As you may or may not know, there is a very small group of Americans who have declared themselves Conventionist http://www.foavc.org
The founders of this group are in the process shifting into an operational phase, and it's become apparent that there's a rift as to what strategy should be deployed.
Gentlemen,
We all agree on one thing: that it’s time for our country to hold its first federal convention of state delegates. But based on recent e-mails passed amongst the founders, it appears we see things very differently on how events should play out in order for a convention to emerge. I understand much work and effort has gone into the formulation of the Rules of Governance and the By-Laws, but as you know, I’ve never thought them necessary. The issue is now moot since the vehicle is near completion. Now, how to drive the thing....
Some of you want to abandon efforts aimed at coercing Congress to issue the call, to instead focus on the state legislatures, to have FOAVC chapters become political action groups which call/e-mail/write members of the state legislatures. In essence this is the presumed and fundamental dividing line between us: do we focus on state legislatures or Congress? Point-blank--I don’t think we have time to go after the state legislatures. I think the pool of Americans who are still paying attention is evaporating. And even if I’m wrong, and more people each day are scrutinizing things, and we have plenty of time to revive the Constitution, 567 applications on the congressional record says efforts on state legislatures is a waste of time. In addition to that, suppose a state legislature or two, or three, or more, do send applications to Congress, what assurance do we have MSM will make those efforts visible and part of popular information? We have no assurance, yet plenty of evidence it will do no such thing.
The other strategy is to focus efforts on the problem itself, Congress. Of course this seems even more futile an effort since members of Congress are even further removed from accountability than members of the state legislatures. If our goal is the antithesis of institutionalized corruption and the current status quo, why spend time seeking corruption to uncorrupt itself?
It’s been my position that the only thing to bring about a convention is not state legislatures casting applications anew, or an FOAVC PAC, but a tipping-point majority of Americans standing united, saying the same thing: "Hey Congress, we want a convention." Since the term "constitutional convention" has been a stumbling block, in one regard, FOAVC has already been a success in differentiating between that and an Article V Convention. So that block out of the way, or clearing, a few of us have been out on the internet raising awareness and building the list of members. And this is what I think the strategy should be. Not to place focus on pressuring state legislatures or Congress, but to focus on building the list of members. If you were asked to choose the task of less effort, which would it be: pressuring Congress to issue the call, or building a list of Americans who have declared themselves Conventionists? This is why I was never keen on describing ourselves as "founders" or why I never saw the need to create Rules of Governance or By-Laws when the only thing that will bring a convention is millions of Americans demanding one. I understand that certain sensibilities are more comfortable with structure and rules in this regard, but now that that work is nearly out of the way, we need to focus on membership because only that is going to pressure Congress to obey Article V. So let’s focus on the thing that will cause the desired effect.
The tipping-point majority we need is already out there, sleeping. The convention is already here, it’s just a matter of whether FOAVC is going to be successful in educating Americans what the convention clause is, and why we need to use it. And of course that alone seems to be a Herculean task--educating millions of Americans--while the MSM and corporate operatives disinform. But here’s where a critical distinction needs to be made: it’s the difference between educating and popularizing. In other words, to put a fine point on it, the strategy is not about educating millions of Americans, but educating key Americans who can, simply by declaration, popularize the idea. In a consumer society, look at the convention as a product. Corporations get celebrities to endorse products for a reason. One group of celebrity which I’ve never approached is American sports stars (I tried to get to a book signing of Cal Ripken Jr., but couldn’t make it--he’s a perfect example of an American who could help bring the country a convention).
As you know, I believe a feature documentary of a hundred college kids carrying out the convention clause would wake the giant faster than anything. Faster than all of us staking out territory on the internet and blogging every day. Of course a film takes money, and believe me, I’m out there every day looking for it. So, funds for a film currently non-existent, we should be all about how to grow the list. A prominent American (presidential candidate) declaring themselves conventionist will fill the ranks faster than anything besides a popular film.
So there you have my position, forget Congress, forget the MSM, forget politicians (except candidates?), let’s pretend they don’t even exist and turn our efforts towards membership. If membership gets big enough you will find MSM coming to us (i.e. the membership list), and that’s what it’s going to take to make it happen.