) of this Act.

Section 2. Policy.

(1) It is the policy of the state of Arkansas that corporations are not human beings endowed with
constitutional rights and should not be permitted to use their accumulated wealth to influence
elections, and that campaign spending limits are necessary to prevent undue political influence and
corruption and establish a level playing field that enables diverse voices to be heard in Arkansas
elections; and that each state and federal elected and appointed official in Arkansas is charged by
the voters to act whenever possible to promote this policy.

(2) When carrying out the policy under subsection (1), Arkansas’ elected and appointed officials
are generally directed as follows:

(A) that the people of Arkansas regard money as property, not speech;

(B) that the people of Arkansas regard the rights under the United States Constitution as rights of
human beings, not rights of corporations;

(C) that the people of Arkansas regard the immense aggregation of wealth that is accumulated by
corporations using advantages provided by the government to be corrosive and distorting when
used to advance the political interests of corporations;

(D) that the people of Arkansas intend that there should be a level playing field in campaign
spending that allows all individuals, regardless of wealth, to express their views to one another and

their government; and
(E) that the people of Arkansas intend that a level playing field in campaign spending includes
limits on large campaign contributions and expenditures, by any source, including corporations,

individuals, or political committees, as well as voluntary public funding programs designed to limit
undue influence by wealthy interests and amplify the voices of ordinary citizens.

Section 3. Promotion of policy by elected or appointed officials.

(1) The Congressional delegation of Arkansas is charged with proposing a joint resolution offering
an amendment to the United States Constitution that:

(A) overturns the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC;
(B) establishes that corporations are not human beings with constitutional rights;

(C) establishes that campaign contributions or expenditures by corporations, whether to candidates
or ballot issues, may be prohibited by a political body at any level of government;

(D) overturns the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Buckley v. Valeo which struck down mandatory
campaign spending limits in elections;

(E) authorizes Congress and the states to impose content-neutral limitations on private campaign
contributions, campaign spending and independent political campaign expenditures; and

(F) accomplishes the goals of Arkansans to achieve a level playing field by restricting the
influence of private wealth in elections and providing for voluntary public campaign financing.

(2) The congressional! delegation of Arkansas is charged to work diligently to bring such a joint
resolution to a vote and passage, including use of discharge petitions, cloture, and every other
procedural method to secure a vote and passage.

(3) The members of the Arkansas legislature, if given the opportunity, are charged with ratifying
any amendment to the United States constitution that is consistent with the policy of the state of
Arkansas.

Section 4. Savings Clause.

This act shall not be limited, voided, or altered by any conflicting laws in any section of the
Arkansas Code including, but not limited to, any section of Title 7.

Section 5. Severability.

If any part of this act is invalid, all valid parts that are severable from the invalid part remain in
effect. If a part of this act is invalid in one or more of its applications, the part remains in effect in
all valid applications that are severable from the invalid applications.

Section 6. Codification instruction.

Section 1 through 5 are intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 4 and the provisions of
Title 4 apply to sections 1 through 5.