Why a constitutional amendment?
Because the Supreme Court has ruled that financial contributions are a form of political speech, and that Congress cannot regulate or restrict speech that is made independently of a candidate's campaign organization. A little background might be useful here. There are actually two types of campaign contributions: those that are given directly to a candidate for election (so called "direct" contributions) and those that are spent independently, usually on special issue advertising, or else on ads that attack a candidate. In addition, there are two types of donors: private individuals and corporations. Of these four types of campaign contributions (private and corporate direct contributions, and private and corporate independent contributions) the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress may not regulate independent contributions of either kind, because this would violate free speech. So the only way to over turn these Supreme Court decisions is to amend the constitution.

Why an "Amendment Convention"?
There are in fact two different ways to amend the Constitution. One is when Congress itself passes a proposed amendment for ratification by the states, and the other occurs when 2/3 of the state legislatures petition Congress to call a convention. The way most scholars interpret Article V, Congress has no choice once 2/3 of the states (34) send them petitions, they have to call the convention.

For more information on amending the constitution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Since Congress is part of the problem, and I don't believe that we can rely on them to reform themselves, I don't think trying to convince 2/3's of each house is realistic. The only other option seems to be convincing the states to petition Congress to hold such a convention. That would require persuading at least one legislator in 34 different states to champion such a petition.


What Should The Petition Say?
As I described above, there are four different types of campaign contributions that can influence who runs for office and what policies candidates endorse. In addition to these forms of influence, lobbying activities also take the form of money, services and other forms of support offered to members of Congress during their term (indeed, some estimates are four times as large as campaign contributions) and of course, there is the phenomenon of the "revolving door" wherein members of Congress leave office to become lobbyists for the very industries they formerly regulated (nearly half of all members of Congress become lobbyists sometime after leaving office). My proposal is to try to plug all of these types of influence. The language of the petition, and eventually the amendment that comes out of the convention, should specifically address all these forms of influence, either by eliminating them entirely, or placing restrictions on the amount that can be contributed in a given election cycle.

In addition, since the lobbying industry is pretty innovative, and will certainly try to find ways around any specific restrictions, I would also give Congress the right to regulate any contribution or donation that has monetary value. And, of course, I would give the state legislatures the same authority with regards to state offices as well.


What Does the Petition Not Have To Say?
It doesn't have to address the "personhood" of corporations. While I appreciate how people feel about corporations receiving the same free speech rights as real people, I think this is a distraction from the real problem. If we removed "personhood" (or even political speech) from corporations, you would still have private contributions to worry about. Who really cares if Congress is corrupted by a corporation or a very wealthy private individual? And the legal status of corporations doesn't affect their ability to make contributions to members of Congress during their term in office, or offer them jobs afterward. Instead, I think we should target the specific problem (the effect money has on politics) and be as inclusive as possible when solving that problem.

Another thing petition does not need to do is eliminate any form of political speech. Speech, in the form of monetary contributions or expenditures, should be restricted, severely restricted in many cases, but even corporations should retain the right to contribute something. Free Speech is the bedrock of the democratic process, and I want to be conservative in terms of undermining it. The point of this proposal is to reduce the influence large amounts of money has on politics, not to gag anyone.

I welcome your questions and comments.