Convention may be only way to halt the Plutocrat Primaries

The first official presidential primaries may be 10 months away, but the Plutocrat Primaries are already in full swing.

Sen. Bryan Townsend, D-Newark, spoke recently before the 14th Representative District Democrats about the state Senate’s resolution aimed at ending the unlimited spending that makes these “primaries” possible.

(District 14 is represented by House Speaker Pete Schwartzkopf, D-Rehoboth.)

First, some background on what’s being called the Plutocrat Primaries.

In traditional primaries, voters cast their ballots for candidates. In the Plutocrat Primaries, candidates audition for billionaires.

On the Republican side, Sheldon Adelson (estimated net worth: $30 billion) and brothers Charles and David Koch (estimated net worth: $44 billion each) have summoned presidential contenders to perform for them.

Those that perform to the billionaires’ liking will be favored with huge streams of cash. The Koch brothers, by themselves, plan to spend $900 million in the 2016 election cycle.

They may not actually pick the final nominee but they can winnow out candidates. They can, by themselves, vault a second-tier candidate to the first rank, before regular citizens get a chance to vote.

This fire hydrant gusher of money was opened by two Supreme Court decisions, Citizens United vs. FEC and McCutcheon vs. FEC, which effectively ended limits on campaign spending.

In the 5-4 majority Citizens United opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Doesn’t that make you feel better? According to five members of the Supreme Court, it doesn’t make any difference how much the billionaires and corporations spend.

It doesn’t make any difference how quickly candidates may seem to kowtow to their masters. There is no appearance of corruption. Because they said so.

The money will also be flowing to Democrats. According to a 2014 story by The Center for Public Integrity, the largest single beneficiary of these Supreme Court decisions may well be Democrat Hillary Clinton, who currently has no credible opponents for her party’s nomination.

What Sen. Townsend described as a “flood of money” in politics is the reason behind Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, calling for a national Constitutional Convention. The convention’s mission would be to craft a constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court decisions.

In March, SCR 6 passed the state Senate, with 11 Democrats in favor and eight Republicans against. The resolution was sent to the House, where it remains in the House Administration Committee.

If it passes, Delaware would join California, Vermont, Illinois and New Jersey in calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention.

As Townsend noted that evening, there are two ways our Constitution can be amended. The first is for Congress to pass an amendment by a two-thirds vote. It must then be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures. This is how all of the 27 current amendments have been passed and ratified.

But there is a second way, also perfectly kosher. It’s in the Constitution just like the first one. But it scares people, Republicans and Democrats alike.

In this method, two-thirds of the states - 34 - may call for a convention. Whatever amendment the convention comes up with would then have to be ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures.

It’s the specter of a “runaway convention” that concerns people. According to the “runaway” theory, the convention could decide to do anything it wants, a point brought up that evening during the question-and-answer session.

A convention could be called, ostensibly to create an amendment allowing for campaign finance reform, and then decide instead on a balanced budget amendment. Or anything else.

This is true. The constitution doesn’t limit what direction the convention could take. Theoretically, the convention could scrap the whole U.S. Constitution and come up with a new one.

Sen. Townsend doesn’t worry about that happening.

“No matter what happens,” he said, “you have to go back to the states anyway for 38 votes.”

Sen. Townsend himself doesn’t expect such a convention to take place. In fact, he’d prefer one not be held.

So why call for one? “This is the last tool that states have in order to try to change things at the federal level,” he said.

As it stands, it’s impossible to write a campaign finance reform bill with any teeth in it. Current case law, he said, would render any such bill unconstitutional.

If state after state called for a constitutional convention, he said, it would put pressure on Congress to act. That’s what happened with the 17th amendment, which allows for U.S. senators to be elected directly by the people as opposed to the state legislatures.

Most the publicity about the new world of campaign finance has dealt with presidential elections. But that’s just the beginning.

It gets down to the state level, too. And it’s not just about elections, according to Townsend. “It’s also about the legislative process,” he said, with more money going toward influencing legislators.

If you disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling that unlimited campaign spending doesn’t lead to “corruption or the appearance of corruption,” contact your state representative and ask him or her to vote for SCR 6. It might be the only tool we have.