[EL] “Do We Need a Constitutional Convention on Campaign Finance?” (Spoiler Alert: No!)

[Derek Muller]

I confess I've never entirely understood the "runaway convention"
opposition to the constitutional convention.

First, and more marginally, there are non-trivial arguments that
conventions might be limited, or that state legislatures could limit the
actions of delegates through instructions or recall. These are hotly
debated, of course, and I confess my own uncertainty about them, but they
are certainly quite possible to limit any "runaway."

Second, the several states have had constitutional conventions for many
decades now. Most of these have occurred without the worries of a "runaway
convention," or, indeed, any actual runaway. I suppose one could argue that
the stakes are "higher" in a federal constitutional convention, but
experience on a smaller scale suggests little risk.

And third, and perhaps most significantly, any actions of a "runaway
convention" would still need ratification by the legislatures (or
conventions) of 38 states, suggesting, I think, that a "runaway convention"
would leave little risk--and, if 38 states *did* ratify the proposal of a
"runaway convention," perhaps the convention ran away in the right
direction.

Or, perhaps it's simply that my risk tolerance is high in this area out of
a preference to see "formal paths" of changing the Constitution's meaning.

Best,

Derek

Derek T. Muller

Associate Professor of Law

Pepperdine University School of Law

24255 Pacific Coast Hwy

Malibu, CA 90263

+1 310-506-7058

SSRN: http://papers.ssrn.com/author=464341

Twitter: http://twitter.com/derektmuller


On Tue, Jan 5, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu> wrote:

>
> “Do We Need a Constitutional Convention on Campaign Finance?” (Spoiler
> Alert: No!) <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78734>
> Posted on January 5, 2016 12:52 pm <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=78734>
> by Rick Hasen <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> I have written this oped
> <http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0106-hasen-constitutional-convention-campaign-finance-20160106-story.html>for
> the LA Times.  It begins:
>
> Should the United States convene a constitutional convention to clean up
> the campaign finance mess created by the U.S. Supreme Court? My answer is
> absolutely not. That’s neither a realistic goal nor a wise way to curb the
> influence of the wealthy over our elections. Nevertheless, I’m pleased that
> the California Supreme Court this week greenlighted a scheme
> <http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S220289.PDF> to put that
> question on the ballot come November, and I may even vote “yes.”…
>
> To recap: A constitutional convention could spiral out of control,
> proposed amendment language so far is deeply problematic, and the
> Legislature may have self-interested reasons for including a campaign
> finance question on the ballot. Nonetheless, there’s a good reason for
> voters to support this flawed proposal.
>
> [image: Share]
> <https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=http%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D78734&title=%26%238220%3BDo%20We%20Need%20a%20Constitutional%20Convention%20on%20Campaign%20Finance%3F%26%238221%3B%20%28Spoiler%20Alert%3A%20No%21%29&description=>
> Posted in campaign finance <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=10>, Plutocrats
> United <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=104>, Supreme Court
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?cat=29>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160105/6de03a68/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: share_save_171_16.png
Type: image/png
Size: 1504 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160105/6de03a68/attachment.png>