Should we amend the Constitution to prevent the influence of big money in elections? Obviously this question is not aimed at people who think anyone should be able to donate ungodly sums of money to a particular candidate or groups as a whole. I was thinking that if we really wanted to stop the influence of big money in elections then amending the Constitution is the only way to do it and this proposed amendment would be a step in the right direction. Section 1.Donors will be limited to donating a $2,500 maximum per candidate in the district/precinct the donor is registered to vote in. No one will be allowed to donate to candidates outside their district/precincts.For example this means people in California can not donate to governor races in Alabama and people in New York City can not donate to mayoral elections in Tulsa. Section 2.Individuals may form groups and only donate to candidates in their district/precinct and those group members may not donate as a individual.For example you can donate to a can donate to candidate in your district either as a individual or a member of a group, but not both. a. Seeing how section 1 applies that means what a group can donate will be limited by the number of members in that district of that candidate and only donate to candidates what ever the group's members in that candidate's district willingly donated to that group.. If hypothetically there is five planned parenthood members in a city counselor candidate's district then the most amount Planned parent could donate to that candidate is $12,500 5x $2,500= $12,500 if all five members donated the max of $2,500.However if 2 only donated the max ,2 donate half the max and one did not donate then that means planned parenthood can only donate is $7,500 to that candidate. b.While a company/corporation is a group of persons it's members IE employees are not part of that group for a cause other than getting a paycheck.So employers and employees can not solicit or donate to each other. c.Any contributions to a group must be specially marked that they for donating to candidates in that member's voting district. People sometimes have a difference of opinion from the group they are part of. Section 3.Seeing how television stations/networks are privately owned entities they are banned from propping up one candidate over another.They must give equal positive and negative time to all candidates or non at all.All debates must include all candidates or no debates happen at all on TV. This means if candidate A appears on a popular talk show or tv show then so must candidates B,C,D, and and other candidates in that race.If a news outlet does a positive story on Candidate B then it must do a equally positive story on Candidates A,C,D, and other candidates. If a network does a negative story on Candidate C, then it must do a equally negative story on Candidates A,B,D, and other candidates.This also applies to tax payer funded networks since governments should never be in the business of propping up candidates. Do you agree?