How does any of this amendment effort get at the root causes?

1. Complete campaign finance reform, including public financing and transparency.
2. Computerized and other forms of vote stealing and suppression.

The Constitutional amendment process is LONG and fraught with almost impossible criteria. We couldn't agree on something as obvious as the ERA, how the heck are we going to agree about this kind of money UPON WHICH A BUNCH OF PEOPLE'S JOBS DEPEND????? We could spend a decade on this and LOSE anyway.

Please someone explain to me, even if you don't think corporations are people, are people corporations? (And, before everyone starts yelling at me, yes, I know Romney said that, but please answer the question, anyway.) How do we create a permanent sub-class of persons who may not use their money a certain way, because they happen to be a part of one type of economic entity or another? And remember, that includes unions.

It's really a matter of typographical oversight. It's not so much a matter of creating a sub-class of persons, but restoring a sub-class of persons that was removed when a when the word "natural" was left out of the 14th amendment.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Prior to 1866 there were two distinct types of "persons": the generic use "person" meaning both human beings and 'artificial' persons, like corporations; and "natural person", explicitly only human beings. So, yes, corporations are persons (and have been since the writing of the contitution), but they are not natural persons and should not be allowed the rights and freedoms that come with that status. By omitting the word "natural" in the 14th amendment - though many would contend it is heavily implied - it opened up the courts to judge that all rights and laws apply equally to humans and corporations alike, including things like freedom of speech.

The corollary can-of-worms - and greatly more important, really - is SCOTUS decisions on campaign finance and money as a form of speech, starting with (I think?) Buckley v Valeo in 1974 and culminating, most recently, with Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in 2010. Ironically, Buckley v Valeo spawned from a sweeping campaign finance reform bill. Without the ability to express free speech with currency, the whole problem is sort of moot.

I'm not sure which is easier, really, overturning a bunch of Supreme Court ruling over decades, or amending the constitution. Either way works, really, and needs to be done.

standard deviations between income groups, i.e. weight LE$$ powerful PACs relative to more powerful superPAC$$$$$$$, lather, rinse, repeat.

This means that this country is going to have to think in terms of something besides quantities and turn its attention to the empirical qualities of the Real Value known as WORK, e.g. what people like teachers and nurses do.

unions influence the elections too much

Is there one union, anywhere, capable of pledging 100 million dollars to a candidate? No, I didn't think there was.

... registered voter a voucher for, say $50, and THAT IS ALL THE MONEY THAT IS ALLOWED IN ALL THE ELECTIONS IN ALL THE COUNTRY.

Everyone would have exactly the same amount of free speech. You could give your voucher all to one candidate, split it up, pool it with others, burn it, whatever. But that's all the money you can spend on electioneering. Period.