Relative to campaign finance reform.
SJR 18 is a joint resolution expressing the California Legislature’s strong disagreement with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC decision. The resolution argues that Citizens United has enabled excessive corporate influence in elections through independent expenditures, Super PACs, and undisclosed “dark money,” and it frames corporate political spending as inconsistent with democratic self-government and the original purpose of the First Amendment.
The measure does not change California election law by itself. Instead, it memorializes the Legislature’s position and urges states to adopt policies, consistent with the U.S. Constitution, that limit corporate contributions to political campaigns. It also directs the Secretary of the Senate to transmit the resolution to federal congressional leaders and California’s congressional delegation, making it primarily a formal statement of policy and advocacy rather than an operative regulatory bill.
Because SJR 18 is a joint resolution, it has no direct effect on California statutes, campaign finance limits, or enforcement rules. Its practical impact is symbolic and political: it records the Legislature’s opposition to Citizens United, supports efforts in other states to restrict corporate election spending, and signals California’s stance on campaign finance reform and corporate political influence.
The overall sentiment around the resolution appears strongly supportive within the Legislature, as reflected by its advancement out of committee on a 6-2 vote. The bill text itself is highly critical of Citizens United and of corporate spending in politics, and the committee action suggests enough support to move it forward despite some opposition. No transcript was provided, but the available vote history indicates the measure was generally favored.
The main point of contention is the resolution’s criticism of Citizens United and its broader argument that corporations should have limited political spending rights. Supporters view corporate election spending and dark money as threats to democracy and public accountability, while opponents likely object to the resolution’s framing of corporate speech rights and its implicit challenge to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment. The 6-2 committee vote suggests disagreement centered on constitutional interpretation and the role of corporations in political campaigns.