"So what do we do? The first step is to identify the roots of the problem. In this case, it’s the Supreme Court. With its 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision, the Court leaped over logic to declare that spending money to influence elections was a form of 'free speech' protected by the First Amendment and largely beyond democratic control.
The remedy is daunting but simple: reversing the baseless and profoundly anti-democratic precedent of the Buckley ruling. This would allow rules that make the common-sense distinction between speech as the Constitution intends--expressing one's opinion--and using economic power to overwhelm the opinions of other citizens.
The San Francisco election once again demonstrated money overpowering democracy, but it was no aberration. Citizens who value the principle of one person, one vote should demand a Constitutional Amendment to restore what the Supreme Court has broken—fair elections and our democracy."

I'd agree there are serious problems with the political campaigning system as such. But I have two objections. Firstly, if a crucifix in a jar of urine is free speech, donating money surely is. Secondly, when in the hell did the far left stop kowtowing to the Supreme Court? I thought they were the surpreme law of the land or some such like that. Anti-democratic isn't suppoesd to be a consideration.

I also don't really get what these people propose. I guess they want to ban money in politics or something like that . . . though I'm not sure how that would work. Equal protection, which they note in their amendment, also doesn't exactly have anything to do with this, though that's never stopped them before.

Here's a knee-slapper:
"SECTION 1. The U.S. Constitution protects only the rights of living human beings.

SECTION 3. Corporations and other for-profit institutions are prohibited from attempting to influence the outcome of elections, legislation or government policy through the use of aggregate resources or by rewarding or repaying employees or directors to exert such influence."

That's right. Corporations can't play for themselves. But, everyone plays for themselves. That's how the gov't works. Incidentally, the Constitution says absolutely nothing about whose rights are protected, hence the current abortion debacle. The court has ruled that forests are persons deserving of protection under the law, would these Green party representitives perhaps like to roll that back too?

I'm just looking for a little consistancy here. Not much.