You say the system is broken, but don’t we have a system in place to fix that? It’s called an election.

​

We just had an election and all it did was move us closer to civil war. Look, everyone can see the system is broken. In every election cycle, candidates use some variation of ‘we need change’ in their slogan and nothing ever changes. It only gets worse. The truth is elections and the money that fuels them are the problem. Whether it’s rich individuals or interest groups, money controls every aspect of our electoral process, and it is far more powerful than the people. The only way to make our votes count again is to get as much money out of the process as possible.

 

Constitutional Amendments have been proposed many times before, what’s so different about your effort?

​

It’s not tainted from the start. Our method of proposing an amendment, the Nebraska Strategy, is an end-run around the corruption of the system. Our amendment has not been proposed to preserve greed but to allow the clear-eyed will of the people to be realized.

 

‘The truth is it's all fake news.’ Sounds like Donald Trump's line to me.

​

You ask Liberals and Progressives if the journalists at FOX News are honest, and they will tell you, Hell No, and go off from there. Conversely, if you ask Conservatives if CNN, MSNBC, and the mainstream media are honest, they will blow up in your face. The truth is that neither side is getting the whole truth, nor does that allow viewers to conclude the other side is lying. It’s all just a game, and the American people are sick of it.

 

Why in the world do you think Republicans would support this Amendment? They are the party of big business.

​

If you look at the numbers and who the donors are, any impartial observer will tell you that both political parties are heavily influenced by big business, but you shouldn’t limit your observations to just business. The balance sheet of both parties is overloaded with unsavory influencers with genuinely corrupt motives. We believe the Establishment is an individual or entity who wants to manipulate government for its own benefit, and both political parties are equally guilty of complicity.

 

This seems to be singing the song of Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez?

​

In some way it is, and that is the primary reason she is so popular despite pushing a largely socialist agenda. But the bigger issue is, a growing number of Americans on both the right and the left see how big money is corrupting the system. They share a lot of similar ideas, and the media has largely missed it. This is a constitutional amendment that is founded solidly on that common ground.

 

Section 1 of this new Amendment is all warm and fuzzy, but come-on, you can’t make Americans better people just by passing an amendment.

​

Couldn’t agree more, and this isn’t about a few words on paper. This is about honest-to-gosh virtue. If you want to rid our nation of corruption and oligarchy, we need to start believing in principle again. No, Section 1 isn’t a magic wand, but it is a great big symbol to rally around and say, “Hey, let’s get our act together.”

 

You know, a lot of what you say has merit, but we’ve been trying to take the money out of politics for a long, long time. Why do you think you can succeed when no one else has?

​

The Founding Fathers had to wheel and deal to get the Constitution ratified, and frankly, they had too much faith in the elite. Almost from the beginning, the rich and powerful used their influence to get a bigger share of the pie. Many statutory efforts have been undertaken over the years to regain control, but without a Constitutional Amendment, real change is impossible. This time we’re starting from a legal foundation originated in the Declaration of Independence, and we’re going to pass an amendment by sheer will of the people. It’s never been done before, but we will go around Congress and the Establishment, and give ourselves a new nation based on a renewed sense of idealism.

 

But doesn’t his idea fly directly in the face of Article V? Isn’t going around Article V kind of an auspicious way to pass an amendment of such magnitude?

​

Absolutely not. It’s just the opposite. Our effort is completely consistent with the mind and spirit of our Founding Fathers. Legal scholars have long suggested that Article V is merely a process whereby the government can amend the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence makes it absolutely clear that the will of the people supersedes all authority. We the People are the government, and what we are doing is exactly what the Founding Fathers did in the original ratification process.  They went around the Articles of Confederation to pass the Constitution, because the people wanted and needed a better system of government. Everything we are doing fits perfectly with the intent and tradition of our founding.

 

Let’s get into some of the practical problems if your amendment passes. In fact, political campaigns cost billions of dollars to elect people to office. If you eliminate all of the organizational money from campaigns, who is going to pay for them, or do you intend to have them funded by the government?

​

Absolutely not. Preliminary research suggests that the funding of political campaigns will drop by at least ninety percent if our Amendment passes. Think about that. No more money for opposition research, endless radio and television commercials, dirty tricks, forest-leveling direct mail campaigns, or outrageous cyber intrusions. People will have to run on reputation, experience, and issues. Candidates will need to work their way up by distinguishing themselves in business or local government. Once again local journalists will help guide voters to sensible conclusions instead of being led around by the nose. In fact, the whole thing might look a lot like our Founding Fathers intended.

​

In Section 2, hidden in the middle, there is a rule that prohibits candidates from contributing to their own campaigns beyond a common limit. How can you tell someone what they can and can’t do with their own money?

​

Does a rich man or woman deserve a better shot at elected office just because of his or her wealth? The people overwhelmingly don’t think so. The wealthy will still have many significant advantages, but they will have to raise money like everyone else to be competitive.

 

Okay, but do you think the wealthy will support your effort to ratify this Amendment?

​

Overwhelmingly so. Most wealthy people in this country are good Americans. They will support the Amendment because it’s the right thing to do. And they will appreciate not having a constant barrage of people hitting them up for large contributions. They may end up being this effort’s biggest cheerleaders.

 

In the end, who do you think this Amendment will favor?

​

The American People. Look, this Amendment is about nothing more than breaking down the barriers to good, honest, and fair government. It’s about taking down a system that is undermining our democracy. The only side it takes is the people’s.

 

Can you explain what you mean by the New Democracy Amendment fostering an ‘evolution’ in democracy?

​

Great question, and one that frequently gets glossed over. At the dawn of democracy, Cleisthenes presented every Athenian with a black rock and a white rock to give each citizen an equal say in decisions. Over time, individual rights were introduced as a balance to the power of the majority. That was an evolutionary step in democracy. Over more time, the right to vote was dramatically expanded. That was another evolutionary step. By Constitutionally prohibiting the corrupting influences of money in our electoral process, we will be saying for the first time that using money to subvert the democratic process is unacceptable, and it will be another evolutionary step forward for democracy.

 

Realistically, do you think the New Democracy Amendment will have any real impact on people who want to use their money to cheat the system?

​

We’ll always have criminals and cheats. What this Amendment will do is make it absolutely clear who they are.

 

If you are successful in using your Nebraska Strategy to pass this Amendment, what’s to stop any wild-eyed radical from passing any number of nutty amendments?

​

Another great question!  This strategy changes nothing in the difficulty of ratifying amendments to the Constitution. Three-fourths of the states, 38 states, were required for ratification last year, and 38 states will be required for ratification going forward. All the Nebraska Strategy does is cut out Establishment control of the process and give it back to the people.