The current level of political corruption in the United States is not likely to be abolished within

Con. I will respond to your statements first before making my argument in outlined form. It would be best for all of us if you would use punctuation. Free association exercises are great for your own personal benefit but should be kept to just that. Everyone reading this would greatly benefit from your use of punctuation. You state that my argument contradicts itself. You do not state how my argument contradicts itself. You state, "HOW MUCH CORRUPTION IS THERE? in most cases fear of being voted out if found to be corrupt usually keeps mp or in your case members of congress from straying too far from the rules most cases due to this are isolated incidents over done by the media." This debate centers on the legalized and transparent corruption from unlimited and untraceable campaign contributions from private and public interests. I use the word corrupt as synonymous with rotten. Lobbyists pretend to make contributions as charity. There is a lie told to the public that the intent of contributions is not to influence contributions, as if we can pretend the devil does not exist. Now I will get into my argument. 1.The majority of United States citizens do not like the current campaign financing system. A recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United vs. the United States Electoral Commission, grants corporations the same first amendment free speech rights as individuals. Sixty-five percent of Americans, almost 2 out of 3, are strongly opposed to the ruling. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 2.Under better circumstances the normal solution to this dilemma would be a constitutional amendment to ban private campaign donations. The framers of the US constitution designed to be malleable to unforeseen events such as this one. Supreme Court members have lifetime appointments. Should Supreme Court members engage in questionable behavior there is no way to remove them from office. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas are known to have attended a political junket not at their expense sponsored by the political group known as the Koch foundation. The Koch brothers are known to be very active political advocates for causes such as Citizen's United. If corruptive influence has found its way into all three branches of government the only solution would be for the United States Citizenry itself to stand together and pass a constitutional amendment to end campaign financing. Current political realities combined with the structure of the US constitution render the possibility of such an amendment exceptionally unlikely. The framers of the US constitution were broad in their attempts to address the unforeseeable. They asked the question- what if congress becomes the problem? Article 5 of the US constitution states. Article V - Amendment Note1 - Note2 - Note3 The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. So even if congress is corrupted by private campaign donations and is too conflicted to propose the amendment then the people have the constitutional authority to pass an amendment to the constitution by calling convention with 2/3rds of the state legislature and then ratifying it with either 3/4s of the state legislatures or ad hoc citizens conventions in 3/4s of the various states. 3.)This is still untenable. More than 1 in 4 states and associated citizenry actually benefit from the corruption. The trick with advocating against waste and corruption is to show to each person that it is bad for them overall. Even if a person can see how a single corrupted event, such as farm subsidy, is of benefit to them, that person can be shown how the bulk of rent seeking by all other sources works against them as a whole. The bad of all of it outweighs the partial good of their own visible rent seeking interest. This does not hold true in a minority of states. More than 1 out of 4 states currently benefits from the corruption associated with current campaign financing laws or lack thereof. The small coal and natural gas producing states in particular benefit from the corrupted state of affairs. Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas and West Virginia are small states who produce fossil fuel energy as a massive part of each of their respective GDP's. The majority opinion in the United States is to shift our energy dependence towards renewable energy. In a poll conducted by Opinion Research Corporation 2 out of three US citizens would prefer to end subsidies to oil and gas companies so as to phase out fossil fuel. http://www.ens-newswire.com... This is directly opposed to the 12 above mentioned states. In Wyoming alone 33% of all economic output is in mining. http://econpost.com... These 12 states are not likely to restrain the power of large corporations any time soon. Farm subsidies: Nebraska, Iowa, and Arkansas received over 4.1 billion dollars in farm subsidy in 2008. http://www.pbs.org.... That means that each of the 7.7 million citizens of those states received in excess of $430 each multiplied into their economies. So there are 15 states that actually benefit from the transparent corruption known as campaign financing in the United States. Only 14 are required to block a constitutional amendment to end campaign financing. Even though 2 out of 3 US citizens oppose unlimited campaign financing a minority of beneficiary states can block a change to the status quo. I await your response.