Draft for speech given at the August 14, 2010 Restore the Constitution Western Rally, held outside of Capitan, NM. Note Ellen’s opponent did not attend, although Steve Pearce did.
We have a local problem, right here in Lincoln county, and it is our local example of how, on a national scale, special interests, ESPECIALLY big business interests, are taking over our country. Their excuse is the “too big to fail” one, which was used to pass TARP, the Troubled Assets Relief Program. TARP was basically a giveaway to Wall Street. The bill passed the House on October 8, 2008. This was the final vote with the House concurring with the Senate amended version. The original 3-page bill had by then swelled to 451 pages, loaded with pet pork projects and tax breaks. The vote was not veto-proof, it was 263 to 171, or 60%, but President Bush signed it anyway.
Our local problem is House Bill 203, sponsored by Democrat Thomas Garcia and local Republican representative Zach Cook. Garcia seems to have been the ‘front’ for the bill, as Republicans have trouble getting legislation past Governor Richardson. Cook has no bills listed for the 2010 session, including this one. Curious, no?
It passed with an “emergency clause,” no less, and is a giveaway to R.D. Hubbard, owner of the local Ruidoso Downs racino, which is losing money. The voters of Lincoln county will be voting on this giveaway in a special mail-in election in September. Texas snowbirds who are gambling fans and own summer homes here are registering to vote in droves, and various business interests are providing funding for the election. Hubbard has not been required to account for his 25% administrative overhead or to present any plan for improving his profitability.
I asked a legislator I know why he had voted for this piece of corporate welfare, and he told me that if the racetrack were to move from Ruidoso it would devastate the economy, and the bill leaves it up to residents of the county. I don’t agree with that. I think another business will move in, just as another business moved in when the Pasta Cafe closed.
If this giveaway passes in Lincoln county, I expect there will be a lot of other businesses in other counties demanding a piece of the local sales tax to increase their income. [Note 9-10-10: polling indicates that it will pass.]
Why do legislators at both the local and national level do stuff like this? Because they need money to get elected, and they get the big chunks of that money from special interests. So I hope the people in Lincoln county vote down this increase in the sales tax, but even if they do succeed in nipping this atrocity in the bud, it is just a symptom of our local and national problem. To paraphrase Thoreau, ‘For every thousand persons hacking at the leaves of evil, there is only one striking at the root.’ We need to strike at the root. And the root of this evil is money.
We must change our US Constitution to rein in the special interests. As I wrote in an article published in several places back in May
[ see http://www.nmpolitics.net/index/2010/05/elections-of-by-and-for-the-people/ ], In politics, the Golden Rule is not found in Matthew Chapter 7, verse 12 , “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them…” NO, in politics the Golden Rule is ‘Follow the Gold!’
Since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United (a PAC) vs. FEC, things are only going to get worse, and our democratic process is in serious danger of being smothered by special interest money. Brace yourselves for a non-stop torrent of negative robo-calls, ads, etc., featuring endless messages from “the lady with the scary voice, with ominous music in the background.”
The money will buy the politicians, and the politicians will vote for whatever benefits those special interests want. We, the people, will be left with no influence.
And another thing. How are we ever going to limit the size of government unless we first limit the spending on political campaigns?
So here’s a thought for you: Next time you’re solicited for a campaign contribution or your volunteer work or your vote, ask the candidate to first pledge to support a constitutional amendment that states that donations to campaigns and PACs can only come from U.S. citizens who are registered to vote.
It could be worded something like this:
“Political Action Committee and political campaign donors shall be United States citizens who are registered to vote. Congress shall have the authority to place limits on the amount of the donations and the time periods during which donations can be solicited and collected.”
I am pledged to work to get this amendment passed, but I don’t see how we can possibly get it through our dysfunctional Congress. Article 5 of the US Constitution provides two methods of proposing an amendment, but only one has ever been used: both houses of Congress propose a particular amendment by a two-thirds vote in each house. Then the legislatures of three-quarters of the states approve the amendment.
However, Article 5 also allows two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states to call for a constitutional convention. Thirty-four states would need to pass resolutions to call for a constitutional convention. I want New Mexico to be one of them. I think that the only way this will happen is if a broader agenda, perhaps including a congressional term limits proposal or closing the ‘anchor baby’ loophole is proposed.
But the real difficulty is in the details, which are not spelled out in Article 5. Congress is supposed to do the actual “call.” Who are the delegates to be? How shall they be chosen? Should any amendments proposed at the convention be ratified on the spot by a vote of three-fourths of the states, or should they be referred back to the state legislatures? The original call by each state MUST carefully spell out the requirements for delegate selection and the responsibilities of the delegates. Don’t leave it up to Congress!
Now there was a call for a constitutional convention in December of 2008, which nearly succeeded. It was initially supported mostly by Republicans, but by the time they got to the 33 rd state, Ohio, resistance was building. I looked at Ohio’s House Joint Resolution 8, and I can understand why. There is no mention of how to handle those devilish details! The emphasis was on the details of the proposed amendment calling for a balanced budget and giving the President line-item veto power, but, as has been pointed out by several legal experts, once the convention was called, the delegates could make up their own rules. These rules MUST be agreed to ahead of time.
As former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in 1983, in an often-quoted letter to Phyllis Schafly, president of Eagle Forum:
“I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the convention would obey. After a convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don't like its agenda. The meeting in 1787 ignored the limit placed by the confederation Congress ‘for the sole and express purpose.’ …
“A new convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subjects needing attention.”
Which is why Schafly characterized a constitutional convention as “playing Russian roulette with the Constitution.”
Can we call for, and conduct, a responsible Constitutional convention, with specific rules and limits agreed to ahead of time? I think we can, and if I get a chance to serve as state representative, I will work to accomplish this.