Arnold Schwarzenegger received $10k from TOM NOE'S AMERICAN EXPRESS in political contributions! You have NO RIGHT to talk about how EVIL OUT OF STATE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE, you GOP SHILL!
COLUMBUS — Tom Noe used his American Express credit card from Thomas Noe, Inc. — the same entity he’s accused of using as a vehicle to steal millions of dollars from Ohio’s rare-coin funds — to contribute $10,000 to California’s governor.
posted by anonymouscoward at 02:21 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
With all due respect, AC, what do Noe's contributions to a california governor candidate have to do with out of state money working to change OUR state constitution?
Further, primarily just to rile you, Noe's not been PROVEN guilty of anything - it may even turn out that the money he gave to Arnold was actually his own money and not from the BWC...this is just as likely as not.
And...pots shouldn't call kettles black..."shill"
posted by intrepid at 02:34 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
I'm not affiliated with the Democratic party, and I will not vote in a primary in this state due to the fact that doing so forces me to register a party preference.
And before you whip out that pot-kettle-black stuff on me, that was my point. You lose the right to complain about out of state money influencing politics in Ohio when your own prominent GOP donor (who apparently has trouble keeping personal finances separate from state money he got to manage) gives money to politicians in California.
In other words, shut up, you bloody hypocrites!
posted by anonymouscoward at 02:51 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
ac - back on topic. RON is collecting money from out of state 527s, non-profits, and rich democrats to support a movement to change our consitution. They want to band-aid corruption with more corruption. They are trying to fool us trying to get us to believe that they are OHIOANS wanting real reform. I want real reform - but I dont want the be given crutches at the mercy of labor unions, and i don't want my grandmother to vote from her grave. How are you not outraged?
I really don't think you can parallel the two instances, or compare all "GOP'ers" to the accused (not conviced) GOP doner. But I will take your comment for what it is worth. But, keep in mind - one of the RON ammendments will allow unions and 527s to donate higher amounts without disclosing them to anyone. At least the money to the Governator was disclosed. Whether or not it was funnled from BWC funds is still questionable. Where do you get off declaring guilt before trial and conviction?
Listen, I am outraged at your venom and lack of spitfire about non-Ohioans trying to rewrite our constitution. When Reform Ohio now is all done sweeping up their spoils in our state because of the lack of initiative from people like you to investigate and weigh out all sides, maybe then I will go ahead and start a 527 and see if I can't move for making gay marriage illegal in Massachusetts. And I think it is really stupid that Michigan wants to limit the raising of gas prices to once a week. It is really bad for them, and Michigan does not realize how the gas prices will be cushioned to make up for that silly rule - so I will just help them out. Also, I think that people in New Hampshire are misguided, and might want to consider changing their state moto from Live Free or Die to something a little bit more positive.... (just kidding, but fun fun nonetheless!)
Now you shut up for a minute :)
posted by alexandra at 03:35 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
Where do you get off declaring guilt before trial and conviction?
Ahem. Did I ever declare that he gave the Governator state money? I don't think so. I did note that Noe has problems keeping his finances separate (as shown by the state AG with the checks transferring money in a series of steps to pay for the house). I didn't say he was guilty of money laundering and illegal use of state funds.
In the meantime, you can get as P.O.ed as you want about out of state money and groups playing politics and trying to mess with the state consituttion... and I'm SO sure you'd feel the same way if it was ultraconservative groups from outside Ohio backing causes YOU support.
In the meantime, it's legal. Tough. Deal with it. Don't cry because you missed the loophole... and didn't hear about such things happening until now (as I'm sure some outside-Ohio money must've come in on the anti-gay-marriage admendment).
If you are SO UPSET about non-Ohioans messing with our state constitution, then get your little butt down to the Board of Elections on Monday and start a petition to put an issue on the next ballot to make it illegal. You have that power. If you're too LAZY or not P.O.ed enough to do it, then please drink a big tall glass of shut-up juice. :)
posted by anonymouscoward at 08:52 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
Oops, I thought this was the topic about the fall colors, but instead it's a highly intellectual, sensible, and civil debate about an issue that is on the minds of every American.
posted by jr at 11:03 P.M. EST on Fri Oct 28, 2005 #
I think this one comment from the Blade article says it best:
"Party bosses, regardless of the party, are still party bosses," she said. "They don't want change. This is about good government reform, straight up the middle, that benefits people, not politicians, and that's politicians of either party."
This also shows the inequity in money collected, 170 Republican contributers versus 3,000 Democrats. Yet we are going to concentrate on those "out of staters" funding something here in Ohio. So if that is the only issue then what does this really say?
You could look at it as Ohioans don't really care if the system changes or you could try to promote this as a reason to be against it. Or you could realize that RON promoted this online as a grassroots effort hence the numerous out of state donations. The fact that 3,000 Democrats donated disputes the theory that Move On was a major contributor. If Move On would have been? They wouldn't have needed to solicit funds from individuals.
AC's point can be turned to this dicussion, as it demonstrates this "out of state" donations happens on both sides of the aisle.
So what do we know? Move on was not a major contributor, and the Blade doesn't support the amendments. Neither do some of the Democrats because they like some Republicans? Don't want to lose their power. While I still don't agree with all of the amendments I find this whole situation interesting. Who will win? The parties with the money and power? Or the little guy? Typically we know what will happen. The amendments will be defeated, the Republicans will still hold power and at the next census if they still have power they will gain even more power and people will bitch. They'll forget they had the chance to change how the system worked. Or let's say it reverses and the Democrats take control, people will bitch and forget they had the chance to change how the system works.
Irony at it's finest...
posted by psyche777 at 11:45 A.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
As long as the media inform us all about the fund sources of these organizations, I can't fault anything that happens after that. I'm more informed. I can make better choices thereby, right?
Still, if out-of-staters propose changing Ohio's constitution, isn't it prudent for me to evaluate also their proposals? Don't I have recourse to the ballot box to put a stop to it all if I deem it inappropriate?
It never ceases to amaze me when Democrats and Republicans are the biggest screechers against democracy when they don't like the proposals being put on the ballot.
Things like the Lake School district exercies of "democracy" do annoy me, since continual running of the same/similar failed issues on ballots only demonstrate that there is an elite who is dead set against the will of the people. But I cannot deny the mechanism of ballot placements.
Let the elite load up ballots with issues. We The People can choose thereafter, and that's a fundamental point about democracy.
Disclosure: I'm probably going to vote NO on issues 1 and 2, and probably YES on 4. I'm still investigating info and opinions on 3 and 5. Of course, issue 37 (TPS funding) earned a NO from me years ago. If I got into an accident that cost me my legs, I'd CRAWL to the polling place to vote NO on issue 37. If I lost my arms and legs, I'd WRIGGLE there to do it.
posted by GuestZero at 12:06 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
Guest Zero:
Thanks for the best laugh of the day ("...I'd WRIGGLE there to do it.")
I appreciate the spirit behind RON, but I am not convinced that we are necessarily better off buying the whole package.
I think that the cash limitations do not go far enough, and the convenient "oversight" of unions and union PACS tilts this amendment package to far away from the right to get enough fair-minded GOP types on board.
If we were serious about reform, we would drop individual contributions down to, say, $50, and PAC money down to $1,000. As it stands, the financial "reforms" are more like Band-Aids.
Putting a non-partisan state commission in greater charge of the county election boards is an improvement, but it does create another layer of $tate bureaucracy. Why not eliminate county boards altogether, and make this a state operation, like most of the rest of the country? The idea that the 2004 national election may have ultimately come down to the Lucas County board, featuring the likes of Bernadette Noe, Paula Ross, Paula Hicks-Hudson, and Joe Kidd, is a scary notion.
#4 seems like an intelligent amendment; the parties have been playing gerrymandering games with districts every ten years, and the redistricting process has degenerated into little more than a thinly-disguised exercise in reinforcing the majority party power.
Too much potential for abuse with #2.
Issue 1: let's see - they want me to send more of my overtaxed income to Columbus for legislators to play with? Sorry, gotta pass on that one.
posted by historymike at 12:51 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
I think 2 has some merit, I do believe people should have the desire that GZ has, but it's obvious alot of people don't vote. Will this address the apathy that exists? I'm not sure. I think alot of them use the excuse that they could not get out to vote because they really didn't care enough to vote. This would however make them have to either put up or shut up.
3? If they would have left the bit out about unions being able to donate more I would have supported it.
4? I support for the reasons Mike stated.
5? Still undecided on.
posted by psyche777 at 01:44 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
Here's some interesting details via Tim Tagaris
Average contribution amount to Ohio First: $12,941
Average contribution to Reform Ohio Now: $545
Total contributions to Reform Ohio Now: 3,300
Total contributors to Ohio First: 170
Amount of $ Contributed by George Soros: $0
Amount of times Republicans have linked George Soros to RON: Countless
% of Ohioans that favor State Issue #4: 43.5%
% of the vote received by George Bush in 2004: 51%
% of the vote received by John Kerry in 2004: 49%
Closest Congressional Election in 2004: 18% victory for Michael Oxley
Congressional delegation Breakdown: 12 Republicans - 6 Democrats (66% Republican)
Number of provisional ballots cast in 2004: ~250,000
Jack Abramoff's best friend in Congress Represents: OH-18
In the interest of full disclosure Tim is involved in the Reform Ohio Now campaign...
posted by psyche777 at 09:19 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
Average contribution amount to Ohio First: $12,941
Average contribution to Reform Ohio Now: $545
Total contributions to Reform Ohio Now: 3,300
Total contributors to Ohio First: 170
That says a lot right there.
http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/CurrentElection.aspx
Note that the arguments and explanations AGAINST Issues 2-5 are UNSIGNED... this was done INTENTIONALLY by Republicans including election thrower Ken Blackwell.
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/education/12737399.htm
Two Republican state reps and a lobbyist wrote the arguments, and were too afraid to sign their names to them.
posted by anonymouscoward at 09:33 P.M. EST on Sat Oct 29, 2005 #
Is it my imagination or did I see an "Alexandra" on a local TV channel newcast, at Republican party headquarters, pushing opposition to RON? I barely got a glimpse of "Alexandra"s last name, something like Hartle. I'm not too sure about the last name but I am positive about the first. In the interest of full disclusure, of course.
posted by holland at 06:43 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 30, 2005 #
No, it is not your imagination. I signed up to volunteer for Ohio First (a link I provided on a previous topic) and unlike Steve Fought, I am a volunteer, and am not collecting a paycheck. I feel I thoroughly did my homework and feel very strongly against these issues. I have been volunteering now for about 2 weeks - and I feel great working at a cause I feel so strongly about. I don't really think it has been any secret that I totally am against Reform Ohio Now. They of course took my worst line, but, heh, I really have no formal media experience.
posted by alexandra at 06:58 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 30, 2005 #
Alexandra...keep up the good work. If enough of us keep pounding away, perhaps people will see the charade of "reform" being pushed by R.O.N.
Did you happen to see the Blade editorial on Saturday? On Friday, upon reading the Blade's "NO" endorsement on Issue 2, I predicted on my radio show that it was a token "Voinovich" endorsement, so they could make a claim of non-partisanship when they endorsed a "YES" vote on 3, 4, and 5. It's the same thing they do in every election...endorse a token Republican or two like Voinovich, to appear unbiased...then push like hell for the Democrats who can advance their agenda in every other race.
And to the surprise of absolutely no one, that's exactly what they did. They endorsed "YES" on 3, 4, and 5.
It will take a gallant effort on the part of everyone who believes in fair elections in this state to stem the tide and defeat this crucial amendments on all 4 issues. Keep up the fight.
posted by BFrantz at 09:35 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 30, 2005 #
Commenting on earlier posts from psyche and ac re: contributions....of the 3,300 donations for RON, I am curious how many of them are "repeat" customers since their supporters page is definitely not 3,300 supporters long.
Thanks Bob, I did notice that the blade spoke out against Issue 2. What's funny is, I think the only reason they did endorse against issue two (the safest token for non-partisanship) is because the Ohio Senate already passed no fault absentee voting. The OH senate legislation (if I read correctly) requires identification (which hopefully will prevent dead people from voting and people voting under other names...)
Bob, I did not catch yet that they have supported 3, 4 and 5, but I figured it was coming. I will have to go and read - thanks for bringing that up.
I go back to my origional point. I want Ohioan's reforming Ohio, and our elected officials are working at it. I don't trust the out of state contributions of special interest groups.
posted by alexandra at 09:54 P.M. EST on Sun Oct 30, 2005 #
Here's the link, Alexandra:
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051030/OPINION02/510300315/-1/OPINION
So freaking typical.
posted by BFrantz at 04:51 A.M. EST on Mon Oct 31, 2005 #
Syndicate ToledoTalk
