In America, people are noticing that some citizens spend millions to help politicians win elections, in part through using negative advertising and smear campaigns using super PACs. This does not feel like a free and fair system, working for the benefit of all people. Elected public servants are supposed to serve all of their constituency, regardless of who voted for whom. On the other hand, we have noticed that those who spend big money on elections also get access to politicians, and are able to sway the writing of legislation, and the implementation of law. Those without access to super-big money have little chance to gain such access to politicians, although their life is just as good as the life of a rich person. The difference between these two people lies in their money, and the importance of money in our system of elections is what worries us.

We call on the US Congress and President to craft a constitutional amendment of appropriate scope, which balances the people's right to free speech with the right of the people to a system of elections which is fair, and not unduly influenced by a select few super-rich citizens.  In response to the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling which overturned most government restrictions on political spending, we demand a constitutional amendment which will limit super-big money in politics.  The current state of affairs, in which a small number of super wealthy people have a huge sway over the election of our politicians, does not serve the people well.