VII.F. Move to Amend

BRIAN C. McGRAW
Attorney at Law
10ó North \ilisconsin Avenue
P.O. Box ó19
Muscoda, \ilisconsin 53573-0619
60
8
-7 39 - 423 4 I 3 48 - 423 6
Fax 739-4355
MEMO
TO:
Cify of Platteville Common Council
Attn: Eileen Nickels
FROM:
Brian C. McGraw
CityAttomey
RE:
Move to Amend Petition for Direct Legislation
DATE:
November 4,2015
A Petition ("the Petition") under Wis. Stat. Section 9.20 was filed with the City Clerk on
october 28,2015, The Petition seeks the passage of a resoiution which states:
Whereas the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission and
related case law allows unlimited political campaign spending to influence local, state, and federal
elections; now, therefore, be it
Resolved, that "We the People" of the City of Platteville, Wisconsin, seek to reclaim democracy
from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the comrpting influence of unregulated
politícal contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to Amend campaign and communities
across the country to support passage of an amendment to the United States Constitution stating:
1. Onlyhuman beings - not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations - are endowed
with constitutional rights, and
2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not
equivalent to limiting political speech.
Be it Further Resolved, that the City of Platteville Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this
resolution to our state and federal representatives with instructions to enact resolutions and
legislation to advance this effort.
Pursuant to Section 9.20
if the City Clerk determines the Petition to be sufficient
proper form and so certifies, the Clerk
" ... shall
and in
forward it to the Common Council..." within 15
days from the date the Petition is f,rled. Wis. Stat. Section 9.20 (3).
Once certified and forwarded by the Clerk, the Common Council
". . . shall, without alteration, either pass the ordinance or resolution within 30 days following
the date of the Clerk's final certificate, or submit it to the electors at the next spring or
general election, if the election is more than 6 weeks after the date of the Council's . . . action
on the petition or the expiration of the 30-day period, whichever first occurs. If there are 6
weeks or less before the election, the ordinance or resolution shall be voted on at the next
election thereafter. The Council or Board by a three-fourths vote ofthe members-elect may
order a special election for the purpose of voting on the ordinance or resolution at any time
prior to the next election, but not more than one special election for direct legislation maybe
ordered in any 6-month period." Wis. Stat. Section 9.20 (3).
The C1erk determined the Petition to be sufficient and in proper form. Once forwarded to the
Common Council, the 3 O-day period referenced above will begin to run. During the 3 O-day period
followingthe Clerk's certification, the Common Council needs to determine whethertheresolution
proposed complies with the requirements of Wis. Stat. Sectiott9.20 and certain judiciallyimposed
limitations on the use of petitions for direct legislation. The judiciatly imposed limitations are set
forth in State ex rel. Althouse v. Citv of Madison, 255 N.W. 2ó 449 (Wis. 1977)
as
follows:
1. Whether the ordinance or resolution is legislative in nature;
2. Whether the ordinance or resolution
proposes new legislation and does not repeal existing
legislation;
3. Whether the ordinance or resolution exceeds the legislative powers conferred upon the governing
body; and
4. Whether the ordinance
or resolution modifies statutorily prescribed procedures or standards.
The issue of whether the Petition is "sufficient" concerns whether the requisite number
of
eligible electors signed the Petition. The issue ofwhether the Petition is in a proper form concems
the form of the question. The question must be posed in a manner such that a negative vote is
interpreted to disapprove of the proposition or an affirmative vote is interpreted to approve the
proposition, and use the proper GAB (Government Accountability Board) form. The Petition
satisfies these two requirements. It has been signed by more than the required number of electors
and the question is posed properly using the proper form.
The next issue for the Common Council to address is whether the Petition violates any ofthe
four judicially imposed limitations on the use of direct legislation.
V/ith respect to limitation #1, a resolution is legislative ifitrelates to subjects of apermanent
and general character or
if it prescribes
a new
policy or plan. Heider v. Citv of Milwaukee, 305
N.W. 2d 178, 181 (Ct. App. 1981). The Petition satisfies this requirement as it proposes a new
policy or plan.
With respect to limitation#2, the Petition proposes new legislation and does not repeal an
existing ordinance or resolution.
With respect to limitation#3, this is perhaps
a
more difficult issue to address given that the
process for amending the U.S. Constitution is whollyoutside of anymatter which the Council could
effect. Yet, the Council can and does occasionallytake positions on issues ofpublic importance and
communicates those positions to the legislature or other decision makers to make them aware ofthat
position. Given this fact, the Petition arguably does not exceed the legislative powers conferred
upon the Common Council and satisfies this third limitation.
With respect to limitation #4, the Petition does not seek to modify statutorily prescribed
procedures or standards.
My opinion is the Common Council must either
pass the proposed resolution without
alteration within 30 days following the Clerk's certification orsubmittheresolution to the electors at
the next spring or general election.
Respectfully Submitted,
,4"^,ðø(&"d
Brian C. McGraw
BCMipls
1270Perry Drive
Platteville, WI53818
October 28,2015
Platteville Common Council
75 North Bonson Street
Platteville, WI53818
RE: PETITION FOR DIRECT LEGISLATION
Dear Common Council Members:
On behalf of Platteville Move to Amend, please find enclosed a petition for direct
legislation bearing the signatures of 835 individuals, a number of electors equal to at least
15% of the votes cast for governor at the last general election in Platteville. Although the
Board could itself pass the proposed resolution, pursuant to Wisconsin Statute $ 9.20(4),
we request that it refer the attached proposed resolution, without alteration, to a vote of
the Electors on the April 5, 2016 ballot in Platteville. We believe that the voters of
Platteville should have the opportunity to directly and democratically express themselves
on this matter.
This resolution calls for a Constitutional Amendment declaring that:
l) Only human beings - not corporations, unions, nonprofit organizations, or similar
associations - are endowed with constitutional rights; and
2) Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is
not equivalent to limiting political speech under the First Amendment.
A "Yes" vote onthis resolution would indicate support for a Constitutional Amendment,
while a'Trlo" vote would indicate opposition to an Amendment.
As the individual frling on behalf of Platteville Move to Amend, please contact me
directly should you have any questions or concerns about the validity or sufficiency
our petition.
""RuÌ;,QtWI/
Sincerely,
Richard Rundell
Citizen of Platteville
Platteville Move to Amend Member
608-348-5583
Enclosures
cc: Jan Martin, City Clerk
of
STATE OF WISCONSIN}
GRANT COUNTY}
CITY OF PLATTEVILLE}
I, Jan Martirç the
duly appointed City Clerk for the City of Platteville, County of
Grant, State of Wisconsin, do hereby certify that the petition filed in my office on
October 28,2A15 b¡z Platteville Move to Amend has sufficient numbers of signatures
and is in a proper form per Wisconsin Statute g9.20(3).
Dated this 4ft day of November,Z9l5:
Jan Martiry City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING A UNITED STATES CONSTITUNAL AMENDMENT
Introduced by PETITION FOR DIRECT LEGISLATION:
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens tlnited v. Federal Elections
Commission andrelated case law allows unlimited political campaign spending to influence
local, state, and federal elections; and
BE IT RESOLVED, that "We the People" of the City of Platteville, Wisconsin, seek
to reclaim democracy from the expansion of corporate personhood rights and the comrpting
influence of unregulated political contributions and spending. We stand with the Move to
Amend campaign and communities across the country to support passage of an amendment to
the United States Constitution stating:
L Only human beings - not corporations, unions, non-profits or similar associations are endowed with constitutional rights, and
2. Money is not speech, and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is
not equívalent to limiting political speech.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Platteville Clerk is directed to forward
a copy of this resolution to our state and federal representatives with instructions to
enact resolutions and legislation to advance this effort.
Approved and adopted by the Common Council of the City of Platteville this
of November,2015.
THE CITY OF PLATTEVILLE,
By: Eileen Nickels, Council
ATTEST:
Jan
Martin, City Clerk
President
_
day
P
I,,\TTEvII,I,E
MOVE To AMEND
A t ocnL CIt,tc Acrlox OncnxIZATtoN
@ working to Get the Money out of politics O
"6.$,
"$,
"6.6.6 "6'6.6.$,.$, rè.,è.
rèr rè.,è. rã. ô,o,è. rè. rè.
rè.
"Corporqtions qre not people qnd money is not speech."
Join us in working to overcome the Supreme Court's rulings
ín "Citizens Uniied" ond reloted coses which ollow unlimited spending
to influence locol, stote ond federol elections.
We con do this by estoblishing o U.S. Constitutionol Amendment.
.6.6.6.6.6 .6 "6.$,..fi.$,.6
rè.
ê" rè. rè. rè" rè.,è. rè. rè. rè. rè"
Sepiember ond October we ore collecting the necessory signoiures to ploce o
referendum on lhe April 2016 bollot in Plotteville, Wl. The referendum will soyihot the
citizens of Plotteville wont Wisconsin's Congressionol delegotion to support, ond the
WiSconsin Legisloture to rotify, on omendment to the U.S. Constilution sioting:
This
I. Only human beings
not corporatÍons, unions. non-profiÍs or símílor
ore endowed wíth consfífufÍonol rìghts;
ossociofions
2. Money is nof speech, ond fherefore regulatÍng potitÍcol contribufíons ond
spending ís nof equivolent Io limitîng politícol speech.
'6 "6.6.6.6.6.6 "6.6.'6.6
rè. rè. rè. rè. rè.,è. rè. rè.,è.
rè.,è.
ln o democrqcy leoders represent the public-ot-lorge. ln on orislocrocy (or oligorchy),
mostly the desíres of the ríchest citizens end up being reflected in governmentcl octions.
ln the post severol decodes, especiolly of the federal ond stote levels, we hove moved
owoy from o democrocy ond much closer to on oligcrchy.
A conslilulionol omendment is the fírsl ond extremely importont step
perhops the
- ond
only step
to reverse ihis situotion cnd to mcke our politicicns ond government
once
cgcin responsive
to We fhe People rother thon to those who provide huge compoign
donotions.
This is o
non-porlisqn issue, since every single citizen. no motter whot porty they support, is
equclly offected by the issue of money in politics. Eighty-three percent of Americons -81% of Republicans, TBT" of lndependents, ond 85% of Democrcts : wont limits on the
omount of money thot corporotions, unions, other orgonizctions, ond weolthy individucls
conspendtoinfluenceourelections.,,/.nAPpoilreportedinfhelosAnge/esñrnes, Sept. 16,2012)
.6ì *6 *6 .6.6.6.6.6.6 .6'6 rè,,è. .è, è" rè. rè. rè. Þ Þ è. æ
"Polifics oughf to be the port-time profession of every citizen who would protecl the
rights ond privileges of free men." Dwight D. Eisenhower
How we got lo now (wilh the "help" of fhe Supre me Court)
The events thot brought us to ihe oligorchîcol conditions of todoy evolved from on l88ó
court cose of Sonfo Cioro County v. Soufhern Paciîic Roilroad, which gove birth to the
fíction of corporote personhood. The Supreme Court cose of Buckley v. Voleo in 1976
creofed onother fiction, moking money equivolent to free speech.
Ciiizens United wcs the lobbying group thot wos the plointiff in o Supreme Court cose
which begon os o chollenge to vorious stotutory provisions of lhe Biporlison Compoign
Reform Act of 2002, known os the "McCoin-Feingold" low. A provision of this low borred
corporotions ond unions from poying for politicol ods mode independenlly of condidoTe
compoigns. On Jonuory 21,2010, in Citizens Uniled vs. F.E.C., lhe Supreme Court
overturned this provision, decloring thot corporotions, os "persons," connot hove their
"speech" limited by government. This opened the floodgotes of big money contributions
from corporotions in the election process.
As q result, even well-meoning politicions ore
tropped by the cunent system. lf their
ccmpoigns don't occept the huge omounts of money, it's extremely difficult to get
elected. lf they do occepl lhe money ond get elected, there is cn unspoken expectotion
to promote the legislotion desired by their weolthy donors (on oligorchy) cnd noi of the
generol citizenry whom they should be representing (o democrocy).
Our Representotives in Congress ond the Senote spend opproximotely 50% of their time
doing their own lobbying with billionoires cnd for corporote money. Of their remoining time
spenf legisloting, ít's often to the odvontoge of their compoígn funders, even if the
legislotíon is not in the best interests of the generol public. The end result is thot our notionol
government ond stote governmenfs ore heovily influenced by corporotions ond billionoires
insteod of government lhot is of lhe people, by the people, for The people. Democrocy,
ond the very sovereignty of our notion, now needs to be restored.
Ihe needed chonge
Ís wefl
underwoy!!
At the notionol level, sixteen slole legislolures hove olreody colled on Congress, requesting
on omendment to the U.S. Conslitution for rotificolion: Connecticut, Colifornio, Howoii,
Morylond, Mossochusetts, New Mexico, Rhode lslcnd, Delowore, lllinois, New Jersey,
Oregon, Vermont, Colorodo, Montono, West Virginio ond Moine. ln Wisconsin, sixty
communities hove olreody pcssed either o referendum or o resolution osking for o
Constilutionol Amendment, cnd now Plofreville ond severql olher SW communilies ore
working on their own referendum to join with those sixty communities olreody on record os
supporling o move fo omend.
leorn obout Move To Amend efforts of the stote ond notionol level, visit the noÌionol MTA
website, MoveIoAmend.org, the stote MTA websile, WiMTA.org, ond www.storyofstuff.org
to wotch o I minute video, "Slory of Citizens United v. FEC." For more informotion on how
you con participofe in fhis |ocolmovement fo gef money out of polifics by creoting o 28th
Amendment to the United Sfofes Constifufion, contoct Dick Rundell 348-5583 or Chorlie
Clark 778-8435.
To
"Liberty connol be preserved wilhout o generql knowledge omong the people,
who hove o righl...ond o desire lo know." John Adoms
How we got to now (wi'th the "help" of the supreme court)
The evenls thot brought us to the oligorchicol conditions of todoy evolved from on IBBó
courl cose of Sonlo Claro Covnty v. Soufhern PoclÍíc Roílroad, which gove birth to the
fiction of corporote personhood. The Supreme Court cose of Buckley v. Voleo in 1976
creoted onother fiction, moking money equivolent to free speech.
Citizens Uniied wos the lobbying group thol wos lhe plointiff in o Supreme Court cose
which begon os o chollenge to vorious stotutory provisions of the Biporfison Compoþn
Reform Act of 2002, known os the "McCoin-Feingotd" low. A provision of this low borred
corporotions ond unions from poying for polilicol ods mode independently of condidole
compoigns. On Jonucry 21,2010, in Cilizens Uniled vs. F.E.C., lhe Supreme CourÌ
overturned this provÎsion, decloring thol corporotions, os "persons," connot hove their
"speech" limited by government. This opened the floodgotes of big money contributions
from corporoiions in ihe election process.
As o resull, even well-meoning politicions ore
lropped by the cunent system. lf lheir
compoigns don't occepl the huge omounts of money, it's extremely difficult to get
elected. lf they do occepl the money CInd gel elected, ihere is on unspoken expec'totion
to promote the legislotion desired by their weclthy donors (on oligorchy) ond not of the
generol citizenry whom ihey should be represenling (o democrocy).
Our Representotives in Congress ond ihe Senote spend opproximolely SO% of their lime
doing lheir own lobbying with billionoires ond for corporote money. Of their remoining Time
spent legislciing, if's often to the odvontcge of their compoígn funders, even if the
legislotion is not ín the best interests of the generol public. The end resull is thot our nolionol
governmenl ond stote governments ore heovily influenced by corporotions ond billionoires
insteod of government thol is of the people, by the people, for the people. Democrocy,
ond lhe very sovereignty of our notion, now needs to be restored.
ïhe needed chonge
is
well underway!!
At the notionol level, sixleen slote legislolures hove olreody colled on Congress, requesting
on omendment to the U.S. Constitution for rotificotion: Conneclicut, Colifornio, Howoii,
Morylond, Mossochusetts, New Mexico, Rhode lslond, Delowore, lllinois, New Jersey,
Oregon, Vermont, Colorodo, Monlonq, Wesl Virginio ond Moine. ln Wisconsin, sixty
communilies hove olreody possed either o referendum or o resolution osking for o
Constitutionol Amendment, ond now Plotleville ond severol olher SW communilies ore
working on their own referendum lo join with lhose sixty communities olreody on record os
supporling o moye fo omend.
To leorn obout Move To Amend efforts of the stote ond nolionol level, visit lhe nolionol MTA
website, MoveToAmend.org, the stole MTA website, WiMTA.org, ond www.storyofstuff.org
io wotch o g minute video, "Story of Citizens Uniled v. FEC." For more informotion on how
You con participate rn fhis locolmovernent to get money out of politics by creoting a 2ïth
Amendmenf to the Uníted Sfofes Consfifufrbn, contoct Dick Rundell 348-5583 or Charlie
Clork 778-8435.
.69$9$.$'.$,.$,.6.$,.6.$,.6
rè. rè. rèr rè.
Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ Þ" Þ
"Liberty connol be preserved without o generol knowledge omong the people,
who hove o righl...ond o desire lo know.,' John Adoms