A New Common Sense

by Thomas Gallier

  In this document, I argue that America has once again come under the domination of two tyrannies, albeit different ones. Control by corporations (Corporatocracy) and those individuals of extreme wealth (Plutocracy), simply represents a modern updating of Paine’s “twin tyrannies” of monarchs and aristocrats, from the late eighteenth century to the late twentieth and the early twenty-first centuries. Same song, different verse!

  My argument is also that the most important freedom we exercise as Americans is the freedom and right to vote and elect those who represent us. It’s only natural that we would desire that those whom we elect to represent us do exactly that, in a fair and even-handed way. But I believe the facts today belie this idealized condition. Let me explain.

  Our elected leaders need two things to obtain public office: votes, and money to run their election campaigns. The votes can only come from us, obviously. But the money, oh the money; it comes from multiple sources currently. Naturally some contributions come in small amounts from average Americans like you or me. But under our current legal regime, most limits on contributions, direct and indirect, have been reduced or even essentially eliminated. This condition has opened the flood gates for cash in breathtaking quantities to be delivered to candidates (directly or indirectly) by corporations, unions, political action committees, and extremely wealthy multi-millionaires and billionaires. And, like the tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes, we are supposed to accept the plain fiction that our elected officials are not in the slightest way beholden to these twin tyrannical classes of the Corporatocracy, and the Plutocracy.

  This has not been an overnight occurrence. The problem really started over one hundred years ago. In the mid to latter half of the nineteenth century, industrialization and monopolization led to the creation of powerful monopolistic companies and incredibly wealthy men who essentially “owned” Congress, and the various state legislatures in which they had business interests. President Theodore Roosevelt wrote about these monopolistic corporations and wealthy industrialists in his autobiography. He said, “…we had come to a stage where for our people what was needed was a real democracy; and of all forms of tyranny, the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth, the tyranny of a plutocracy.” Bear in mind that these words were written in 1913, over one hundred years ago. But wouldn’t you agree that they could have been written yesterday?

  Now, while it’s true that Roosevelt and his “Trust Busters” did have some success with both Congress and the Supreme Court in reducing the influence of these special interests, I would also submit that their success was limited and relatively short-lived. By the late 1960’s, our nation had started on a long slow slippery slope of one step forward and two steps back on various campaign finance reforms, until we have reached a point today where outrageous campaign finance shenanigans have become standard operating procedure.

  III.Thoughts on the Present State of American Electoral Affairs

  So, just how bad is the current state of the American electoral process? It’s bad…really, really, bad.

  How can you tell? Consider this. The two predominant political parties, the Republicans and the Democrats are mired in ongoing and extremely partisan battles that have our system of national government in a constant state of gridlock. But these battles are more narrowly focused on social issues, than on corporate regulatory and taxation issues. When it comes down to cracking down on corporate greed, corruption, and Wall Street graft, the difference between the actions, not the positions, but the actions of the two parties are barely visible. How can it be that the two parties are so different on issues that aren’t of any particular interest to corporate or Wall Street bottom lines, but hardly vary on those that do affect them? The answer, I believe, is that Wall Street and America’s multi-national corporations have completely achieved, as Mark Twain said, the best government that money can buy.

  As if that wasn’t enough, just look at what happens to most of our congressional representatives and senators when they decide to give up their office, or are defeated at the ballot box. Many, if not most, stay in Washington, D.C., and just relocate their office over to K Street (the notorious home to many major lobbying firms) and really start raking in the cash. When nearly half of them make this move after leaving Congress, can there be any doubt about where their interests and loyalties lie?

  That’s not to say that it’s any better at the state level. In my home state of Texas, there’s a long history of bribery scandals, followed by demands for campaign finance reform, followed by modest legislation that is full of loopholes, followed eventually by more bribery scandals, etc., ad nauseam. The circle continues. While it’s true that ex-legislator/lobbyists can no longer stand on the floor of the Texas legislature and hand out $10,000 checks just before a critical vote (as actually happened in 1989), those same legislator/lobbyists can still hand out those same $10,000 checks off-site at fancy downtown Austin bars and restaurants. And, by handing out those checks to candidates from both political parties, the special interests can ensure access to power and influence over their votes, regardless of who wins. Sure it costs them money, but can anyone doubt that like any other line item on these corporate and Wall Street expense sheets, these are essentially “profit centers” with incredible returns on their investments in the form of reduced regulatory oversight or standards, award of non-competitively bid government contracts, and/or favorable tax treatments? Federal or state, it more or less works the same way.

  We have reached a point now where the average member of congress must spend somewhere between 30% and 70% of their time begging their special interest “masters” for money to run for, or maintain their seat in either the House or Senate. And where do the interests of We the People fall in this sort of campaign finance scenario? You can guess.

  The bottom line is that it is fundamentally wrong for any person to need to raise a million dollars or more to run for a seat in the House of Representatives. It is wrong for any person to need to raise ten million dollars or more to run for a seat in the U.S. Senate (or one hundred million, as is the case in the 2014 North Carolina Senatorial campaign!). And, it is wrong for any person to need to raise a billion dollars or more to run for President!

  It’s not just wrong. It’s obscene!

  But from the standpoint of wealthy plutocrats and corporations it’s not wrong, it’s exactly right. It’s exactly right for those who serve the narrow special interests rather than the broader public interests of our nation.

  When the campaign finance case, Citizens United vs. FEC was decided in favor of special interest money by the Supreme Court in 2010, it would seem that the last barriers to special interest influence on our electoral process fell. Whether it be Exxon-Mobil or the Sierra Club, the SEIU or General Motors, Goldman-Sachs or Move-On.org, George Soros or Sheldon Adelson, or the endless series of PAC’s and Super-PAC’s, soft money and dark money; you name it, all bets were off. And so the great flood really began. And, Noah and his Ark were nowhere to be seen.

  My conclusion from all of this is that the Judicial Branch is just as co-opted by powerful special interests as the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch!

  In such a corrupted environment, waiting for Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment that will merely allow them to pass legislation to clean up this mess is a complete waste of time. Given the past history of Supreme Court campaign finance decisions, any Constitutional amendment would have to be very tightly written, with little room for their slanted interpretations in favor of the corporate “persons” that they have created and nurtured. Thomas Paine and James Wilson would know what to do in this situation. They would remind us that the Constitution does not belong to Congress or the Supreme Court. It belongs to us. It belongs to We the People! We created it, and we can change it. But all attempts that I am aware of have come from the top down. Someone in Congress introduces a proposed amendment to fix the problem, flowery speeches are given, and then they happily let it di
e a quiet death. Problem solved, because almost nobody in Congress really wants to fix it.

  Even though 228 years have now passed since the Founders completed our Constitution, they understood who really “owned” the document. Thomas Paine did not participate in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Like Thomas Jefferson, he had left America for France, and was present for its own revolution. But Paine certainly followed the events and arguments surrounding the discussions that summer, and the arguments for and against approval of the Constitution in the various states. One night in Paris, Paine engaged in an extended fireside discussion of James Wilson’s powerful statements supporting Pennsylvania’s approval of the Constitution with his close friends, Thomas Jefferson, and the Marquis de Lafayette. Out of that discussion, Paine ultimately wrote the following:

  “A Constitution is a thing antecedent to a Government, and a Government is only the creature of a Constitution. The Constitution is not the act of its Government, but of the people constituting a Government.”

  Thomas Paine, Rights of Man 1791

  While some may say that this is ultimately a “chicken or the egg” argument, I would counter that it’s not circular at all, if you read what the key Founders of our country said. Clearly, they believed in the primacy of the People over the government. The People created the Constitution, and the Constitution created the Government. Congressional Representatives, Senators, the President, and Supreme Court justices only exist because the People wrote and approved a document that created their positions of power, and defined the limits of their power. This is a critical distinction when people argue “States Rights” versus “Federal Rights.” It’s neither…it’s the rights of the People!

  My solution, therefore, is to follow the inspiration of Thomas Paine and James Wilson, by introducing a grass roots, bottom up Constitutional amendment that will, once and for all, clean up this mess and return our democracy to one that is controlled by the People, not special interests. That’s the first part. The second part is to ask all of you to hold your elected officials accountable by way of using the only possible leverage We the People have left to us…our vote!

  IV.On the Present Ability of We the People to Force Constitutional Change on Those Who Do Not Wish It

  As bad as the situation is, and as hopeless as it seems, my purpose in this document is to propose an amendment to the Constitution that will, I believe, once and for all solve this problem. In addition, and just as important, I would like to propose a perfectly legal and valid mechanism that will, if most of us as voters will but agree, essentially guarantee that Congress and the several States will take action to approve and ratify the amendment. It could, and I believe would, bring about major positive change in our country, and, finally, put the People in charge of our legislative and executive branches in ways that we have not seen in well over a century, if ever!

  I have prepared a petition to the U.S. Congress, demanding that they pass what I am calling the Declaration of Independence from Money in Elections Amendment. Its acronym is the D.I.M.E. Amendment, and its symbol is the reverse side of the U.S. dime coin. (Think of it in terms of “not one more dime of special interest money in our election process!”)

  Here is the petition, and attached Amendment language:

  ___________________________________________________________

  PETITION:

  Declaration of Independence from Money in Elections (D.I.M.E.) Amendment

  WHEREAS, the maintenance of free and fair political discourse and elections is of paramount importance to the well-being and harmony of a democratic nation, and

  WHEREAS, the influence of excessive amounts of money from special interests has significantly diminished the ability of the People to have their voices heard, and

  WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States in such a way as to drastically limit the ability of the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch to provide reasonable constraints over special interests’ excessive and undemocratic influence in the electoral process, and

  WHEREAS, given that the right of the People to petition their government for redress of grievances is fundamental to all democracies, and enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution:

  NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is submitted by the People for consideration and approval by the Congress of the United States, and shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the several States:

  ARTICLE-

  Section 1:No provision of the Constitution shall be construed to prohibit restriction of contributions to candidates for nomination to, or for election to any public office, or the amount of funds that may be spent in support of, or in opposition to such candidates, or any other provisions contained within this article.

  Section 2:Only individual citizens legally eligible to vote within the geographic boundaries to which an elective public office applies shall be eligible to contribute to any candidate’s campaign for nomination for election to, or for election to, said public office.

  Section 3:The maximum any individual citizen shall be eligible to contribute to any specific candidate’s campaign for nomination for election to, or for election to, any public office, including the candidate, shall not exceed an amount calculated to be five percent of the Median Annual Average Income for Full-Time Workers, as determined and published annually by the Bureau of Economic Analysis of the United States Department of Commerce.

  Section 4:Beginning with the opening of the legal registration process for candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to any public office, and ending with the final certification of the completed vote count, only properly registered candidates for nomination for election to, or for election to any public office may purchase and distribute campaign materials or advertising in support of, or in opposition to any candidate for the office for which they are campaigning, regardless of the medium utilized. Challenges to establish whether or not any form of written or electronic communication constitutes a violation of this section shall be submitted to a “citizens’ independent election commission” which shall be established by each State. Said commissions shall be composed of politically neutral citizens who are not active in partisan politics, who will serve without compensation, and who will be charged to rule in a non-partisan manner based solely on the facts presented.

  Section 5:Upon legal registration of any individual’s candidacy for public office, said individual shall immediately release for public inspection complete copies of the candidate’s most recent five concurrent federal income tax returns, redacting only such personal identification information as shall be necessary to protect the candidate from fraudulent or other criminal actions.

  Section 6:Upon completion of the term of office of any elected public official, said official is prohibited from engaging in lobbying activities for which remuneration is received for a period of five years.

  Section 7:Ratification of this article shall be by State conventions, which shall be composed of fifteen delegates, who shall be elected from the State at-large. Candidates for the office of delegate to the convention shall be qualified electors of the State. Nominations shall be by petition, signed by not less than one thousand qualified electors of the state, and shall contain a clearly discernable statement by the candidate to the effect that he or she favors ratification, or opposes ratification. The only nomination petitions which shall be effective shall be those of the fifteen nominees favoring ratification who first filed valid petitions with the secretary of state, and those of the first fifteen nominees opposing ratification, whose valid petitions were first filed with the secretary of state.

  The election shall be by ballot, which shall contain a statement of the substance of this article, appropriate instructions to the voters, and perpendicular column
s of equal width, headed respectively in plain type, “favors ratification” and “opposes ratification.” In the column headed “favors ratification” shall be placed the names of the candidates who favor ratification. In the column headed “opposes ratification” shall be placed the names of the candidates who oppose ratification. The voter shall indicate his or her choice by making a mark in the preferred space. The ballot shall be so arranged that the voter may, by making a single selection, vote for the entire group of nominees whose names are comprised in either column. The fifteen candidates who receive the highest number of votes shall comprise the delegates to the convention. Delegates elected under a nomination petition as favoring or opposing ratification shall vote at the convention in accordance with that nomination petition statement. Intentional failure to do so shall cause the invalidation of the delegate’s vote, and subject the delegate to prosecution under the State’s criminal statutes for voter fraud.

  The election shall be held on the fourth day of July following submission of this article to the States by Congress, unless received after the first day of March, in which case the election shall be held on the fourth day of July, in the succeeding year, and shall otherwise be subject to such general election rules as may be in force in each State at that time.