As the director of Renew Democracy, an advocacy group for a constitutional amendment to restore the primacy of the individual American voter in the political process, I would say that Dana is exactly correct. The groups that Dana mentions are certainly founded with the best of intent. There is however a basic fundamental flaw that these groups overlook and that they may not be able to overcome. They represent a particular constituency. For a constitutional amendment to be successful there must be a super majority of broad-based support. Polling data indicates that the super majority of support exists for a change in our political system as the vast majority of Americans view our system is broken and they feel that the influence of money in politics is the reason.

There is not a super majority of support however for public financing of campaigns. There is not a super majority of support for only restricting corporations and no other actors like Unions. There is also a broad realization with the public that it is not only a problem with special interest groups but that the basic formulation of our party system creates distortions in our democracy as the economic power of the two parties over the legislators increasingly grows. None of these groups would have the temerity to do anything that would impinge on the Democratic Party.  These groups are part of and are influenced by the Beltway. They have done, and are doing great work in educating the public in the need for change, and many of them are correct and advocating for a constitutional amendment. It is certainly the case that campaign finance laws do not have a constitutional basis currently. It is also the case that advocating for a constitutional amendment with a policy prescription that is not universally acceptable is myopic at best and in some cases has been simply a pander to a small but politically active portion of the public.

It is politically unfeasible to propose a constitutional amendment that would eliminate one parties economic base and leave the others untouched or strengthened. Both political parties rely primarily on individual donations and the Republicans receive fewer but larger. Both parties could well exist under a system that eliminated anything but individual donations. That is why in the proposed outline for a constitutional amendment we advocate “The right to contribute to political campaigns and political parties is held solely by individual citizens.” This powerful statement would eliminate contributions from all groups organizations and associations. No corporate money, and no union money. No money from the Chamber of Commerce, MoveOn.org, the National Rifle Association or the Sierra Club. It would also end the economic control over our legislators influenced by the political parties. This is a far broader and more powerful concept than any that are advocated currently by the groups Dana mentions. Since Renew Democracy is a small organization that has nothing to do with any other group, we can advocate truly for the American public. We don’t need to pander to our constituency because we don’t have one.

The proposal we advocate would end self financing by wealthy politicians, would eliminate the electoral college, would end concerns about “corporate personage” in a much more powerful way than is currently advocated by amendments that simply state “corporations are not people”. Would provide for a constitutional basis for campaign finance laws regulating PACs and soft money, and would provide a federal guarantee of the right to vote in all pertinent elections.

Proposals to amend the Constitution that do not start by identifying what is politically feasible from actual polling data are ignoring reality. The RDA does not rely on public financing which is a concept the public is only lukewarm about at best. It is hard to excite people about the middle. The extremes are always more interesting and easier to fund raise on. In this case however the middle can be far more exciting and powerful as the extremes are blinded by their politics.