A broad and disparate coalition of more than 100 organizations ranging from statewide and local unions, abortion and LGBT-rights groups and supporters of the Second Amendment, has formed to oppose holding a constitutional convention.

Whether to hold a convention is a question being put to voters later this year in a November referendum.

The coalition known as New Yorkers Against Corruption includes a variety of organizations normally at odds with one another or usually with little reason to be affiliated, representing a who’s who of establishment interest groups.

Signing on to the effort includes the New York State Conservative Party, the state AFL-CIO as well as CSEA, the Rifle and Pistol Association, Planned Parenthood Empire State Acts, Environmental Advocates of New York and the New York Civil Liberties Union, among others.

Additional organizations include the Adirondack Council, the Council of Churches, the Working Families Party, the Nw York State United Teachers union as well as the UFT, Right To Life and the LGBT Network.

“The prospect of a constitutional convention touted by idealists is a complete fraud. We know nothing about the framework of a convention – How much will it cost? What are the rules to run as delegates? Which issues will be considered? How will Albany insiders ensure transparency? There is a total lack of information,” said Jordan Marks, Campaign Manager for NYAC.

“That is why over 100 organizations – representing millions of people from throughout New York – formed NYAC. We, the people of New York, have zero interest in writing a blank check for corrupt Albany insiders to throw themselves a multi-year party.”

In some ways, the range of groups involved in opposing a constitutional convention underscores the degree to which holding one could gore multiple oxen. Environmental groups fear an end to regulations that, for example, have preserved the “forever wild” stipulation in the Adirondacks. Unions fear the roll back of hard-won labor rights. Still others are concerned over the potential cost of holding a convention or the influence of wealthy interests.

Still, academics that support a con con are less than fearful about the prospect, noting its a process that’s fully controlled by voters, including whether any alterations are made to the constitution or if a new document is drafted entirely.