Wolf-PAC no longer proposes this as actual amendment language, stating on its website,
The Wolf-PAC Resolution does not contain specific amendment language because we truly want to hear all sides and solutions at the amendments convention. We think the amendment should contain these core values:
Corporations are not people. They have none of the Constitutional rights of human beings. Corporations are not allowed to give money to any politician, directly or indirectly. No politician can raise over $100 from any person or entity. All elections must be publicly financed.
*Note: The finished legislation will be worded differently and have to account for inflation, etc. This is simply to point legislators in the right direction and make sure the final amendment accomplishes the goals we have outlined here.
Using deductive language to define what corporations are not instead of what people are leaves the door open to other types of legal fictions. Regulating expenditures without overturning Buckley v. Valeo creates a contradiction in the constitution that could be exploited to skirt this language.
WolfPac’s omission of unions and other organizations is both a flaw in the structure and a thread of partisanship that would never win nationwide support. Better language is something like “all artificial entities created by law.”
Fixed amounts must be amended in the future and must never be used, even if the language attempts to account for inflation. A better method is to use a benchmark, like a percentage of median income.
If all elections must be publicly financed, there’s no point in putting a cap on direct contributions to political candidates.
Public financing, while a worthy and plausible method of campaign finance reform, is nowhere near as popular as proponents believe and would engender a partisan fight that would doom a constitutional amendment that contains such a provision.
An amendment that contained the provisions WolfPAC is proposing would be partially effective, even with Buckley mostly intact. But it must be assumed that legislation would have to follow to give teeth to the amendment, in which case it’s probably easier to win support by simply abolishing constitutional rights for all artificial entities created by law and eliminate the interpretation of spending money as form of constitutionally protected speech.