Vermont first state to call for constitutional convention to get money out of politics

[cali]

NOTE: I have permission from the site to post whole articles:

On Friday Vermont became the first state to call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which precipitated a flood of cash into politics.

Mike Monetta, 37, drove from Boston with a colleague and spent more than 10 hours Thursday in the House gallery waiting for the lower chamber to vote on the Senate-passed resolution, which — as lawmakers race to wrap things up before the end of the biennium — was taken up at the end of a marathon floor session.

He was back in the gallery Friday morning to see Vermont’s resolution get final approval from the House. Monetta is the organizing director for Wolf PAC, which he described as a political action committee to end all political action committees.

“We exist for only one purpose and that’s to get a 28th amendment to get all money out of politics,” he explained.

Wolf PAC was founded by Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks online newscast.

“(Uygur) has this thing where in almost every story he keeps coming back to ‘whoever has more money wins,’” Monetta said. “But he didn’t want to just be negative, he wanted there to be a way to fix it.”

Legal challenges are an unlikely solution, as the Supreme Court has set precedent in a number of cases that equates money with free speech, Monetta said.

There are only two ways to amend the U.S. Constitution, either through an act of Congress ratified by the states or by a convention of states acting on their own.

Wolf PAC concluded that the federal government is too awash in campaign cash from outside groups to take action, so the organization is launching campaigns to push state legislatures to call for an end to corporate personhood and public financing of all elections, according to the organization’s website.

There are 10 states currently considering similar resolutions to the one passed by Vermont, according to Monetta. It would take 34 states to trigger a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, and 38 to approve an amendment.

States could appoint delegates that are local or statewide officeholders, or a state could choose to elect its delegates

Earlier in the session it appeared there was no appetite in Montpelier for such a resolution, but a call to Sen. Dick Sears, D-Bennington, from one of his constituents got the ball rolling, he said.

“Dr. Steven Barry is a minister in Manchester,” Sears said. “He contacted me, and I’ve known him for several years, and we talked about it, and the more I heard, it made sense to me.”

Sears said he decided to put the resolution back on the “fast track” by holding hearings on the topic and eventually bringing it to the Senate floor for a vote where it passed 25-2.

“I think it’s an important resolution,” Sears said. “Congress isn’t going to act, and we’ve got to do something to get this country back under control.”

When the resolution crossed over to the House side and a hearing was held in the Government Operations Committee, S. Burlington farmer Benjamin Brown made an emotional plea to lawmakers to be the first state to call for a convention.

“What am I going to tell my children, what am I going to be able to say to them about this democracy?” Brown asked lawmakers.

“Vermont has an opportunity to lead right now … it’s not left and right, it’s an issue of democracy,” he said. “Please allow the conversations to happen.”

Days later, the House followed the Senate and passed JRS 27, becoming the first state to call for a convention to amend the Constitution by reversing the Citizens United decision.

Several lawmakers raised concerns that the scope of a convention could not be limited and participating states could bring forward amendments for discussion that many would find unpalatable, such as outlawing abortion.

But those concerns did not dampen the House’s enthusiasm and the resolution passed 95-43.

“I see this resolution as an opportunity to kick-start a movement that I hope will spread throughout the country and let people become aware of the real problems we have with the influence of money on elections and on our public policy,” said Rep. Mike Yantachka, D-Charlotte.

http://vtdigger.org/2014/05/02/vermont-first-state-call-constitutional-convention-get-money-politics/

[Enthusiast]

1. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[Sylvan1]

2. Vermont, it's how our founding fathers intended this society to be.

Vermont is leading the way on so many important fronts. Getting rid of Citizen's United is the first step toward being able to deal with the other important issues. Phasing out nuclear power, enforcing environmental protection laws, insisting upon GMO labeling of food are all things Vermont is already doing. Marijuana is no longer a criminal offense and I foresee Vermont joining Colorado and Washington as legal states in the near future. Before we assume that Vermont is just the greeniest of the green states, it is also staunchly pro 2nd amendment, issuing and requiring no license for US citizens to carry a firearm, concealed or not, inside the state, even if they are just passing through. This was the original plan for a free society.

Going after the Citizen's United rule is the best way to clean house politically and get some legislators in office who want to DO something for the people of this country!

[cali]

3. Belated welcome to DU, Sylvan.

Vermont was also the first state to ban slavery- among many other progressive stances. It's a good place to live- if you like winter.

[lastlib]

4. While I applaud this step to rid us of CU, a constitutional convention scares the jesus out of me...

because there is no legal way to limit what it takes up. Anything that gets under someone's skin could be put in play--outlawing abortion, balanced budget. Still, this is a subject Congress won't touch, and this may be the only way to accomplish it.

[meaculpa2011]

6. Very scary.

And while we're repealing the First Amendment, let's do away with all that pesky search and seizure stuff.

Maybe I'm an alarmist, but I believe that if the Bill of Rights was put up for referendum it would be voted down in a landslide.

Gotta be a better way.

[toddwv]

8. I agree...

A Constitutional Amendment would be better while problematic. I don't want all those empty red states having that kind of power.

[hootinholler]

11. Most calls I've seen call for a Limited convention to consider only the amendment

A joint resolution will get a vote this year in the Senate.

My thread about it sank like a rock.

[lastlib]

17. There is a great deal of debate over whether those limitations.....

...would have any legal effect. I (and others of greater legal acumen) question whether they could be enforced. Remember the original 1787 convention was only called to "consider amendments" to the Articles of Confederation. This nation is very fortunate that things turned out as they did, but could lightning strike twice? Would we get a favorable result this time?

And (changing the subject slightly), can anyone bear the thought of a Constitutional convention in the age of cell phones and Twitter?? I would dread it.

[cali]

12. I'll have to research it, but I believe the legislature did do something to limit it

[Seniorcousin]

5. Their heart is in the right place, but

until my generation, the baby boomers, are gone it's too risky. Once it's opened the theocrats, billionaires, military industrial lobbyists, etc., will make the current presidential campaigns look cheap by comparison.

[malaise]

9. Go Vermont!

Rec

[Mondavi]

10. Good move

And this...

Several lawmakers raised concerns that the scope of a convention could not be limited and participating states could bring forward amendments for discussion that many would find unpalatable, such as outlawing abortion.

is an old fear which the right wing waves around whenever we try to reestablish a people's government.

However, elite money has bought more than our representatives/government officials.
It's bought fake issues, organizations, movements and the actors to carry out their fake roles.
The corporate revolving door has provided ways for politicians to be paid off after they've served their time in Congress and the White House.
And violence is still very much a part of attaining and holding power.

[Jim Lane]

13. To the contrary, the right wing is enthusiastic about a convention

The right wing has been pushing Constitutional-convention proposals for a while now. See, for example, "Levin, Limbaugh, Hannity Calling for Con-Con" from last year. Their main interest is in a balanced-budget amendment. The right-wing view is elaborated in more detail in "Constitutional Convention Inevitable? It Looks That Way" from just last month on the mrconservative.com website.

It's very short-sighted of Vermont to pass this. There really is no guarantee that, once a convention is convened, it can be restricted to passing only progressive amendments. Vermont might help put the RWNJ's over the top to get a convention that would support balanced budget, anti-abortion, etc.

[Mondavi]

20. Likely both sides have been pushing it

but again if the right wing can't depend upon money to buy the convention then they may prefer not to have it rather than see a liberal takeover of the agenda.

Liberals more likely understand that the will of the people is for a liberal agenda.

The public understands the ruse of "a balanced budget" and "anti-abortion" agenda of the rw.

The question is who will own the convention? Elites or the people?

[Jim Lane]

26. The push from the right has been much stronger, and with good reason

You write, "The question is who will own the convention? Elites or the people?"

We start with the Constitution, and the key point is that the whole process is up to the state legislatures. They pass the con-con calls, if one happens they select the delegates, and anything that emerges from the convention is submitted to the states for ratification.

From that point of view, what would have the best chance of succeeding would be a federal balanced budget amendment. The state politicians who would vote to propose this amendment and then vote to approve it would get the political credit (and get votes from all the people who've been stampeded by deficit hysteria) but wouldn't bear any of the political costs (raising federal taxes or cutting federal spending on popular programs).

I'd have to be dubious that any amendment about guns or abortion or marriage equality or Citizens United/McCutcheon would be able to garner the approval of 38 states.

[Mondavi]

36. We should rightly fear wealthy influence on government

If our Senate, House and President are taking money then we have a great deal to fear.
Koch Bros funded the DLC. What else have they bought since then?

Our State legislatures have also been bought so what can we expect from that?

But if we're talking about the will of the people, then we are talking about their desire for a liberal agenda and changes to the Constitution which would expand freedom, not limit it.

[grahamhgreen]

14. Aroooooo! Werewolves of Burlington!

[cali]

15. Well, Werewolves of Montpelier (that's where the Legislature is)

[Lurks Often]

16. Probably won't reach the 34 state threshold

but if it does, things will start getting interesting.

I fully expect that other states will bring amendments covering things important to them. I think at the top of the list would be things that would restrict the Federal government's role further, a change in the 2nd Amendment that will make the anti-gun crowd extremely unhappy, pot, same sex marriage, abortion and maybe congressional term limits.

Then the deal making begins, will blue states give up on gun control to get same sex marriage? Will red states give up on pot to get abortion rights restricted? And so on.

[oldandhappy]

18. I love Vermont

Good for you, Vermont. If you did not have so much winter (7-8 months), I would want to live there.

Be strong, Vermont. The rest of us will keep working with you.

[woo me with science]

19. kick

[Fumesucker]

21. Next they intend to call a constitutional convention about separating gravity from mass

"Money is the mother's milk of politics." -Jesse Unruh

[L0oniX]

34. More like corporate heroin to the congressional addict.

[oneofthe99]

22. I love Vermont , everything about it , the people , the landscape , the politics , hardly any crime

and even the weather I think is beautiful , I don't mind the snow

[cali]

31. GRRR. the weather. cold wet and nasty again. my poor little seedlings still stuck inside.

[Egnever]

23. Wow that is awesome!

[Egnever]

24. Wow that is awesome!

[Exposethefrauds]

25. I am 100% for A Constitutional Convention however be careful what you wish for

The RWNJs in the Red States also want a Constitutional Convention but for other reasons and they are Guns- more of them without restriction, god – only the white christian one and Gays – they get no rights, think Uganda.

The best thing about a Constitutional Convention is that it can be used as a mechanism for states and regions to dissolve the Union and start anew. Our current agreement amongst the states and its peoples has run its course, time for a do over.

[Jefferson23]

27. Highly recommend. Fact, it is not about left and right, it is about fair representation which

for the most part, no longer exists as it was intended.

This is a start, and I do believe if we do not collectively fight for this nationally we
will continue to lose our most basic rights.

K&R

[Laelth]

28. Hello, cali. Nice to see you.

Once again, I envy the politics of your home state.



-Laelth

[MineralMan]

29. Good for Vermont for raising the question, but

Constitutional Conventions are risky propositions. The risk is that it won't be limited to a single thing, and there's nothing in the Constitution that would prevent such a Convention from rewriting the entire Constitution, once convened. That could be disastrous, given the ignorance of the American public about what the Constitution actually is about.

A better option, in my opinion, is to put every bit of our energy into electing a Congress that will do the right things, including a Constitutional Amendment to accomplish the goal of taking corporate money out of elections. It could also create a new Equal Rights Amendment and do many other thing that are badly needed.

But a Constitutional Convention? That could lead to unexpected and undesirable results. Truly.

[kelliekat44]

30. Come on Maryland....follow the lead!!! nt

[951-Riverside]

32. No, please no.

The is the worst time to have a constitutional convention.

There is just too many people with extreme views in both parties and if they are successful, they will gut the constitution. Whatever is added or taken out will only benefit a very wealthy few.

Thank goodness there wasnt one during the Bush admin.

[L0oniX]

33. Welcome back Cali.

[cali]

41. thank you LOoniX

[Jefferson23]

35. K&R, how else are we ever going to survive?? Begins here, and build a movement, people. n/t

[reformist2]

37. American liberalism is coming back big time, there's nothing Repugs can do to stop it.

[cali]

39. I hope you're right, but I think it's a mistake to think VT represents much of anything

we're insignificant due to our tiny size and population and lack of any valuable resources- except for water

[reformist2]

40. True, but if it happens anywhere, that's a start. And we do need to start somewhere!

[kelliekat44]

38. Well, this is a movement we all need to get behind...and in every state. nt

[WillyT]

42. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!