I'm opposed to putting limits on individual contributions while allowing unions/pacs/etc...to have unlimited giving. IMHO, there should be NO limits on contributions, but IMMEDIATE and COMPLETE DISCLOSURE of every contribution and amount received.
I'd be more willing to support this issue if the same limits on contributions applied to the unions supporting the measure.
posted by intrepid at 02:55 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
All of them sound like excellent ideas to me. I have had numerous serious personal involvement in several issues with the Lucas County Board of Elections. One issue was a Sunday liquor option palced on the ballot in the wrong precinct, followed by failed attempts to cover it up. State liquor control had to step in. The second issue involved whole neighborhoods being placed in the wrong voting municipality. We are talking about municipalities here, not precincts. This was discovered by an election candidate from a request for a "walking list" of voters. Again, the municipalities compromised had to ask for an outside agency to step in and correct. Absentee ballots had to be discarded and corrected new ones mailed out again. Outsiders must step in when the entrenched organizations will admit no fault, investigate nothing and make no corrections.
posted by holland at 02:59 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
You highlighted who is funding the amendments but didn't talk about who is funding the opposition.
The Treasurer of Protect your vote?
Matthew Yuskewich, treasurer of the Ohio House Republican Campaign Committee, former senator, Richard H. Finan is listed as the founder.
You also covered the talking points as suggested by Protect your vote rather well.
I would suggest since the Republicans are also raising funds out of state to fight Reform Now? It makes that point kind of a moot one.
David L. Hopcraft, said the campaign was drawing money from outside the state because of Ohio's significance as a swing state in presidential elections, though he did not give specific dollar amounts.
If I understand the end numbers correctly, these amendments could cost Republicans in Ohio 6 of their 12 seats in Congress, which is the bottom line behind the rhetoric of both groups.
posted by psyche777 at 04:12 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/0925reform.html
Article that attempts to cover both the for and against point of view.
I support Two and Four, I haven't made up my mind on Three at this point, I tend to be against Five as I think it will just create another level of bs.
I do think Three is questionable because all it will do is make "creation" of smaller groups a way to avoid having to meet the cap.
Two is to me the most important one and does have some bi-partisan support as well. I would encourage people to look at these individually rather than some package where they have to agree with all or none.
posted by psyche777 at 04:29 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
Just curious if you have any idea why this would be targeted in only swing states, such as Florida and Ohio? I believe the other state is CO. Doesn't that concern you the slightest?
Where are you getting fund information? I would really like to read up on that, thanks for pointing out that I did not source the funds of the countergroup. Now, in doing my research, I only learned that J. Matthew Yuskewich is a CPA in Columbus. And don't we all know that Finan was the former Prez of the OH senate? What's so wrong about him starting the fund to help educate the "other sides" of these issues. I can not compare this fund to the dollars of political activists such as George Soros!
My point was that this Reform Ohio Group now is not founded by Ohioans. On the Reform Ohio Now website, there is no address (I couldn't find one) and they way they present information, they expect people to believe Ohioan's formed the group.... They only have Ohioan endorsements.
The redistricting issue, yes, Republicans stand to lose some seats. The bottom line is, though, the majority of Ohioans are conservative Republicans, not Democrats. The urban areas of Ohio are truly the only democratic areas. Part of our constitution protects the rural areas (hence the electoral vote, for example). Why should the minority in Ohio have more seats while the popular vote stand to lose seats? Regardless, I think this is much bigger than 6 seats.
There are more issues than financing and redistricting on the ballot. I hope in this discussion we don't get stuck on one point and can discuss all 4 issues.
posted by alexandra at 04:40 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
psyche777 thanks for your additional comment! It was nice to hear your comments on all issues! :)
posted by alexandra at 04:46 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
I don't think there is anything wrong with Finan doing it, just that we should be aware of it. Same with Yuskewich, I don't know which search engine you use but
http://www.ohioscpa.com/publications/cpapac/
Another group he is Treasurer of and where I got the info that he was the Treasurer for the Ohio GOP
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/06/10/loc_ohblackwell10.html
I always try to look at both sides, call me cynical but I try to never automatically assume they are being honest.
The sad thing is though not many people are going to do what we are doing, they will base their votes on what they have heard in 30 or 60 second soundbites.
posted by psyche777 at 05:12 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
My gut instinct would be to vote against anything George Soros is for...lol
It's humerous on how they want to limit corporate contributions...but open loopholes for union contributions.
posted by lloyd at 05:24 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
Also if this is supposed to be nonpartison...how come no Republicans seem to be supporting it???
posted by lloyd at 05:27 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
If you read the dayton article it states:
Even opponents such as Rep. DeWine have said they support the concept. DeWine said this policy, however, doesn't belong in the state Constitution but should be enacted by the legislature as a state law.
Republicans are not going to come out and support Reform Ohio now because the amendments are being included as a package, a package that would result in less Republican seats. That's not a realistic expectation for them you know that llyod that would be the kiss of death.
You'll see more of them suggest Two is not such a bad idea as is happening in the blogs, but I seriously doubt any of the other three will be even considered. Before you try to nitpick my choice of the word partisan, it was directed at what I have read from others rather than politicians. I have not heard one Republican yet state support for any of the other amendments.
posted by psyche777 at 05:51 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
Sidenote: alexandra, a damn fine front page posting.
posted by jr at 06:47 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
Reform Ohio Now mentions "Ohio First" as their opposition and links to a site that is a dummy fake site perhaps tricking lowly citizens that it is the official "Ohio First" website. They created the site to look shabby and unprofessional. I think that is dirty and underhanded... I just wanted to make sure that was clear to everyone... the official opposition response is at www.protectyourvote.org.
Right now I am looking for websites for similar issues being raised in FL and CO. If anyone has that, please let me know. I would like to see how this is being attacked nationally.
psyche777, i found now where you sourced some of your information - they were from news feeds from the New York Times and various linked right from the Reform Ohio Now website. Most of the information from your post comes from this article:
http://www.reformohionow.org/news.jsp?news_item_KEY=1727&t=news
I am looking for information less biased than what can be found in the New York Times LOL!!!
posted by alexandra at 06:52 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
For what it's worth, Frank Szollosi was on tour last week in the area, promoting Reform Ohio Now. Frank said:
"Ohio hasn't witnessed political corruption on this scale in generations. I'm working with Reform Ohio Now to help pass 4 state constitutional amendments this November."
Wake me when the Reform Lucas County train gets rolling.
posted by jr at 07:09 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
Looks like we all have lots of reading, searching and discussing to engage in to hash these issues out.
I see the pro Dem and the pro R forces well represented, but what about something representing other groups, mainly the vast middle?
Besides the reading, searching and discussing is the scratch and sniff test, something we should excel at, here...
posted by Hooda_Thunkit at 08:02 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
For those who support this, how can you view #3 as being fair? How in the world is it right for unions to be able to give 20 TIMES as much money as an organization such as the Ohio State Medical Association?
I think it's pretty obvious why unions are excluded from the limits. Those who will benefit the most from union donations are the exact same people that are pushing this amendment to be passed. There's no question that these issues are an attempt to give a boost to democrats in the state. For them to make it out to be for honest, fair elections is laughable, and I hope the rest of Ohio feels the same way.
posted by HeyHey at 09:07 P.M. EST on Tue Sep 27, 2005 #
From the sounds of it, it looks like Vote No on all 4 is that right
If Frank Szollosi is voting for it, I know I will probably be voting against it
posted by Toledolaw05 at 02:43 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 28, 2005 #
#3 is NOT FAIR...my feeling on this...all ORGANIZATIONS should have NO RESTRICTIONS TO THE AMOUNT OF CONTRIBUTIONS THEY MAKE... ...it is totally unfair to allow UNIONS NO LIMIT...and...RESTRICT other ORGANIZATIONS contributions...
posted by MARIELORA at 04:05 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 28, 2005 #
Guess who said this:
"No congressional district should be safe because of the way it is drawn. It should be safe because the congressman represents the interests of the people in that district."
Answer: Ronald Reagan.
Yes, the political arena should be the marketplace of ideas. Competition is a good thing in our economy and it's a good thing in our political system, too.
So is choice. Voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. Today, the system is rigged in favor of the incumbents--and just look where that has gotten us.
It's time for citizens of all persuasions--right, left, Republican, Democrat and independent--to embrace the concept of political reform. We need it desperately.
The culture of corruption has to be busted up in Ohio and in this country if we are going to succeed. We need more competition. We need to open the windows and let some fresh air in the room.
That's why I'm for the reform package: State Issues 2, 3, 4 and 5. I am working for Reform Ohio Now to pass these measures.
Steve Fought
posted by General_Marshall at 06:31 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 28, 2005 #
General,
I have no problem with #4 or #5....#2 would open the door to A LOT of corruption in my opinion with both parties' cronies buying votes. #3 is absolutely out of the question if fairness is the goal and corruption is to be avoided. Please tell me how you, personally, justify the exception for unions to donate much, much more than many other legitimate oragnizations. Are you saying unions should have more political pull than all these other organizations? How is that fair? Isn't it obvious to you why those pushing for these amendments are giving an exception to them?
posted by HeyHey at 06:47 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 28, 2005 #
I think it’s an insult to our intellect for Reform Ohio Now to take power away from individuals and corporations but not from the unions. How dumb do they think we are, not to notice their intentional loopholes?
I also think it’s an insult for Steve Fought to quote Ronald Reagan, as if President Reagan would be for taking power away from the individual and shifting it to the unions.
It is also an insult of our intellect for Mr. Fought to sign up for toledotalk just to address this issue. I was under the impression this was a community blog, not a blog to be used by paid political operatives.
posted by lloyd at 07:09 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 28, 2005 #
The quote by Ronald Reagan IMHO is a misrepresentation. When he said this, he was talking about building coalitions with moderate groups and conservative groups. I would say that is a gross misrepresentation, there is no way that both conservatives and moderates approve of the activities of Reform Ohio Now.
This quote also misleads the public into believing that Ronald Reagan would support such activity.
As I said before, I learned in my research that this group is 93% funded by non-Ohioans (see list above) and that over half of the circulators that circulated the petitions to get these issues on the ballot in the first place were not even from Ohio.... so even registered Ohio voters would not circulate the petitions on these issues.
The liberal 527's continue to try and mislead Ohio voters and are now trying to change the rules so that they can win a majority vote when I feel they couldn't do it honestly.
They are trying to change election law because they can not win offer up credible viable candidates for Ohian's to vote for. They mention corruption, but corruption from an outside source and as though they are immune to corruption. They don't seem to talk about corruption on all sides, for example, the MDL scandal.
I feel like a private eye. Since I noticed General Marshall has never been to this site, since today, I suspected this comment was just another comment from an out of state source who is trying to represent the 527s, and liberal interest to try and turn Ohio blue when the majority is provably red. Check out his yahoo profile, he currently is in VA.
I found him on the Swing State liberal blog.
http://profiles.yahoo.com/stevefought
posted by alexandra at 07:20 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 28, 2005 #
They are trying to change election law because they can not win or offer up credible viable candidates for Ohian's to vote for.
I somehow lost part of my sentence above... see corrected above.
posted by alexandra at 07:25 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 28, 2005 #
alexandra, I did look at the profile, the link you provided, oh my gosh...it states Steve Fought's age at 92 years old!!! Goes on to state his occupation as a Bouncer!!!
Are you sure this is the General?
posted by MARIELORA at 07:48 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 28, 2005 #
That is sooo funny. I think I could even take on a 92 year old bouncer
posted by lloyd at 07:52 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 28, 2005 #
It's the profile he posted on his comment at this blog spot:
http://www.swingstateproject.com/2005/09/the_most_import.php
He is at the "Reform Ohio Now" headquarters, according to this comment on this page... see here below:
Steve Fought here, speaking from RON headquarters. Thank you, Tim, and thank you, Bob, for bringing the reform issue to the forefront.
RON essentially is asking Ohio voters four questions:
Do you believe in making it easier to vote?
Do you believe in taking the big money out of campaigns?
Do you believe in taking the politicians out of drawing congressional and legislative districts?
Do you believe in fair and impartial administration of elections in Ohio?
We are asking voters to answer "Yes" to each question.
For future reference, my e-mail is stevefought@yahoo.com.
For more information, www.reformohionow.org
Posted by: Steve Fought at September 27, 2005 04:09 PM | Permalink
Surely he is just being silly about the 92 years old and bouncer part... Probably his "cover"
posted by alexandra at 07:53 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 28, 2005 #
I did visit the blog site, the link alexandra provided...a 92 year old Bouncer that calls himself "General" is someone we in Ohio should consider of great character for reform of ohio laws?
I don't think so...
posted by MARIELORA at 08:15 P.M. EST on Wed Sep 28, 2005 #
The question attributed to Steve Fought is "Do you believe in taking the big money out of campaigns?"
I guess he doesn't believe that unions are part of the 'big money.'
Wonder if he'll answer that question here....Mr. Fought?
posted by intrepid at 07:54 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 29, 2005 #
Frank Szollosi posted this link on his blog:
Here
Scott A. Pullins, a Republican attorney who has come out in support of 2, 4, and 5.
posted by psyche777 at 10:55 A.M. EST on Thu Sep 29, 2005 #
From the link psyche provided, it's urging support for #2 because it makes it easier to vote by mail.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that - at least not until every BOE in every county can verify that the individual voting actually exists AND lives at the location to which the mail is sent...
Too many times I've seen lists from the local BOE that have a person's name and address but when you go there, it's a vacant lot...yet the person voted in the previous election. The question then becomes just who is that person and where exactly do they live (as the law says you must vote where you live). I think there's too much potential for fraud and I'd like to see it monitored better.
If these issues were also addressed, I'd be more likely to support it.
posted by intrepid at 02:32 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 29, 2005 #
I was trying to figure out... who the heck is Scott A. Pullins? I am sure I could find a bunch of no-names on both sides of this issue.
intrepid, I agree with you.
Easier voting for Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse, etc etc. In volunteering over the past 2 years, and calling several BOE lists, there were quite a few people on the list who were "deceased".... and sometimes people would say "FOR OVER 10 YEARS, take him off your list"...
So, I think this "easier voting" makes it easier for fictional characters and/or for people to vote from the graves.
(PS- intrepid, do you have your own blog?)
posted by alexandra at 04:12 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 29, 2005 #
From his own bio:
Mr. Pullins is a well known Ohio lawyer, lobbyist, public affairs consultant, and entrepreneur. He is frequently called upon to advise both private sector and governmental officials on a wide variety of legal and business issues. Mr. Pullins is a member of the Ohio State Bar Association, the Knox County Bar Association, and the Federalist Society.
Mr. Pullins is a former Chairman of the Knox County Republican Central Committee.
http://www.rnla.org/bio/BioDetail.asp?MemberID=2213
So I don't think he's a no-name in Central Ohio from the looks of it.
posted by psyche777 at 04:17 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 29, 2005 #
Ok, so maybe I was wrong about him, but his own bio on himself is quite flattering, don't you think? ;) My point actually was we can all throw out names left and right on who is on each side - what difference does that make? Why should what they think shape our own thoughts and opinions on these issues?
I am doing research and trying to pin down names; from what I understand, big supporters of RON have changed their tunes since the hearings in 2002. What legislators once considered "a very reasonable set of districts" are now considering that the districts unfair and uncompetitive...now that they have lost a Presidential election in battleground state Ohio.
The bottom line isn't what our politicians say, trying to throw our weight around. This is a constitutional amendment giving them more power to flip-flop around while we have little power to do anything. More importantly, instead of asking "This Republican said this and that Democrat said this" we should be asking ourselves what we think of these issues.
posted by alexandra at 05:00 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 29, 2005 #
Steve Fought here again.
As I stated up front last night, I am working for Reform Ohio Now. I am a spokesman for the organization.
My understanding was that this is an open site. That's why I posted here and stated my affiliation, and also why I signed my name rather than just using my handle.
No, I'm not a 92-year-old bouncer, but I might be someday. I moved from Virginia to Ohio last spring; I'm a native Ohioan.
posted by General_Marshall at 05:29 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 29, 2005 #
lol - alexandra, that's why I was careful to make sure you know that was written by him rather than me.
Perhaps since Steve Fought is here he could tell us who else in the Republican Party is supporting some of these amendments besides Mr. Pullins.
:-)
posted by psyche777 at 06:53 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 29, 2005 #
The bottom line isn't what our politicians say, trying to throw our weight around. This is a constitutional amendment giving them more power to flip-flop around while we have little power to do anything. More importantly, instead of asking "This Republican said this and that Democrat said this" we should be asking ourselves what we think of these issues.
I still stand by what I previously said.
I am glad to hear Mr. Fought is back in Toledo and that he joined just in time to speak to this issue that he is a spokesperson for. Do you care to respond to the questions directly asked of you from some of the community members? I was actually looking forward to your response on these items. I would enjoy the healthy debate :)
posted by alexandra at 08:03 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 29, 2005 #
Why have no Republicans advocated Issues 2-5?
Because they are the ones in charge right now. Issues 2-5 change the rules and throw uncertainty into the system.
If the Democrats were in charge, we would hear the same coming from them. Those in power don't want to risk losing it.
Issues 2-5 change the rules, and that means risk.
posted by timault at 12:09 P.M. EST on Fri Sep 30, 2005 #
timault, these issues have more to do with republican/democrat partisan politics than they do with truly reforming the system.
Other states use similar methods as Ohio, but you don't see such ballot initiatives there - only here. Why? Because the democrats think they can change election outcomes by changing our system and they're taking advantage of the current state-wide scandals including republicans to push for the change. (politically very good strategy, by the way)
True election reform would not be a teeter-totter, going from one extreme to the other, which is what these initiatives do. And they'd be more focused on evening the playing field in terms of contributions rather than allowing one player (unions) to follow different rules than the others (corporate PACs and Individuals).
I don't think the Republicans don't want to change things just because they're in charge - I just think they don't want THIS version and they don't want it as a constitutional amendment - these things can all be done through the legislature by changing the laws.
Aye - but there's the rub - they can't change the laws if they can't get elected - they can't elected (they claim) because the system works against them - therefore, change the system...never mind that their ideas and positions may have been rejected by the voters....and how to change the system? Don't be completely honest when getting signatures to put the issues on the ballot and then confuse people as much as you can with slogans and key phrases like do you believe in taking big money out of campaigns? do you want to make it easier to vote by mail?
This whole thing has nothing to do with the best interests of the voters or Ohioans...it's all about the politics and who's in power.
posted by intrepid at 07:19 A.M. EST on Sat Oct 01, 2005 #
I have my biases, but they make this lot of alleged changes almost easy to deal with.
I well knew that the Democrats at Ohio's state level would try to take advantage of the exposure of wholesale Republican corruption to simply upgrade themselves to the latest pack of corruptors.
We need to get rid of Taft, Petro and Montgomery, but these positions will merely be filled with Ohio Democrats who have largely condoned the mal-investment scams that are coming to light. So getting rid of Petro Right will only result in placing Petro Left. An essential element of corruption will remain.
The electoral system has obvious problems, but making pro-Democrat (even anti-Republican) changes are NOT the answers.
In fact, replacing elected politician-based gerrymandering with appointed politician-based gerrymandering is not a useful change whatsoever. The only redrawing of rep districts that carries any validity whatsoever is one done by an open-sourced computer program. When will this solution ever be invoked in America? Oh, yeah, that's right: NEVER.
Ohioans clearly sat there on their hands while their Secretary of State sat BOTH in judge of electoral matters AND as the Republican campaign chair. This is such an appalling conflict of interest that I can only wave my arms in frustration ... but Ohioans WANT it this way. Literally, the dual-role compromise of this man Blackwell's position simply hasn't even fluttered an eyelash in the body politic.
So, what will procedural changes really do about that? Procedures can't get around an overall lack of moral behavior by the officials involved. If it won't be Blackwell, it'll be 9 guys who golf with Blackwell. You just can't legislate morality. Until the people of Ohio vote better men into office in the first place, nothing will change.
The www.protectyourvote.org site is a fine example of the hammer-and-anvil effect for Ohioans. ("Out of state liberal special-interests"? Is this website actually aimed at adults?) If you're not being squeezed by hyper-corrupt Republicans, you're being targeted by sleazy-slimy Democrats. The assault upon the common Ohioan is simply never-ending ... since said Ohioan refuses to identify that his entire political system is completely corrupt and that continued party-line voting is only going to worsen matters by a large amount.
Until I hear some stronger arguments, there's nearly no point in voting YES on issues 2-5 for me. They are aimed at making procedural changes that will have ZERO effect on making Ohio a better place for the common man. Shifting power from one corrupt or immoral politician to another is not a solution at all.
posted by GuestZero at 06:01 A.M. EST on Sun Oct 02, 2005 #
You just can't legislate morality. Until the people of Ohio vote better men into office in the first place, nothing will change.
Well said, GZ!!!!!
posted by intrepid at 05:16 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 02, 2005 #
Oct 4 Blade story:
"Toledo City Council has political manpower to spare. Steve Fought, assistant clerk of council, went on leave Sept. 26 to be a communications consultant with the group Reform Ohio Now. Mr. Fought is paid $62,504. [He's] not being paid by council while on leave. Mr. Fought said he couldn't turn down the chance to be part of something historic and said he hopes he can return to his council job after the election."
posted by jr at 08:37 A.M. EST on Tue Oct 04, 2005 #
For whatever it's worth, it turns out that Steve Fought, during at least 2002, was Marcy Kaptur's legislative director. I found some old articles online while I was researching the legislative redistricting hearings from 2002, and just happened to come across a few of his quotes in articles both on and off topic with his title "Marcy Kaptur's legislative director" behind his comments.
Does anyone know how I can get hearing journals prior to year 2003. Online, 2003 is the earliest, and I am very interested in reading 2002 journals on this topic.
posted by alexandra at 01:24 P.M. EST on Tue Oct 04, 2005 #
~ Some Interesting News Quotes ~
RE: Issue 2
“Issue 2 would make absentee voting easier, but only at the cost of creating other, larger problems”
The Plain Dealer, Columnist Kevin O'Brien, Wednesday, October 19, 2005
RE: Issue 3
“Tipping the scales in favor of usual Democratic contributors is a naked partisan ploy, and presenting this as a lasting solution to corruption is just hogwash.”
The Plain Dealer, Columnist Kevin O'Brien, Wednesday, October 19, 2005
RE: Issue 4
“…at least you can argue with an elected politician at the ballot box. Where do you go to argue with an unelected mathematician?”
The Plain Dealer, Columnist Kevin O'Brien, Wednesday, October 19, 2005
RE: Issue 5
“If you don’t like the secretary of state, you can vote against him every four years. If you don’t like a nine-member appointed panel, though.” (the last word should be "tough" - it was a misprint)
The Plain Dealer, Columnist Kevin O'Brien, Wednesday, October 19, 2005
posted by alexandra at 09:47 A.M. EST on Wed Oct 19, 2005 #
Senate adjusts absentee balloting: http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/112971448893510.xml&coll=2
Schwarzenegger backs Issue 4: http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/1019arnold.html
Arnold’s stand on Ohio reform makes big point: http://www.daytondailynews.com/opinion/content/opinion/daily/1019arnold.html?UrAuth=aNaNUObN]UbTTUWUXUTUZTZU^UWU_U]UZUaU]UcTYWYWZV
COSE announces opposition to Issue 3: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/10-19-2005/0004172754&EDATE=
State Issue 2 proposes election reform: http://www.peoplesdefender.com/main.asp?SectionID=3&SubSectionID=3&ArticleID=122523
posted by alexandra at 11:59 A.M. EST on Wed Oct 19, 2005 #
Blade story about Frank Szollosi:
"[Frank] spends much of an interview talking not about his City Council run, but about the possibility he may run for a state office next year."
Is that why Frank is campaigning so heavily for Reform Ohio Now? He's trying to make it easier for him to get elected.
From the RON site:
"Call the Reform Ohio Now field manager in your area to find out where you can pick up yard signs. (These are also the folks to contact for any other questions about volunteering, phone banks, flyering, or any of the other volunteer activities going on in your neck of the woods.)"
"In Northern Ohio
Frank Szollosi
Field Manager - Northwest Ohio"
alexandra said about issue 3 in RON: "Issue 3 concerns me because it allows unions and 527s to hide their activity and divert undisclosed membership dues to campaigns while halting the political activity of businesses entitled to an equal voice in the political process. It limits the amount an individual or business can give against a union (1 to 20!)"
intrepid said: "I'd be more willing to support this issue if the same limits on contributions applied to the unions supporting the measure."
lloyd said: "It's humerous on how they want to limit corporate contributions...but open loopholes for union contributions."
HeyHey asked: "For those who support this, how can you view #3 as being fair? How in the world is it right for unions to be able to give 20 TIMES as much money as an organization such as the Ohio State Medical Association?"
HeyHey said: "I think it's pretty obvious why unions are excluded from the limits. Those who will benefit the most from union donations are the exact same people that are pushing this amendment to be passed."
(As in Frank Szollosi.)
MARIELORA said: "it is totally unfair to allow UNIONS NO LIMIT...and...RESTRICT other ORGANIZATIONS contributions..."
HeyHey asked: "Are you saying unions should have more political pull than all these other organizations? How is that fair?"
lloyd said: "I think it’s an insult to our intellect for Reform Ohio Now to take power away from individuals and corporations but not from the unions. How dumb do they think we are, not to notice their intentional loopholes?"
Maybe I missed something, but I didn't see any answers to the questions and concerns about Issue 3 allowing unlimited campaign contributions by unions that historically support Democrats.
Steve Fought, assistant clerk of Toledo council who is violating the city's charter with his paid work for Reform Ohio Now, never answers the union question with Issue 3.
From the RON website, the list of organizations supporting Defraud Ohio Now. Here are a few:
Asbestos Workers local #84
Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers Local 16
Carpenters Local 639
Dayton Springfield Sydney Miami Valley AFL-CIO
IBEW Local 246 (Steubenville)
IBEW Local 673 (Lake County)
Laborers Local 894
Ironworkers Local 17
Ohio AFL-CIO
Ohio Education Association
Ohio Federation of Teachers
Painters Local 841
Teamsters Local 348
Tri-County Building and Construction Trades Council
Upper Ohio Valley Building and Construction Trades
Support from a couple of other groups:
League of Women Voters (Issues 2, 4)
Ohio Taxpayers Association (2, 4, 5)
Also from the Blade Szollosi story:
"The city councilman takes his pickup through a few quick turns to the Martin Luther King, Jr., Bridge - and stops short of a road crew at work. "Ta-da!" he says, waving a hand at the scene. "New roads." "
That damn bridge has been under some kind of repair or construction for at least four years now. It would have been quicker and maybe even cheaper to blow it up and build a new one. Will it ever again be fully open for more than a few weeks or months?
posted by jr at 11:06 A.M. EST on Thu Oct 27, 2005 #
After seeing the endorsments, I'll be voting NO to all of these.
posted by AmericanPie at 02:25 P.M. EST on Thu Oct 27, 2005 #
GUESTZERO'S VOTE GUIDE FOR THE NOV 2005 ELECTION: ISSUE 4
I intend to vote FOR issue 4, and here's why:
We've had gerrymandering for a long time. Since Ohio became a state in 1803, it's likely that gerrymandering has happened here for over 100 years, maybe over 150 years.
I'm willing to try another system for a while to see if the political environment will improve. And I do think the lack of turnover in the Congress is a problem.
It does worry me that an unelected commission will be in charge of the drawing of political districts. However, if the commission can be invoked with a ballot issue, then it can be REMOVED by the same. If the commission model is a failure, we can always remove it AS QUICKLY AS removing a bad politician via the electoral process, and the legislature will always be there to take up district-drawing duties again.
posted by GuestZero at 12:04 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
GZ - check the language - this isn't just a ballot initiative, it's a constitutional amendment. As such, it CANNOT be removed as easily as removing a bad politican via the electoral process.
This is my concern with the TABOR amendment as well...That amendment also sets the criteria for repeal - at a majority of REGISTERED voters - not just a majority of voters who actually vote. When was the last time that over 50% of registered voters actually voted????
Just check the language on repealing an amendment to the constitution before deciding it's as easy as voting in a new person 4 years later.
posted by intrepid at 07:56 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
Oct 28 Blade op-ed orders the public to vote NO on Issue 2.
"STATE Issue 2, the proposed "no-fault absentee voting" amendment to the Ohio Constitution, is one of those ideas with the best of intentions - increased voter turnout - but with the potential for the worst of outcomes - manipulated elections."
posted by jr at 08:51 A.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
Get your lasy ass out and vote. Don't cry about when it is or how cold it is. The day after Thanksgiving is the shopping day from hell, yet you're out there. The day after Christmas is the second day from hell, and YOU'RE out there. Airports are jammed packed with you babies.I could go on and on, but you get my drift, don't you?
posted by Judy at 12:47 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
Huh? Intrepid, please help me understand. We amend the state constitution with a ballot issue. Then we get a changed political procedure thereby.
{pause}
To REMOVE that procedure, it would require amending the state constitution again ... which is done with a ballot issue.
How is this any more difficult than the first ballot issue, or any ballot item like a candidate?
Of course, I'm assuming that amendments are done to the Ohio constitution like they are done to the national one. Changing an amendment is simply called ANOTHER amendment and there are no special procedures to follow.
posted by GuestZero at 02:27 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
Actually, GZ, that is not REQUIRED to be the case...in the current TABOR amendment supported by Blackwell and his group (Taxpayer Bill of Rights for those not up on the acronym), there is language in the amendment which requires that any attempt to repeal or replace the amendment have the majority support of registered voters - note: not the majority of voters on election day. So the normal rules we're all used to for constitutional amendments can be changed as part of the constitutional amendment.
This single provision is why many organizations are opposed to that particular amendment.
I'll be honest - I have not read 2,3,4,5 all the way through, so I do not know if buried somewhere in the language there is a provision similar to the one in the TABOR...but we cannot 'assume.'
So my point was that it is not ALWAYS easier to change the constitution than it is to vote out an elected official - and it is not ALWAYS the same process to change the constitution if the amendment we now want to repeal has included other provisions. Hence, my caution to make sure to check ALL the language before deciding.
posted by intrepid at 06:44 A.M. EST on Sun Oct 30, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
