Wolf-PAC

Wolf-PAC is an American nonpartisan political action committee formed in 2011 with the goal of adding an "amendment to the United States Constitution to ensure balance, integrity, and transparency to our national system of campaign finance".[3]

This article is about the political action committee. For the group in professional wrestling, see NWO Wolfpac.

Wolf-PAC
FormationOctober 19, 2011 (2011-10-19)
FounderCenk Uygur[1]
TypePolitical action committee
HeadquartersCarthay, Los Angeles, California, U.S.[2]
Executive Director
Mike Monetta
Websitewolf-pac.com

Wolf-PAC argues that Congress is too corrupted by big money and special interests to adequately address campaign finance reform, citing sources ranging from personal experience to a well known Princeton study.[4][5] The organization works nationwide with state legislators using the state initiated convention procedure in Article V of the Constitution to propose an amendment to fix the influence that big money and special interests have over the American government. Wolf-PAC asserts that applying for a convention will either directly result in the desired amendment or pressure Congress to act.

Wolf-PAC was founded in October 2011 in response to the idea that big money interests had bought influence over American politics at the federal level and that this corrupt system had been entrenched by Supreme Court cases dating back decades that ruled many bipartisan campaign finance laws unconstitutional.[6] The name was intended to be a strong response to the aggressive tactics of the special interests the group was fighting against, as explained by Wolf-PAC founder Cenk Uygur, "from now on, they're not coming for us, we're coming for them."[7]

Wolf-PAC introduced its first convention call in Texas in 2013[8] and passed its first call in Vermont in 2014.[9] As of 2019, five states have passed Wolf-PAC's call for a convention to propose an amendment to reform the U.S. campaign finance system, and 24 more introduced the resolution for consideration in 2019.[10] Wolf-PAC has an active chapter in every state in the U.S. and has a membership that includes more than 50,000 volunteer sign ups. The organization has four full-time staffers.[11]

Early history

Supreme Court cases

The catalyst behind much of the modern campaign finance reform effort is Citizens United v. FEC, which overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2003, commonly known as McCain-Feingold.[12][1] Uygur, though, says he was motivated principally by the major precedents that lead to Citizens United, like Buckley v. Valeo (1976), which equated campaign spending with free speech and First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978), which allowed independent expenditures by corporations to influence elections.[13] Wolf-PAC has also cited subsequent cases as further demonstrating the need for a Constitutional Amendment, such as American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock (2012) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2015).[14]

Research into the Article V convention process

The inspiration for Wolf-PAC's plan comes from previous efforts to call for a limited Article V convention that ultimately pressured Congress to propose an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution themselves. The group frequently cites the Bill of Rights, which was proposed after New York and Virginia called for a convention[15] and the Seventeenth Amendment, which was proposed after 29 states called for a convention for direct election of senators.[16] The Congressional Research Service refers to this as the "prodding effect."[17]

In addition to three contemporary Congressional Research Service reports, Wolf-PAC also heavily relies on primary source reports from the Department of Justice and American Bar Association.[18] These studies readily examined the Article V process as applied to the states, and found multiple, well-maintained safety nets to assure an amendment called by convention could stay focused and effective.[19][20][21][22][23]

Lawrence Lessig, a Harvard professor and constitutional law scholar, provided input on the amendment process in the founding of Wolf-PAC.[24]

Launch of Wolf-PAC

Uygur announced the formation and launch of Wolf-PAC on October 19, 2011, in New York City's Zuccotti Park in the midst of the Occupy Wall Street movement.[25] He expressed that the frustration motivating the liberal Wall Street protest mirrored that which motivated the formation of the conservative Tea Party, saying "I think the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street have a lot of similarities. You know, on the fringes, and when you get to the issues they may have a lot of disagreements. I believe this on health care and I believe that on health care. But the core of both movements is, we're tired of our corrupt government."[26] Through Wolf-PAC, Uygur hoped to address what he believed to be the root-cause of this mutual anger: an errant campaign finance system.

Early organization

Following the announcement of its founding, the foundations for Wolf-PAC including its website and its messaging were laid out by a handful of volunteers.[27] Among the first volunteers of Wolf-PAC was current National Director Michael Monetta, who signed up within hours of the announced launch. The first National Director, Christopher Campbell, was hired shortly after the official announcement.[28]

By 2013, a handful of states introduced resolutions for an Article V Convention to restore free and fair elections without being asked by Wolf-PAC, including Minnesota,[29] Massachusetts,[30] and California.[31][32] Representative Burnam of Texas was the first to introduce Wolf-PAC's Free and Fair Elections resolution on February 21, 2013. That resolution included a "daisy chain," listing other convention calls on the same subject matter in order to ensure there could be no question about which ones were intended to count as part of the same application.[24]

Passed resolutions
Map showing states which have called for an Article V convention as advocated by Wolf PAC.

As a national group, Wolf PAC is working in all 50 states and reports over 20,000 volunteers.[33][34] Note that it is not uncommon for an introduced resolution to be left to a committee where it dies after the legislative session of that state ends without any voting or sufficient votes to move the motion forward (a death in committee). Such resolutions can simply be reintroduced in current legislative sessions until a vote is called. Only when bill(s) have passed in both legislative chambers would the state be listed as calling a limited convention of the states.

Vermont

On March 21, 2014, the Vermont Senate passed JRS 27, a Wolf PAC-backed resolution, in a bipartisan 25 to 2 vote.[35] On May 2, 2014, the Vermont House passed the resolution by a vote of 95–43, making Vermont the first state in the nation to call for an Article V convention concerning campaign finance reform. The language of the resolution called for a convention "for the sole purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America that would limit the corrupting influence of money in our electoral process, including, inter alia, by overturning the Citizens United decision."[9]

Sen Dick Sears, D-Bennington, was a key figure in passing the resolution. He received a call from a constituent and became convinced that the strategy made sense. "I think it's an important resolution," Sears said. "Congress isn't going to act, and we've got to do something to get this country back under control." When the resolution reached the House, an emotional plea from South Burlington farmer Benjamin Brown brought about a sense of urgency. "What am I going to tell my children, what am I going to be able to say to them about this democracy?" Brown asked the legislators. "Vermont has an opportunity to lead right now it's not left and right, it's an issue of democracy," he said. Rep. Mike Yantachka, D-Charlotte, agreed. He described the resolution as, "an opportunity to kick-start a movement that I hope will spread throughout the country and let people become aware of the real problems we have with the influence of money on elections and on our public policy."[36] In contrast to these views, Senate Minority Leader Joe Benning, R-Caledonia, saw the resolution as a grave mistake. "I see it as an attack on free speech," Benning said. "I did not want to give my vote to something that clearly restricts free speech, because I think the First Amendment is one of the most important amendments we have, if not the most important."[37]

On May 15, 2014, following the passage of JRS 27, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont scheduled a June 3 hearing for S.J Res 19, a proposed amendment by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) to address the influence of money in US elections, in the Senate Judiciary committee. Senator Leahy cited his home state's application for a convention to propose an amendment as part of his motivation, stating: "It is time for Congress to follow the lead of the states and build support for amending the Constitution to ensure that all Americans can exercise their First Amendment rights…. Vermonters have been leading the nation on this issue, and many in our country took note that our Legislature was the first to call for a constitutional convention for the purpose of drafting a remedy."[38] "Not only have Vermonters urged me to advance a constitutional amendment in the Senate, but they have acted themselves on this vital issue by calling for a constitutional convention…. Vermont's call for a constitutional convention is a separate approach for amending the Constitution that can operate on a parallel track to the congressional approach that we are initiating today. It is my hope that the two efforts can work in tandem to create even more momentum on this critical issue."[39]

California

On March 20, 2012, resolution was introduced in the California State Assembly, but was voted down in the Judiciary Committee.[40][41] On January 30, 2014, the California State Assembly became the second state lower chamber to pass a resolution calling for a constitutional convention. On June 23, 2014, California became the second state in the nation to pass a resolution.[42] The language of the resolution called for a convention "for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political speech and would further declare that money does not constitute speech and may be legislatively limited."[43]

The state Senate voted 23–11 to support the resolution. Assemblyman Mike Gatto, the author of the resolution, remarked, "I doubt our founding fathers had the free-speech rights of multinational and foreign corporations in mind when they drafted the First Amendment."[44] Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara, recognized young people for their contribution to countering the Citizens United decision. "They have taken the lead in this effort," she observed, "because they recognize that the future of democracy, that their futures, that the future of this nation...are very much at risk as a result of this decision. Money is not speech. Corporations are not people. And up until the Supreme Court decision that flipped that on its head, that was the standard in the United States of America."[45]

High school teacher Alison Hartson served as the volunteer State Leader for California and would later become National Director of Wolf-PAC, before stepping down to run for United States Senate.[46] She continues to work with the organization.[47]

Illinois

On April 9, 2014, SJR 42 passed the Illinois Senate by a 37–15 vote. State Sen. Christine Radogno, R-Lemont, was the lone Republican state Senator to vote in favor of the resolution. On December 3, 2014, the Illinois House voted 74–40 in favor of the joint resolution, making Illinois the third state to pass such a resolution.[48] The Illinois resolution called for a convention "in order to address concerns such as those raised by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and related cases and events, including those occurring long before or afterward, or for a substantially similar purpose, and desires that the convention should be so limited."[49]

Prior to the House vote, Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig testified before a House committee, saying: "My ideal amendment is one that secures Congress the power to guarantee free and fair elections by making sure that we don't have a Congress that's dependent on raising millions...There are two things that have to change: the way we fund elections and the ability to eliminate entities like Super PACs from dominating the political arena." John McGinnis, a Northwestern University professor of constitutional law, disagreed with his assessment. "I think it's a very bad idea," he opined. "I think we should have more speech at the time of elections. This seems to me to make the United States system a less participatory system...I see this as an attempt by people like Professor Lessig and what I call the 'new class,' the media and academics, to restrict people who don't have opinions for a living from participating. If you look at the media and academics, they look a lot less diverse in their ideological views than rich people. Rich people are pretty divided between Republicans and Democrats."[50]

New Jersey

A resolution to call for a constitutional convention to overturn Citizens United was introduced on August 11, 2014.

Testimony before the New Jersey Senate included speeches from Wolf PAC volunteers as well as an appearance from Americans for Prosperity. Wolf-PAC saw the attendance by the latter group as a sign of concern from moneyed interests at the progress that has been made to counter the undue influence of money in elections.[51]

On February 23, 2015, the New Jersey Assembly passed the resolution by a vote of 44–25, and New Jersey's became the fourth state legislature to adopt Wolf-PAC's amendment resolution. The resolution called for a convention for the purpose of "proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that would limit the corrupting influence of money in our political system."[52]

The resolution had previously been passed by the state Senate. "A constitutional convention is clearly needed to correct the disastrous impact of recent court decisions on the integrity of elections in New Jersey and throughout the nation," declared Assemblyman Dan Benson, D-Hamilton Township. "Citizens United opened the door to unlimited spending by shadowy, well-funded groups with no transparency or accountability – spending that drowns out the voice of the American voter and threatens the fundamental fairness of our democracy." Benson found some agreement across the aisle as Assemblyman Declan O'Scanlon, R-Little Silver, supported certain campaign funding restrictions. "We restrict corporations but not unions. Perhaps a convention like this would come up with solutions," O'Scanlon said. However, Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll, R-Morris Township, disagreed with the resolution. "America boosts a long and salutary tradition of robust forceful unrestrained political expression," Carroll said. "The influence of money is grossly understated. It profoundly insults the American people to imply or insert that they are so stupid that they can't make informed political decision that they cannot assess the merits of political arguments before them."[53]

Rhode Island

Rhode Island adopted their resolution on June 17, 2016, the fifth state to do so. The resolution was introduced in the House by Representative Arthur Handy and in the Senate by Senator Joshua Miller. The language of the Rhode Island resolution called for a convention "in order to address concerns such as those raised by the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and related cases and events, including those occurring long before or afterward, or for a substantially similar purpose, and desires that the convention should be so limited."[54]

The resolution received a vote in the House on the second to last day of session and was adopted in the Senate on the final day. The Senators were so moved by the work of the dedicated volunteers that they took the time to give short speeches congratulating them for their work before the vote. While the Senators had instructed those watching that applause was forbidden in the gallery, after adopting the resolution unanimously in the Senate the Senators gave the Wolf-PAC volunteers a standing ovation.[55][56]

Criticism
See also: Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution

"Runaway convention" theory

Because an Article V convention has never occurred (since historically, Congress has pre-emptively proposed the amendment itself on several occasions when the states have come close to calling for one[57]), it is unclear how such a convention would function in practice. While the convention called for by Wolf-PAC is one that is limited in scope to the topic of campaign finance reform, there is disagreement over whether delegates to the convention are legally bound from going beyond the established topic.[58] This ambiguity has led to concerns that an Article V convention could lead to a "runaway convention", in which rogue delegates might make proposals outside the permissible scope of the convention topic.

Wolf-PAC has argued that even if an unintended runaway convention was to occur, it would not pose a threat to the Constitution because any amendment proposed by an Article V convention would still need to be ratified by a three-fourths supermajority of the states.[59][60] Other groups that have called for similar Article V conventions, such as U.S. Term Limits, are often faced with the idea of a runaway convention, and respond with the same argument.[61]

Ongoing conflict with Common Cause

Cenk Uygur published a video on The Young Turk's YouTube channel on April 4, 2017, discussing Washington D.C.-based lobbying group Common Cause's efforts to lobby New Mexico's House of Representatives to not bring to a vote SJR12, which was passed in the State Senate.[62] In the video, Uygur outlines issues Wolf PAC has with Common Cause, such as using paid lobbyists to thwart efforts of Wolf-PAC volunteers, using an appearance as a progressive organization despite having centrist goals, opposing the use of an Article V convention to create an amendment, and their lobbyists' attempts to rescind the bill Wolf PAC helped to pass in Vermont.

Uygur later published videos in May 2017 alleging that Democratic strategists at the national level have begun whisper campaigns in Hawaii and Maryland with lobbying groups such as Common Cause, which caused resolutions Wolf PAC supported in those states to be denied a vote, despite initially having heavy support.[63][64]

See also

References
  1. Wieciech, Tomasz (2018). "An Article V Convention of States as a Constitutional Initiatiave at the Federal Level" (PDF). TEKA of Political Science and International Relations. 13 (1): 80.
  2. "COMMITTEE DETAILS FOR COMMITTEE ID C00485102". Federal Elections Commission. Retrieved August 21, 2014.
  3. "The Solution". Wolf-PAC.com. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  4. Martin Gilens & Benjamin I. Page (2014). "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" (PDF). Perspectives on Politics. 12 (3): 564–581. doi:10.1017/S1537592714001595.
  5. Hartson, Alison; Monetta, Michael (May 11, 2017). "The Logical Path to End Corruption". Medium. Wolf-PAC. Retrieved August 8, 2019.
  6. The Young Turks (May 16, 2014). "How Wolf-PAC Changes Minds - Money Out of Politics! (w/ Mike Monetta)". YouTube. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  7. The Young Turks (October 19, 2011). "Cenk Announces Wolf-PAC.com at Occupy Wall Street". YouTube. Retrieved June 14, 2014.
  8. "Texas House Joint Resolution 94, 83rd Legislative Session". capitol.texas.gov. February 21, 2013. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  9. "Vermont Joint Senate Resolution 27" (PDF).
  10. Fieldman, Samuel (July 14, 2019). "CD200: How to End Legal Bribes". Congressional Dish (Interview). Interviewed by Jennifer Briney. Congressional Dish. p. 1:40:00. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  11. Monetta, Michael; Fieldman, Samuel (August 8, 2019). "Con-Con Part Two". Idaho Matters (Interview). Interviewed by George Prentice. Boise, Idaho: Boise State Public Radio. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  12. "In Supreme Court Ruling on Campaign Finance, the Public Dissents". ABC News. Retrieved July 17, 2014.
  13. Uygur, Cenk (February 26, 2017). "Politics and Populism: Interview with Cenk Uygur". Harvard Political Review (Interview). Interviewed by Sam Kessler. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  14. "Nebraska 106th Legislature, Legislative Resolution 9" (PDF). Nebraska Unicameral Legislature. January 16, 2019. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  15. John P. Kaminski, Gaspare J. Saladino, Richard Leffler, Charles H. Schoenleber, Margaret A. Hogan, and Jonathan M. Reid. "N.Y. Calls For a Second Constitutional Convention" (PDF). The Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution, Volume XXIII: New York, No. 5. Wisconsin Historical Society Press. Archived from the original on August 6, 2019.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. Ronald D. Rotunda and John E. Nowak. "§ 10.10(b)(iv) The Seventeenth Amendment as a Response to State Calls for a Constitutional Convention". Treatise on Constitutional Law Substance and Procedure, 5th Ed., v. 2. West, a Thompson Reuters business. Archived from the original on August 13, 2019. Alt URL
  17. Thomas H. Neale. "The Article V Convention for Proposing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress, p. 10" (PDF). CRS Report R42592. Congressional Research Service.
  18. "Resources". Wolf-PAC. Retrieved August 12, 2019.
  19. Markman, Stephen (September 10, 1987). "Report to the Attorney General, Limited Constitutional Conventions under Article V of the United States Constitution" (PDF). United States Department of Justice: Page 5. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 15, 2016. Retrieved August 13, 2019. If the determination of necessity for change is made by the states, the concrete proposal for change must be formulated by a convention. If the determination of necessity is made by the Congress, the concrete proposal must also be formulated by the Congress. However, even though the 'initiation stage' and the 'formulation stage' are linked in this fashion, the two stages are distinct activities, as evidenced by their division in the state-initiated amendment process. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  20. Atkins, C. Clyde; Christopher, Warren; Dow, David; Feerick, John D.; Foley, Jr., Adrian M.; Hughes, Sarah T.; Sacks, Albert M.; Thompson, William S.; Witwer, Samuel W. (August 8, 1973). "Report to the Attorney General, Limited Constitutional Conventions under Article V of the United States Constitution". American Bar Association: Page 17. Retrieved August 13, 2019. We believe that, as a necessary incident of the power to call, Congress has the power initially to determine whether the conditions which give rise to its duty have been satisfied. Once a determination is made that the conditions are present, Congress' duty is clear–it 'shall' call a convention. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  21. Neale, Thomas (March 29, 2016). "The Article V Convention to Propose Constitutional Amendments: Contemporary Issues for Congress" (PDF). Congressional Research Service: Page 21. Retrieved August 13, 2019. [Congressional] Convention planning proposals generally included… a concurrent resolution of 12 disapproval… of a proposed amendment [either for] a departure from the policy issue for which the convention had been called [or] failure to follow procedures prescribed in the authorizing legislation. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  22. Hammond, Larry A. (January 16, 1979). "Constitutional Convention—Limitation of Power to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, 3 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 16" (PDF). Department of Justice: Page 18. Retrieved August 13, 2019. Unless the applications deal with the same issue, it would seem that the fundamental prerequisite of calling a convention, i.e., the existence of a national consensus that a constitutional change is desirable, is not satisfied. It is generally agreed that States may call for a general revision of the Constitution, but short of such a general undertaking, we think it would circumvent one of the central principles of the amendment process to allow the combining of calls on issues as disparate as reapportionment, abortion, or budgetary restraint, no one of which was deemed by two-thirds of the States as worthy of consideration. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  23. Harmon, John M. (October 10, 1979). "Constitutional Convention—Limitation of Power to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, 3 U.S. Op. Off. Legal Counsel 390" (PDF). Department of Justice: Page 410. Retrieved August 13, 2019. As we have suggested in the preceding discussion, the meaning of the Convention Clause is simple and clear. A constitutional convention convenes, if at all, to make proposals responsive to a substantive consensus among the legislatures of the States. The consensus may be general or narrow. It may call for a general reexamination of the Constitution, or it may be a relatively specific agreement among the legislatures about the desirability of a particular change. In any case, the function of the two thirds requirement in the application process is to ensure that no convention will be convened and no proposal made unless there is an agreement among an extraordinary majority of the governments of the States that would justify a responsive proposal and the ratification effort. Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  24. Monetta, Michael; Fieldman, Samuel (March 10, 2013). "2013 Texas Resolution: Wolf PAC meets with ArticleV.org". ArticleV.org (Interview). Interviewed by Dan Marks. YouTube. Retrieved August 13, 2019.
  25. Blumenthal, Paul (October 20, 2011). "Cenk Uygur Launches New Effort To Separate Money And Politics". The Huffington Post. Retrieved November 16, 2014.
  26. Hall, Colby (October 24, 2011). "Cenk Uygur On Similarities Between Occupy Wall Street And Tea Party Movements". Mediaite. Mediaite, LLC. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  27. "Wolf PAC: A Call To Action". YouTube. The Young Turks. October 22, 2012. Retrieved August 13, 2019.
  28. "Wolf-PAC: Fight $ In Politics". YouTube. The Young Turks. January 30, 2012. Retrieved August 12, 2019. The unnamed organizer shown at 3:18 is Michael Monetta
  29. "Minnesota SF 17". 88th Minnesota Legislature. January 10, 2013. Retrieved August 13, 2019.
  30. "Massachusetts HD 2684, Resolutions calling on Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention". 188th Massachusetts Legislature. January 22, 2013. Retrieved August 13, 2019.
  31. "California AJR 1, Relative to a federal constitutional convention". 2013-2014 California Legislature. December 3, 2012. Retrieved August 13, 2019.
  32. "Wolf PAC Call for Volunteers - Get Money Out of Politics!". YouTube. The Young Turks. April 7, 2013. Retrieved August 13, 2019.
  33. "States - Volunteer - Wolf PAC". Wolf PAC. Retrieved June 2, 2015.
  34. Wolf PAC Hawaii Unanimously Takes House of Representatives. YouTube. March 19, 2015. Retrieved June 2, 2015.
  35. "Will This Be The First State To Help Get Money Out of Politics?". YouTube. Retrieved May 3, 2014.
  36. MORGAN TRUE, March 5, 2014, Brattleboro Reformer, Vermont first state to call for constitutional convention to get money out of politics, Accessed May 5, 2014, "...Vermont became the first state to call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision ... Monetta is the organizing director for Wolf PAC...
  37. "Vermont Senate minority leader: Convention of states an attack on free speech - Watchdog.org". Watchdog.org. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
  38. Carle, David (May 5, 2014). "Leahy Announces June 3 Hearing On Constitutional Amendment To Rein In Massive Campaign Spending" (Press release). Washington D.C.: U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont. United States Senate. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
  39. Leahy, Patrick (June 3, 2014). "Statement of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hearing On "Examining A Constitutional Amendment To Restore Democracy To The American People"" (Written Testimony). Washington D.C.: United States Senate. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
  40. "AJR 32 - California Assembly (20112012) - Open States". openstates.org.
  41. "Bill Text - AJR-32 Federal constitutional convention: application". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Retrieved June 16, 2017.
  42. California Passes Historic Measure to Restore Free and Fair Elections. YouTube. June 23, 2014. Retrieved June 2, 2015.
  43. "Assembly Joint Resolution No. 1".
  44. "California seeks constitutional convention over Citizens United". SFGate. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
  45. "Historic Anti-Corruption bill AJR1 Passes in California - Article 5 Convention State 2", YouTube, retrieved December 11, 2015
  46. Why Alison Hartson Decided To Fight Money In Politics. YouTube. November 2, 2017. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
  47. Hartson, Alison (March 19, 2019). "Testimony of Alison Hartson in support of SCR 131 and SR 100 before the Hawaii Senate Judiciary Committee" (Written Testimony). Washington D.C.: Hawaii State Senate. Retrieved August 8, 2019.
  48. "Illinois calls for convention to overturn 'Citizens United' | The Rock River Times". Retrieved December 11, 2015.
  49. "Illinois General Assembly".
  50. "Illinois one step away from calling for US Constitutional Convention – Illinois News Network". ilnews.org. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
  51. "Amendment to Ban Money From Politics Passes NJ State Committee, Now Goes to NJ Senate for Vote". Aware & Fair. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
  52. "Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 132".
  53. "New Jersey Lawmakers Call For U.S. Constitutional Convention - John Celock | Writer, Media Affairs Advisor, author". John Celock | Writer, Media Affairs Advisor, author. Retrieved December 11, 2015.
  54. "Rhode Island General Assembly S2589" (PDF).
  55. Rhode Island Demands Money Out Of Politics. YouTube. June 21, 2016. Retrieved August 7, 2019.
  56. Bogdan, Jennifer (June 20, 2016). "At R.I. State House, Wolf PAC lobbyists made late push". Providence Journal. Retrieved April 10, 2017.
  57. Rogers, James (2007). "The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 30: 1008.
  58. "The Honest Path to Save Democracy". TYT Network. April 20, 2017. Retrieved May 2, 2017.
  59. "The Logical Path to End Corruption". The Young Turks. April 12, 2017. Retrieved May 2, 2017.
  60. "Why Wolf PAC?". Wolf PAC. Retrieved April 7, 2017.
  61. "Dispelling the "Runaway Convention" Myth - U.S. Term Limits". www.TermLimits.com. Retrieved April 7, 2017.
  62. The Young Turks (April 6, 2017), Find Out How Left-Wing Group Betrayed Progressives (Common Cause), retrieved April 7, 2017
  63. The Young Turks (May 1, 2017), Wolf-PAC Maryland Is Working Hard FOR YOU, retrieved May 2, 2017
  64. The Young Turks (May 1, 2017), Why an Article V Convention Is A GOOD Thing, retrieved May 2, 2017
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.