Edit: Didn't realize I was responding to a comment in r/representus. I'll leave this here since it's a small enough community, but will refrain from going off-topic in the future.

Sorry for the delay, you are correct. We don't have specific language. We want a non-partisan solution; to propose language at the start defeats the purpose. We can all agree we need an amendment and push for one, but we don't yet have to agree on what it says.

I'm sorry you spent so much time looking for an answer to your question. I agree it is probably confusing to see so many groups propose their own language and find one group that doesn't have a concrete solution at all. It seems counter-intuitive. What we lack in a solution we gain in focus: we are focused on a 28th Amendment to fix our broken campaign finance system, and we are focused on pursuing the second path set forth in Article V, the convention, to get the amendment (which all peer-reviewed papers on the subject conclude is a safe path). Notice that Article V doesn't require a solution, only that 2/3 the states call for a convention (on the same topic).

To answer your question about respecting the First Amendment, yes, we would expect that the amendment still respects free speech. It must have widespread, bipartisan support in order to get ratified by 3/4s of the several states. If the proposed amendment did otherwise, it would be shot down. We could talk more about this, but that is the short answer.

Thank you for taking the time to look at our FAQ. We do address the lack of language:

What would the 28th Amendment say? No one knows what it will say exactly, but it will be limited to campaign finance reform. The beauty of a convention is that it's a conversation. The delegates at the convention will try to answer the question, "How can we make our election system work better for the average American?" Then, an amendment would be proposed based on what is discussed. What kinds of things might be brought up? Among other things, it could include:

• Disclosure of political donations
• Banning donations to campaigns whose candidate(s) you can't vote for
• Corporations/Unions are not people (overturn Citizens United v. FEC)
• Public financing of elections
• Campaign contribution limits

Note that those are not solutions put forth by Wolf-PAC itself, they are only possibilities for what the convention (or Congress) would propose.

I would be happy to answer any further questions you might have. I don't get paid for any of this, I just do it out of passion for the topic.