House Capital Markets Subcommittee Chairman Paul Kanjorski, D-Penn., said at a hearing this morning that we may be on the way to a Constitutional Convention due to repeated Supreme Court decisions scaling back campaign finance law in the name of the First Amendment. Such an event, however, could actually wind up harming the Constitution by paring it down, he said.

In the meantime, "We need a legislative response to Citizens United to restore balance in our Democratic system," Kanjorski said, referring to a January campaign finance decision allowing corporations to make unlimited independent expenditures to support or oppose candidates in elections. He advocated for empowering shareholders to weigh in on political decisions and for boosting disclosure requirements.

The hearing examined the Shareholder Protection Act of 2010, introduced by Rep. Mike Capuano, D-Mass., among other corporate governance measures that would empower shareholders to vote on companies' political spending decisions. Such measures aim to slow the influx of corporate cash and provide a check on the corporate executives' new leeway to dip into company treasuries to make political ad-buys. "Shareholders should not expect that a company will invest in candidates that the shareholders themselves do not support," Kanjorski said.

The proposal came under fire by a witness who said shareholders can take their money elsewhere if they do not like corporations' spending decisions. "Shareholders can sell their shares," said J.W. Verret, an assistant professor at George Mason University School of Law. He added that protections already exist to prevent questionable practices, such as audit committees and anti-corruption laws.