Senate passes resolution urging limits on corporate political spending after hours-long debate

The California State Senate on June 12 passed SJR 18, a nonbinding resolution urging the federal government to reconsider the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision and calling for limits on outside corporate political spending. The resolution passed on a roll call vote of 28–8 after extended debate among senators.

Senator McNerney, the author, framed the resolution as a message to Washington rather than a change to state law, saying the resolution “sends a message to the federal government that the California legislature disagrees with the infamous Citizens United decision.” He described outside spending as “dark money” and cited nationwide figures to underscore his point about the growth of independent expenditures since 2008.

Several senators supported the resolution as a way to restore transparency and public trust. Senator McGuire said corporate spending has overwhelmed democratic processes and urged action: “We need to change corporate law to take away corporations' ability to act as artificial people and spend unchecked sums in our elections.” Senator Wahab said the resolution recognizes the difference between people organizing in unions and corporations deploying vast sums to protect profit-driven interests.

Senator Nilo pressed the author on whether the resolution’s language would apply equally to labor unions and other nonprofit advocacy organizations; McNerney and supporters clarified that the resolution is a statement of principle and does not itself change who may spend on speech. McNerney also noted complementary state bills he said would modestly increase transparency in election spending.

Opponents urged caution. Senator Jones said the measure was “half-baked” and argued it did not address all sources of political influence; he also raised concerns about government-employee unions and disclosure. In closing remarks, McNerney reiterated that the resolution aims to highlight transparency problems and the corrosive effect of large, opaque spending on public trust.

The resolution received a roll call vote after debate; the Secretary recorded Ayes 28, Noes 8, and the presiding officer announced that the resolution passed. Because SJR 18 is a concurrent/expressive resolution, it does not impose new state restrictions but signals the Legislature’s position to federal authorities.

What’s next: SJR 18 is a nonbinding statement and does not create enforcement mechanisms; supporters described it as part of a broader push for transparency measures and possible follow-on legislation to increase disclosure of outside spending in state elections.