Resolution defies what might called the conventional wisdom

Next week, locals will consider what might be called an unconventional approach to turning back the Citizens United decision: a Constitutional Convention.

I say “unconventional” because, so far, we’ve had only one Constitutional Convention, the first one in Philadelphia.

Sponsored by Representative District 14 Democrats, the meeting will be held 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, April 8, at Fish On in Villages of Five Points. (People interested may contact Mikki Snyder-Hall at 226-3976 or mikki_hall@msn.com.)

State Sen. Bryan Townsend, D-Newark, will talk about Senate Concurrent Resolution 6, which would add Delaware to the states calling for a Constitutional Convention to construct an amendment reversing the effects of the Citizens United decision.

The Supreme Court’s 2010 decision, according to the Center for Public Integrity, means that corporations and labor unions “can spend as much as they want to convince people to vote for or against a candidate.”

The ruling appears to have released a flood of money into politics. (Some, to be sure, dispute a causal relationship.)

In the State Senate, CR 6 passed along party lines, 11 Democrats in favor, eight Republicans against. Two senators didn’t vote.

Which makes it sound like a strictly partisan issue.

But a recent article in the Washington Post made me wonder if all Americans, or at least more Americans - liberals, conservatives and independents alike - shouldn’t be worried about the way big money sloshes through our political process.

Here’s a quote from Bobbie Kilberg, a Republican fundraiser who with her husband raised more than $4 million for Mitt Romney:

“Bundlers felt they were part of the process and made a difference, and therefore were delighted to participate,” Kilberg said. “But when you look at super PAC money and the large donations that we’re seeing, the regular bundlers feel a little disenfranchised.”

Disenfranchised!

These are rich people who feel disenfranchised. The kind of people with the wealth and contacts to raise four million bucks.

Used to be, for that kind of change you could start picking out drapes for the ambassador’s office in Paris.

Now you’re relegated to the ranks of - horrors! - regular voters.

A former Bush Ranger, one who raised a lot of money for George W. Bush, was quoted saying, “What about when I get to the convention? Last time, I was sitting in a box. This time, I may not even get a ticket.”

When people this wealthy feel they’re no longer “part of the process,” that they no longer make a difference, how far are we from a plutocracy?

Are we as bad as Russia? Of course not. But that you can raise the question should make Americans uneasy.

Think I’m going too far?

The dictionary defines “plutocracy” as “the rule of power or wealth or the wealthy.” That’s sounds uncomfortably close to our own situation.

Type “Sheldon Adelson” in Google and up pops “Sheldon Adelson primary” before you even put in the “p” for primary. People complain about the outsized role primary voters in small states play, but at least there are voters.

The Adelson primary, as you might guess, comes down to one man, a gambling magnate said to be worth just shy of $40 billion. The multi-billionaire summons potential Republican presidential candidates to his Las Vegas lair to compete for his favor. Atlantic Magazine called it a “suck-up fest.” The Koch brothers held a similar event in Florida.

Presidential candidates are being weeded out by a handful of billionaires before they even have a chance to face the voters.

Some don’t see this as a problem. After all, we have conservative billionaires, we have liberal billionaires, we even have a rising number of libertarian billionaires, each contributing to candidates who further their separate political agendas.

So everything’s hunky-dory.

Except for one thing: they’re all billionaires! Even the most open-minded among them can’t possible understand the problems of average Americans.

A Constitutional amendment wouldn’t necessarily limit the ability of individuals like Adelson to spend their own money, but it might be among the ways to rein in the corrupting influence of money in American politics.

Consider this argument from one prominent Republican:

“Unlimited campaign spending eats at the heart of the democratic process. It feeds the growth of special interest groups created solely to channel money into political campaigns. It creates an impression that every candidate is bought and owned by the biggest givers. And it causes elected officials to devote more time to raising money than to their public duties.”

The talk of a RINO? Or a moderate Republican, a species as endangered as Africa’s black rhinos?

Nope, it’s from the late Sen. Barry Goldwater, the blue chip conservative so dear to red state hearts.

He lost the battle to Lyndon Johnson in 1964 but won the war, paving the way for the conservative ascendancy that began, in 1980, with the election of Ronald Reagan.