A New Common Sense Read online

  Elected delegates in each State shall meet at their respective capitols, on the thirty first day of July, succeeding the election, at ten o’clock a.m., and shall thereupon constitute a convention to consider and vote upon the question of whether or not this article shall be ratified as an amendment to the Constitution. The convention shall be the judge of the election and qualifications of its members, and shall elect its president, secretary and other officers, and adopt rules. The convention shall keep a journal of its proceedings in which shall be recorded the vote of each delegate on the question of ratification of this article. Upon final adjournment, the journal shall be filed with the State’s secretary of state. If the convention agrees by vote of a majority of the total number of delegates to ratification of this article, a certificate to that effect shall be executed by the president and secretary of the convention, and transmitted to the State’s secretary of state, who shall transmit the certificate under his or her hand and the great seal of the State to the Secretary of State of the United States.

  Section 8:Nothing in this article shall be construed to grant Congress or the States the power to abridge the freedom of the press.

  Section 9:Congress and the States shall have power to implement and enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

  Section 10:This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in three-fourths of the several States, as provided in this article, and in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment is humbly submitted by the (Spelled Out Total) XXX,XXX,XXX legally eligible voters of these United States, whose names are affixed and attached hereto.

  SUBMITTED THIS ___ day of ___________, 20__, in Washington, D.C.

  Now, let’s review what the amendment says, in plain language:

  Section 1 prohibits the Supreme Court from using the First Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, to prohibit Congress or the States from enacting campaign finance reform legislation (including this amendment!). No more free speech for special interests! This would also free up the State of Montana to reinstitute its corporate campaign restrictions which were recently overturned by the Supreme Court, if they so desired. This is similar in structure to a recommended amendment from retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

  Section 2 states that only We the People, individuals who are legally eligible to vote for a specific candidate, are eligible to contribute to that candidate’s campaign for nomination to, or election to, any political office in the United States. This means that every member of the House of Representatives and the Senate will campaign and be elected solely on campaign donations received from their individual constituents. Not businesses, not unions, not out of state special interests, not Wall Street fat-cats who want to pre-purchase congressional votes, not billionaires who want to keep their off shore bank accounts secret and hidden from view and taxes, not environmental groups, but just people living in the same congressional district or state that the representative or senator is supposed to represent. Imagine that!

  As an example, only citizens who are registered to vote in Lincoln, Nebraska, could contribute to candidates for Mayor of Lincoln. Those same citizens could also contribute to anyone running for a seat in Congress from the congressional district in which they reside, Governor of Nebraska, either of the two Senate seats from Nebraska, the President, etc. After all, why should some billionaire from Wichita, Kansas (named Koch), or Omaha, Nebraska (named Buffet) have the right to try to thwart the will of the People in Lincoln, Nebraska; or Tempe, Arizona; or Manchester, New Hampshire; or Placerville, California, or Austin, Texas, or Montgomery, Alabama? If Berkshire Hathaway or Koch Industries do business in any of these places, the very fact that they generate income and jobs into that local economy gives them more than enough clout to get the attention of local elected officials, without needing to dump huge amounts of cash in to try to buy an election out from under the people who live in, and vote in, those communities. Enough!

  Section 3 establishes a formula that can be used forever to establish the maximum amount that any individual can contribute. Currently, the Bureau of Economic Analysis in the Department of Commerce says that the Median Annual Average Income for Full Time Workers is about $40,000 per year, more or less. That means that half the full time workers in America make less than $40,000, and the other half make more. The formula is set at 5% of this number, and 5% of $40,000 is $2,000, per election campaign, per year. This means, that the hypothetical Lincoln, Nebraska voter could contribute up to $2,000 to his/her favorite candidate in the Republican primary for their congressional representative, and up to $2,000 for their preferred candidate in the final election. They can do this for every other election, regardless of the office. So, if, for example, Donald Trump decides to run for a seat in Congress, in the New York congressional district in which he resides, he can contribute, according to the formula, approximately $2,000 of his own billions in wealth to his Republican primary campaign. He can contribute another $2,000 to his general election campaign, if he wins the nomination. Meanwhile, Trump’s hypothetical competitor candidate in either the primary or the general election (let’s say she’s a small business owner) can contribute the same amounts to her own campaigns. Now, obviously, in this example, Donald Trump knows a lot of rich New Yorker’s in his congressional district, so he would still have a distinct advantage in raising campaign contributions. But the other candidate would at least have the possibility of getting a much larger number of small dollar donations to potentially come close to Trump’s campaign “war chest. “ That candidate might have to put in a much larger effort than Trump, but she could at the same time pick up a lot of potential voting supporters, as well as financial supporters. And, knowing that someone like Mr. Trump, or his wealthy friends or corporate supporters, could not legally flood the airways with non-stop advertising, might make this hypothetical small business owner and patriotic American much more likely to enter the race. In this sort of world, perhaps Mr. (or Ms.) Smith Goes to Washington could become more than a movie fantasy. It’s not meant to create a perfectly “level” competitive field, but perhaps this amendment can make it competitive enough to encourage great candidates to step up to serve their country, and for all the right reasons.

  Section 4 states that only candidates for public office may purchase and distribute campaign advertising related to the office for which they are competing. So, no more “Committee for a Patriotic Democracy, Mom, and Apple Pie”, running negative ads against the candidate that Goldman-Sachs doesn’t want to see on the Senate Banking Committee. As the Italians say, Basta! But, what about outside groups who try to skirt the rules, exploiting perceived loopholes. This section covers that likely scenario by requiring each state to establish a “citizen’s independent election commission” which must be composed of politically neutral, non-partisan citizens, and charges the commission to rule in a non-partisan manner based solely on the facts. With campaign funds drastically reduced for all candidates, and no outside interest group ads allowed, we might see campaign advertising become more focused on issues of real concern to the People who will be casting votes on Election Day. With luck, we might also be able to limit the flood of non-stop negative campaign ads we now must endure in the weeks and months leading up to an election.

  Section 5 requires that any candidate for public office must release the last five years of their federal income tax returns for public review. The theory here is that if they have anything to hide (i.e., $100,000 income from sales of their 50 page book “My Trials and Tribulations in the Senate” to a major oil or Wall Street corporation or a Silicon Valley high tech billionaire) it will jump out to the news media, who will immediately devour the candidate like a shark on a wounded baby harp seal.

  Section 6 completes the circle by prohibiting any elected official, a
fter he or she leaves office, from receiving income as a paid lobbyist for a period of five years. Thus, no quiet and unwritten quid pro quos can be set up between the elected official and any big money interests to reward the official with a fat lobbying contract after leaving office, if he or she will only vote the way the big money interest wants on key legislation. It’s not a perfect solution, but at least it’s a start.

  Section 7 establishes the ground rules by which each state will structure and hold their state conventions to consider ratification. It’s actually quite similar to the process recommended by a lawyer’s committee in 1933, when ratification of the twenty-first amendment became the first (and only) time Congress ordered states to use the convention process. But almost no guidance is provided in Article V of the Constitution as to how the state conventions should be structured. Most states chose to follow the lawyer’s committee guidance, and it greatly smoothed and sped up the process of ratification among the states. The only significant difference is that I have included a scheduled election day: the fourth day of July. Let me explain.

  Every four years we have a Presidential election, and cast our vote for our preferred candidates for President and Vice-President. But, by Constitutional requirement, technically the popular vote does not elect the President. The “presidential electors” in each state, who cast their vote weeks after the election (the Electoral College) cast the actual legal vote that determines who will become President. Similarly, the Constitution forbids use of referendums (popular votes) to decide the ratification of amendments. The solution, developed in 1933, was to allow the voters to elect a slate of candidates legally bound to vote as they have declared on the ballot….either for, or against ratification of the amendment. Then, a few weeks later the elected slate of candidates meet together for the convention, and usually complete their voting in a matter of minutes: a mere formality that effectively confirms the outcome of the earlier vote. By requiring all of the states to hold that election on the same day, July 4th, we can effectively achieve a national referendum without violating the Constitutional prohibition, just as we do in electing the President. It just strikes me that the nation could celebrate passage of its new declaration of independence at the same time we celebrate the birthday of the original. An added plus is that most of the nation already has that day off. The celebration with fireworks and brass bands late in the evening, about the time the polls would be closing would simply add to the sense of excitement and remind all of us about the true meaning of the holiday.

  Section 8 simply states that nothing in this amendment is meant to limit in any way the freedom of the press. We need more investigative journalism, not less.

  Section 9 is standard language that allows Congress and the States to implement this amendment by appropriate (i.e., approvable by the Supreme Court) legislation. The Supreme Court’s job in this case is to simply ensure that the intent of the amendment is actually carried out by any legislation that may be passed by Congress or the States.

  And, finally, Section 10 establishes the now accepted time limit of seven years for three-quarters of the states to formally ratify the amendment, or it becomes inoperative. It also formally states and requires that the ratification process must be by state conventions, rather than by vote in the state legislatures.

  So, there you have it. Ten common “cents” to form a D.I.M.E., so to speak. Next, I’ll discuss how I intend to actually roll this out to the general public.

  The basic idea is to set up a website (www.DIMEamendment.org) where one can find the amendment, links to this pamphlet, links to YouTube videos, Facebook and Twitter accounts, and most importantly, links to an on-line petition. Once you have signed the petition, electronically, you will also be asked to contact every elected official within whose voting district you reside (i.e., everyone from your local school board and city councils, your state and federal elected officials, and all the way up to the President of the United States). You will be asked to notify them that you have signed onto the D.I.M.E. Amendment petition, and unless they also sign the petition and agree to support it with an affirmative vote at any opportunity, you will not give them your vote at election time. You’re not being asked to violate your conscience by voting for the other candidate, should he or she agree to support the amendment and your favored candidate refuse. You’re only agreeing to withhold your vote from your preferred candidate, if he or she refuses to support the amendment. As for the rest, let the chips fall where they may.

  Obviously this will only work if it is completely non-partisan. If mostly democrats or mostly republicans sign the amendment, the imbalance will cause the effort to fail. It is my goal to use this collective pressure from the voters to force every candidate, from every political party, to agree to support the D.I.M.E. Amendment.

  Then, when we have enough votes on our online petition, and enough members of Congress and state legislators who are committed to support it, we will formally submit the amendment to Congress, along with the (hopefully) millions and millions of names of We the People, all eligible voters, who demand that this Amendment be passed and sent to all fifty state legislatures for their action to schedule the public vote. The vote that will allow We the People to make the final decision whether or not to ratify this amendment, and make it a permanent part of our Constitution.

  As stated above, this will only work if it is truly non-partisan. Whether you are a Tea Party Republican, or an Occupy Wall Street Democrat, or a libertarian, or an Independent; a member of the National Rifle Association or Moms Against Guns…..whoever you are, wherever you are, whatever your political interests; as an individual citizen of the United States of America you are being victimized by this foul and corrupt campaign finance system that we live under. Realistically, they are not going to change on their own. I believe that the only answer to this ridiculous situation is for We the People to stand up and take our democracy back from those who have stolen it. It doesn’t require a monumental or herculean effort on our part. It doesn’t need or require you to donate any money or to march in the streets. It only requires that you take a few minutes to express your support for this amendment, and then tell every candidate for a public office for which you can cast a vote, that unless they publicly express their support as well, they will not receive your vote at the next election. Then pay attention to what happens. That’s it.

  I have written this pamphlet entirely on my own, and with no assistance, financial or otherwise from any other person or any group. I intend to publish this pamphlet, set up the website, social media pages, and YouTube videos with my own resources and at my own expense. I expect this effort to cost me no more than $1,000 of my own money, and I happily spend it with no thought of compensation or reimbursement. I am by no means a wealthy man, but I am not poor either. Good or bad, right or wrong, this is the work and effort of one American, working alone, and trying to convince the rest of you to join him on what could well be a journey to a “fool’s paradise.” But, as the writer Jessamyn West once said so well, “Only a fool would refuse to enter a fool’s paradise---when that’s the only paradise he’ll ever have a chance to enter.”

  Realistically, what have we got to lose with this effort….please join me!

 

 

 

  Conclusion

  “It is not because a part of government is elective, that makes it less a despotism, if the persons so elected possess afterwards, as a parliament, unlimited powers. Election, in this case, becomes separated from representation, and the candidates are candidates for despotism.”

  Thomas Paine, Rights of Man (1791)

  I believe that this quote of Paine’s is relevant to our current situation, in that we have an electoral process that appears fair and democratic, but only at first glance. Upon closer inspection, it becomes clear that the influence of unlimited cash by corporations, unions, wealthy plutocrats, and other special interests insures that We the People can only elect people to govern over us who owe
their ultimate allegiance not to We the People who elected them, but to the special interests who own them. This is a critically important point, because the defenders of the status quo will loudly argue against the D.I.M.E. Amendment by saying that it destroys the basic and unlimited right to individual free speech granted in the First Amendment.

  But let’s imagine for a moment (to borrow a line from Texas Senator Ted Cruz), that it’s the year 1791. The newly appointed Supreme Court, under first Chief Justice John Jay, hears its first case. Let’s further imagine that the case (West v. Barnes) is not a dispute over Writs of Error (the actual basis of the case), but instead involves a First Amendment, freedom of speech issue. Let’s say that a Mr. West has filed a suit to invalidate a Mr. Barnes’ electoral victory over Mr. West in a town council election. Mr. West is arguing that Mr. Barnes used his vast inherited wealth, and ownership of all local printers, to “drown out” Mr. West’s voice and ability to make his case to the voters. Imagine if you will, Mr. West makes a campaign appearance on the town square, with 100 local supporters. He plans to make a campaign speech, followed by a Q&A session with the crowd. Mr. Barnes, using his ownership of local printers, plasters the town with printed leaflets full of lies and misstatements about Mr. West. Next, he uses his wealth to purchase all available advertising space in the local newspaper, leading up to the election, and then fills the paper with ads praising himself, while vilifying Mr. West. Finally, he hires out of town paid henchmen to surround Mr. West’s campaign event, and then has them yell nonstop “catcalls” and slurs so loudly that no one can hear a word Mr. West has said. Mr. West files suit against Mr. Barnes, and asks the Supreme Court to annul the election, and to restrain Mr. Barnes’ ability to restrict Mr. Wests’ right to speak to citizens of the town in a new election.