I’m not sure I can handle it.

The trashy pink lights. The corny classic rock soundtrack. And oh, those horrible performers.

There’s Hillary, sitting on a potential donor’s lap. “See? I can be warm and friendly,” she murmurs.

Meanwhile, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker are working the pole, gyrating their hips as hard as they can, while the Koch brothers make it rain cash on the stage. Maybe they’ll get more money if they make out with each other?

Poor Chris Christie is sitting at a table alone, all forlorn in his bra and garter belt. Nobody cares about him anymore.

And off in a dark corner of the club, Rand Paul is doing his own weird dance. Only a few are turned on by him–those who are into the kinky masochistic fantasy of living in a pure libertarian state.

Watching this spectacle doesn’t exactly cause feelings of arousal. It’s more of a mixture of disgust, despair, and a complete loss of self-respect. But this is the best we can do, or so we’re told.

Yeah, the 2016 election season…it’s going to be the worst striptease ever.

I suppose it’s a good sign of a lively political debate happening in this country.  Multiple groups are currently working to call a constitutional convention, as set out in Article V of the Constitution.  However, they are trying to do this in the alternative, never-before-used way–rather than having two-thirds of the Congress approve a constitutional amendment and send it to the states (which is unlikely in our divided political climate), they want to convince two-thirds of the state legislatures to pass a resolution calling for a constitutional convention.  Once 34 states approve such a resolution, this would trigger the convention and, theoretically, a 28th Amendment to the Constitution could be voted on.  But which 28th Amendment? 

On one side, we have the conservatives, represented by the Compact for America, an organization led by Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute.  Their 28th Amendment idea is that old conservative refrain–a Balanced Budget Amendment, severely restricting the Federal government’s ability to spend money.  How close are they to achieving that goal?  That depends on how you look at it.  When the Michigan legislature voted yes on a constitutional convention resolution last month, Michigan did in fact become the 34th state to do so.  Problem is, 12 of the states which had previously agreed to hop on the convention train have since rescinded those resolutions.  It is now left to the constitutional experts to bicker it out with each other about the legal dilemma–is a state allowed to change its mind after it has petitioned Congress for a convention?  I would think so, but not everyone agrees.

It should also be said that the Tea Party itself, as much as they love the idea of a balanced budget, is divided on this issue.  Many people–on all political sides–fear a runaway constitutional convention, at which all kinds of “interesting” rules and laws could be approved by a limited collection of states.

On the other side, there is a push for a 28th Amendment prompted by the awful Citizens United and McClutcheon Supreme Court rulings.  This 28th Amendment would overturn Citizens United, make clear that corporations are not people, and limit how much money an individual can give to candidates in an election.  This effort is being organized by, among other groups, Money Out Voters In.  There is a 28th Amendment roadshow travelling around the country right now, and they will be visiting the local Occupy chapter here in Portland in May.  As far as progress in the state legislatures–16 of the more predictably progressive states have passed the resolution for a convention focused on this specific amendment.  That’s fewer states than went for the balanced budget amendment, but then again, there’s been less waffling and rescinding of votes on this one. 

So which 28th Amendment do we prefer?  While it may sound weird, personally, I wouldn’t mind both of them getting passed.  Day after day, I become more convinced that we must limit the power of both government and large corporations, especially as the two have turned into such close BFFs.  However, realistically speaking?  Any version of the 28th Amendment is a long shot.  I doubt that either side will succeed in making a convention happen, and we are likely stuck with the partisan stalemate we have now in our government.

Recently, a woman in Seattle named Babylonia Aivaz decided to marry an old warehouse to keep it from being demolished.  While this seemed like a wacky idea to me at first, she made a really good point.  She said:  “If corporations can have the same rights as people, so can buildings.”

She’s right—it’s only logical!  And now she’s got me plotting.  Is there a way for me to get married to a multi-million-dollar corporation?  This would pretty much solve…well…ALL of my problems.  But how do you do it?  Do I send in an application like I would for a job?  Do I have to wait for a corporation to propose?  (I’m assuming the corporation buys the diamond ring, because…I mean, c’mon.)  Then again, what proof does anyone have that a company hasn’t proposed to me already?  How did Babylonia know that the warehouse wanted to be married to her?  Communicating with inanimate entities requires a little bit of telepathy. 

There will be a few complications to be resolved.  The biggest issue, of course, is that I already have a boyfriend.  To make matters worse, he’s quite wonderful, so I don’t exactly want to give him up.  No worries, though!  If we have learned anything about the romantic habits of capitalism, it is that a corporation will have no problem with an open relationship. 

Then there is the whole “traditional marriage” concept.  Those of us who believe in marriage equality have had difficulty just trying to persuade the paragons of morality who dwell in our midst to allow unions between two consenting adults.   Public referendums about gay marriage have gone down in defeat.  So what chances does an even more unconventional idea like mine have?  Actually, they’re not bad.  Since the Supreme Court decided that corporations are people in the Citizens United case, I have not heard about any referendums or votes overturning this verdict.  The road to full personhood with all its rights appears much smoother for a corporation than for a gay person.

Also, the people most opposed to changing the institution of marriage—conservatives—are head over heels in love with corporations.  The Republicans in Congress (and, let’s face it, many of the Democrats as well) are practically married to them already.  There’s probably no room left for me, but I might as well try.   First, I need to choose a suitable marriage partner.  I’m an internet junkie, so an online company like Google or Facebook would be nice.  I’m thinking Facebook, since I already spend a large portion of my day with him/her. 

So there it is.  Time to go ask a corporation out for a date.  Wish me luck.  Above all, wish me a Kardashian-like speedy divorce—because that’s when the big money starts rolling in.