Second but not least

Tweet

Last month California became the second US state to pass a resolution calling for an article V constitutional convention to reform campaign finance. Vermont was the first. There is a call for a convention in Congress, in the Senate, but it is unlikely to pass the Senate, much less the House. And that is why we are trying to get the states to call for a convention. State legislators are much more likely to listen to their constituents, probably because they don't hear from them as often. The Supreme Court has said that money is speech, and speech is protected under the first amendment. I say that it is not right for those with more money than others to flood elections and campaigns with endless dollars. Not only do candidates tend to spend too much time on fundraising, but there is the issue of influence. One side argues that the system is hopelessly corrupt, and that donors aren't going to donate so much money without expecting something in return. The other side argues that donors just tend to put their money on campaigns for people they already know have the same beliefs. There was a recent study that showed that votes rarely go the way the majority of the people want. Votes (in the government, I'm not talking about elections) generally tend to go the way the big money people and corporations want them to go. This is why I support getting big money donations out of campaigns. What do you think?