I say this because opponents (who fear a "run-away" convention)* often point out, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia was, itself, a run-away convention that was convened for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and it was ratified by manipulation of the ratification process, not as proscribed by the Articles of Confederation. That does not mean a run-away convention would be ratified today, as some claim.
In this article I want to refer the reader to a number of opponents, proponents and experts on the subject of the Article V Constitution so they will better make their own decisions about this particular solution to our frustrations with government, frustrations that come from a majority of citizens of various political stripes. Paul Westlake, writing for the Amendment Gazette in an nice article The Left Right Fraud February 7, 2014 tells us why we must unite with various political groups to solve our "shared frustrations" against special interests that dominate working people. The Amendment Gazette also has several articles treating how the subject of Citizens United should be addressed as an amendment.
There are debates not only about whether we can or should have an Article V Convention, but also the whats and hows on many different areas of the law that could undermine the efficiency of using Article V. For the most part many opponents offer scare tactics for major public consumption. There is also a lot of debate on whether we might once again be foiled in our efforts to obtain adequate public funding or other change either by Congress and/or the Supreme Court. For example, on campaign finance reform there is debate about whether we should be concerned the Supreme Court could find other (corporate personhood, for example) ways to litigate in favor of corporations. (For those finer points of how-to-do-it, free-speech vs corporate personhood, etc. see Taking on amendment critics, part I: James Marc Leas and Rob Hagar** by VictorMTA June 16, 2012 ) I am highly suspicious of the good intentions of people like Leas and Hagar* who bring up some of these kinds of questions; i.e. Hagar arguing that the body of the Constitution trumps the Amendments vs "not the case at all." There is no way I can go into all these details in this article. I leave this one to the experts.
Perhaps this Liberty News Network " Beware Article V" video is an example, (and a long diatribe), of the kind of opposition Westlake might agree as being representative of "powerful interests." Just listen to the arguments and from whom such arguments emanate - super conservatives who have supported powerful capitalist interests their entire careers, ( Rex E. Lee Brigham Young University, Chief Justice Warren Burger and Arthur Goldburg ). They employ the same old "fear" tactics we always hear from the top of the ladder, such as "run-away convention" or manipulation of the ratification process, or "we might come out of it worse off than we are now." They say Article V was only written for a situation in which there was serious flaw of the constitution that causes corrupt legislation that must be addressed by an Amendment, which flaws they do not admit exist at the present time. They insist that Congress would, or should, have a heavy role and/or influence on any such convention, a contention which many legal scholars and advocates deny. They speak mostly of a "balanced budget amendment," saying it is not proper subject for the amendment process and might even cause a denial of some kind as to "proper subject" of a convention. These are all debatable points, from various perspectives. But certainly if it is possible at all for Congress to refuse its mandate to call the convention on application of 2/3rs of the states, it could not be claimed that getting money out of politics is irrelevant or not a crisis of our present constitution. There is a lot of double-talk in this video that sounds sophisticated, but is obviously meant to confuse most people, (actually directed to state legislators), from every possible angle.