Were the vast majority of the informed population to agree that there was a single problem that needed to be addressed, it would be how failure to reign in campaign contributions has made our government the lap dog of special interests rather than the will of the people. Based on the First Amendment of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has long ruled that many limits on individuals’ contributions would deprive major donors of their right of free speech, and now even corporations per “Citizens United”.
In “Republic Lost, How many corrupts Congress… and a plan go stop it”, Professor Lawrence Lessig of Harvard Law School has brought to our attention the very way that our founding fathers incorporated into the Constitution to redress such problems, and they set forth two ways to do so.
One was for Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution and three-fourths of the states to ratify it. That is how alcohol prohibition was brought about and that was how it later was repealed. However, with campaign funding from major donors and corporations being senators and representatives very life blood, it is highly unlikely that such an initiative would find adequate support.
The second method is for two-thirds of the states to ask Congress to call a constitutional convention. Then the product of the convention would need to be ratified by three quarters of the states. This has never been done although at one point, 1989, all but two states required to call a convention for a “balanced budget amendment” made such a call.
According to Lessig, “Yet the convention is reviled by scholars and b y insides on the Left and Right alike. He process, they insist, is too uncertain. Too dangerous. A convention once convened would ‘run away,’ these scholars say (to where, exactly?). The whole process is jus to radical and untested for a mature and stable democracy.”
Lessig disagrees. Among other safeguards is the trump card that before the convention’s proposal could be adopted, it would have to be ratified by three quarters of the states.
He also contends that the states could limit what issues are to be addressed and, in calling the convention, Congress could also so stipulate. If the convention exceeded its mandate, as did the members of our own Constitutional Convention, this need not be a bad thing if three quarters of the states agree with the recommendations. He cites James Wilson as observing that the framers conceived of themselves as “authorized to conclude nothing but…at liberty to propose anything.”
Lessig urges that mock conventions be held with representation by average citizens. They would act much as a jury does, learning history and hearing many view points. Then they would come up with their own proposals. The same could be done at colleges and universities. Through that process, patterns would become evident that would help frame how the Congress should be structured and administrated.
As Lessig and so many others have observed, until we can solve the problem of our elected officials serving major donors rather than the public, it will not be possible to properly address those other major issues that must be dealt with if our nation is once again to function properly as a republic.
To correct the author on one factual point. Article V does not require “same subject” submission by the states in order to compel Congress to call a convention. It requires only that “on the application of two thirds of the several state legislatures [Congress] shall call a convention for proposing amendments….” meaning if 34 states apply Congress must call. The public record shows 49 states have submitted over 700 applications for a convention call (see http://www.foavc.org to read the applications). Thus, the reason a convention hasn’t been held is not the states have not applied, but Congress refuses to obey the Constitution and call it.