One year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision that facilitated the passage of money from corporations to Congress. The first anniversary of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission will fall on Jan. 17, 2011.
In a letter of 1816 to George Logan, Thomas Jefferson urged that we “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations.” Our corporations, far from having been “crushed,” are now so powerful they have no need to challenge the government. They have co-opted it instead. However, the Citizens United decision may have a silver lining. It is so blatantly lawless that it may energize us to call a constitutional convention to reform our corrupt federal government. We should now consider the major problems we must solve in order to bring about such a convention.
First problem: We are not united.
In America, we rely on our member-funded non-governmental organizations to fight our battles for us with the federal government. However, Common Cause, Public Citizen and Move On all have different strategies for fighting the Citizens United decision. They would do better if they joined together and led a unified anti-corruption coalition made up of our tens of thousands of member-funded NGOs and pursued a single strategy.
Second problem: We see Congress as the solution.
These leading NGOs propose to lobby Congress to either pass reform statutes or propose an anti-corruption amendment. This approach is nonsensical. Reform is not in the self-interest of the members of Congress. Genuine reform would shut off their supply of corporate money, do away with the comforts of their present lifestyles (such as first and business class air travel) and surrender their outrageous pensions. If you and I were in their places, we would laugh at the idea of genuine reform. Why do we suppose that they are irrational? When it comes to reform, Congress is the problem, not the solution.
Third problem: We don’t accept responsibility for the problem.
Constitutional amendments are our duty — not the duty of Congress. Congress has no power over them. It can’t even influence them, except in two ways. First, it can propose them to the states. Second, it can decide whether they are to be ratified by state legislatures or by state conventions. We, on the other hand, have the power to actually amend the Constitution. In regards to a reform amendment, we also have a strong motive. If we do not exercise our power over the Constitution, our country will slide further into corruption and, finally, tyranny. Our freedom is at stake, and it is up to us to protect it. As Madison points out in Federalist 53, our Constitution is “established by us by the people and is unalterable by government.” The buck stops with us.
Conclusion: Our duty is clear. First, we must petition our state legislatures to apply for a national convention. Second, we must be prepared to enforce our petitions in court by claiming our rights under the First, Ninth and 10th Amendments. This will put us on the road that Madison said (in Federalist 49) should be “marked out and kept open” for us (the people) to make decisions regarding the powers of our government.
[email protected]