Keith Bishop notes that:
[California] Assemblymember Mike Gatto has even more ambitious plans. He has introduced AJR 1 which requests Congress to call a constitutional convention pursuant to Article V of the United States Constitution “for the sole purpose of proposing an amendment to the United States Constitution that would limit corporate personhood for purposes of campaign finance and political speech and would further declare that money does not constitute speech and may be democratically limited . . . .”
I sort of vaguely recall from Constitutional Law I in law school that it's not at all clear whether a convention called pursuant to Arivle V of the Constitution can be limited to a single issue. A quick look at Westlaw confirms that Walter Dellinger argues, for example, that constitutional conventions under Article V cannot constitutionally be limited to single issues or be controlled by Congress or prior mandates of state legislatures once convened. See Walter E. Dellinger, The Recurring Question of the “Limited” Constitutional Convention, 88 Yale L.J. 1623, 1624 (1979). But, it seems, other commentators disagree.
Suffice it to say that, IMHO, the left's hatred of Citizens United is no excuse for opening a Constitutional Pandora's box. See generally, Thomas Gais & Gerald Benjamin, Public Discontent and the Decline of Deliberation: A Dilemna in State Constitutional Reform, 68 Temple L. Rev. 1291, 1304 (1995) (“Citizens may fear that constitutional conventions would open up a ‘Pandora's box”’ and noting that “William Brennan, then Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, declared it ‘the most awful thing in the world”’).