Largest online news show accuses Common Cause of subverting US democracy

Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks and founder of Wolf-PAC, a Super PAC devoted to removing the corrupting influence of corporate money in U.S. politics, alleges the nonpartisan grassroots organization Common Cause is sabotaging Wolf-PAC’s efforts.

In both New Mexico and Hawaii, lobbyists from Common Cause recently interceded at state assembly meetings to block efforts by Wolf-PAC representatives to get a vote on state support to call for an Article V Convention to amend the Constitution to reverse Supreme Court decisions like Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United v. FEC, which collectively defined campaign spending as protected Free Speech.

Article V, as defined in the US Constitution, allows for citizens to effectively do an end run around Congress by convincing state legislatures to call for a special convention.

The argument put forth by Uygur is that Congress can’t be counted on to solve the systemic problem of rich individuals and corporations buying influence in the US political system through dark money and poor campaign finance laws because the legislators voting in Congress are the very people who benefit most from maintaining the status quo.

According to their website’s About page: “Common Cause is a nonpartisan grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process.”

So why would an organization devoted to upholding democracy, accountable government, and empowering people to make their voice heard oppose the efforts of Wolf-PAC? According to Common Cause, their concern lies in fear of a “runaway convention” where, once a convention is called regarding one issue, it can descend into a free-for-all allowing any changes in the Constitution to become vulnerable to attack. This truly would be a nightmare scenario for everyone, liberals and conservatives alike.
But is it true?

Uygur certainly doesn’t think so. In his fiery response to Common Cause’s sabotage in New Mexico, he denies the runaway convention claim. Around the 13:30 park in the video, Uygur challenges this concern, claiming 38 states are required to ratify any amendment put forth by an Article V convention just as would be required if an amendment were proposed by Congress.

But, in the Common Cause press release linked to above, they state, “Most legal scholars agree that all 34 applications must be on one issue, but once a convention is called anything could be brought up.”

According to Article V. state legislatures “shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

On the surface, this would seem to validate Uygur’s claim that 3/4 of the states, as in 38 states, are required to ratify amendments.

Kit Thornton, a Former West Virginia Assistant District Attorney and Legal Correspondent at American News X, says “According to every Constitutional scholar I’ve read, there are no limits to what an Article V convention could do, up to and including waiving the 3/4 of the states requirement. After all, that requirement is constitutional.”

Thornton continues, “But even barring that, it is a very bad, very dangerous idea. A vote in which California, with 38 million people, has the same influence as Wyoming, with 580,000 people is not, in any sense, representative. It would be possible to win with 38 states, excluding, every one of the top 12 most populous states.”

“There is no rule as to how the delegates to such a convention would be selected. If they are selected by congressional district, there would be an overwhelming majority of Republican delegates,” according to Thornton. “The chances of getting anything regarding campaign finance through (anything positive that is) are, to put it mildly, remote. You would be much more likely to get resolutions banning abortion, abolishing the separation between church and state, and the entire Tea Party wishlist.”

So there is some strong opposition to Article V conventions. But that’s not say there aren’t strong supporters as well. Constitutional scholar and Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig and Mark Meckler, President of Citizens for Self-Governance, recently defended the use of Article V conventions in a lengthy Intelligence Squared debate:

In that debate, Lawrence Lessig responds to fears of a runaway convention resulting in sweeping partisan issues getting through as unfounded because of the 38 state requirement to ratify any proposed amendment. He says, “And what that means is not that nothing gets passed, but that the only thing that can get passed through this procedure is something that actually speaks to all of us.”

Mark Meckler counters the claim that such a convention is uncharted territory where the outcome is uncertain by saying similar kinds of interstate conventions have been conducted 38 times in American history and that the rules of such have remained “remarkably the same in all of those conventions.”

Lessig draws a distinction between a “constitutional convention” and a convention called pursuant to our Constitution, for which there are hundreds of examples establishing precedent. “And they do not runaway; they seem to work out all the questions that the other side thinks just can’t be worked out by human beings in the 21st Century.”

Lessig continues, “This is a special purpose convention, and there are literally hundreds of special purpose conventions” that lack the power to radically alter the Constitution.

Meckler says courts have ruled on Article V processes over 50 times. “And, in every case, they have ruled that the history is what guides us in Article V process, every single case. In fact, one court in Ohio went so far in 1971 as to say virtually everything that’s justiciable around Article V has already been adjudicated by the courts.”

Meckler is confident the convention itself would decide if states would each have have equal influence or if higher populated states have more influence than lower populated ones, but says historically, “It’s always been one state, one vote.” He adds that, if big states object to having an equal vote as smaller ones, there won’t be a convention, and there will be no risk anyway.

Even his debate opponent, Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, conceded, “It will probably not lead to disaster because it is so hard to get 38 states.”

“The way to ratify an amendment is the same whether the amendment comes out of Congress or comes out of a convention,” Lessig says.