CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 16
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 20
Total: 20

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

Another great event went down at the Worthington Library. We had a very good showing by CTH, and we pretty much dominated the conversation. I will write more later. SB

Yes indeed, the turn-out for the "By the People" discussion on issues 2-5 was terrific. The pro sided argument supplied generalizations like....issue 3 will get the big money out of politics and the con group "nailed " the details. like unions "bundling" $50 contributions in the new loop hole issue three would create via small donor action committees giving organized labor big money advantages.Good job folks.

Puger G. Calabalini

I think it's interesting that the most vociferous person on the "pro" side was a not-yet-old-enough-to-vote self-avowed Marxist.

That alone tells quite a bit about these ill-conceived issues.
 

Marc Schare should have been on that panel.

" Another great event went down at the Worthington Library. We had a very good showing by CTH, and we pretty much dominated the conversation. I will write more later. SB"

Yep, you dominated, without having read (or if you did read them you  missed some salient points) the issues and reciting the same litany you got from the Republican site.  Fortunately for you there weren't many people to witness the fiasco.

One could summarize what you all said:  we hate unions and these ammendments will result in a leveler playing field for the voters which will result in more Democrats being elected and we can't stand that...  30 minutes (nah 10 minutes) would have sufficed.


The Shadow  knows :ph34r:  

Actually Dr. Otto we don't want our elections bought off by out of state influences. It will be interesting to see who those from out of state are when the time comes. Once again it's time for you to pound sand.

Shadow:  You missed a promising career in journalism!  You saw the whole thing, and yet your "report" is so biased by your personal perspective that the truth isn't even recognizable! :lol:

I think you missed the point on the "unions", Shadow.... or maybe you just missed the parts in Amendment 3 that allow unions far more lattitude in contributing money on behalf of their un-named members, to what appears to be a limitless number of small donor groups.

Sounds like the unions get to play on an even "leveler" playing field than the rest of us? :blink:  

Fettuccini II

You all do not want to admit that ANY group can set up that type of committee. In fact the Realtor's PAC folks mentioned (in a Dispatch story yesterda) having to set up such a group.

The Shadow knows :ph34r:  

This is the ballot language that creates the Small Donor Action Committee:

Define a “small donor action committee” as a PAC that receives contributions only from individuals of no more than $50 per year per contributor, except that a non-profit membership organization may contribute funds from regular membership dues of its members to small donor action committees that it establishes or are established by a non-profit membership organization with which it is a member or affiliated, provided that no more than $50 per year per member may be contributed.

Surely, no one is comparing the ability of realtors to form this type of PAC with the ability of a union to form this type of PAC. The unions already have this structure in place, all work for the same type of employer, are all having dues deducted from pay and on and on.

Shadow, we need to have an intellectually honest discussion on the subject. The ONLY reason why this language is in the amendment is that it helps democrats and hurts Republicans. The ability of Democrats to raise money via unions and the ability of Republicans to raise money via corporations and large contributors have typically cancelled out. Issue 3 seeks to change that balance in the Democrats favor.

Here is an editorial I wrote on the subject.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Any petition-initiated ballot question that seeks to alter Ohio's constitution with regard to election law is usually designed to help one party and hurt the other because without such motivation, it would be impossible to raise the money to get the issue on the ballot in the first place.

State Issue 3, for example, is designed to limit campaign contributions from individuals, PACs and corporations who generally support Republican candidates while protecting and enhancing the ability of labor unions, who generally support Democratic candidates, to raise and contribute money to those individuals.

I am opposed to Issue 3 for the following reasons.

First, State Issue 3 would decrease accountability. Under the current system, any contribution to a statewide candidate is reported and available via the Secretary of State's Web site. Individuals and the media can check who contributed how much to which campaigns and voters can use that information as part of their decision making process. Under the guise of "reform," Issue 3 creates a new entity called a "Small Donor Action Committee," which can raise and contribute large sums of money from union membership dues and the people contributing that money do not have to be identified. In fact, union members making such contributions would be the only people in the state who are not required to have their donations individually identified. It is not surprising that some of the biggest proponents of Issue 3 are the labor unions.

Second, limits imposed by State Issue 3 would not apply to people who fund their own campaigns, and this would provide a huge advantage to rich candidates because their opponents would no longer be able to raise the funds to run a competitive race. In New York City, Republican Mayor Bloomberg has spent $46-million of his own money in his re-election campaign, dwarfing the campaign-finance limited amounts raised and spent by his Democratic opponent. State Issue 3 would result in more of these self-financed campaigns in our state.

Third, the last time we heard that we were going to get the money out of politics was in 2002 with the McCain-Feingold bill. That bill gave rise to the unprecedented amounts of unaccountable money that were funneled into the 2004 presidential election with the so-called 527 groups, such as moveon.org on the Democratic side and the Club for Growth on the Republican side. It is probable that such loopholes are lurking in the new constitutional language of State Issue 3.

The right answer to campaign finance reform is to remove all limits on contributions and spending but require full and immediate disclosure of both. If George Soros wants to contribute a million dollars to elect a Democratic governor in our state, he should have the right to do so, and I should have the right to know that he is doing so.

Big money will always find a way in politics. By voting yes on Issue 3, you guarantee that money enters the system in shadowy, untraceable ways that will obscure the political motivation behind the contribution. The current system is far from perfect, but if State Issue 3 is a cure for what ails Ohio politics, than this cure is probably worse than the disease.

 

To be honest, I hadn't really thought it through that far, Shadow.  

So to have the "advantage" of very unlimited contributions like unions, every other group needs to organize like them, secure dues like them, and convice the members that the organization will decide for them, which party/candidates to support? :huh:  

I'm sure I have just put my foot in my mouth somehow, Shadow, but what say you?

Toldeo Blade says NO to Issue 2.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artic...0310/-1/OPINION

Quoting from the article:

Something profoundly important is lost when citizens stop voting at the polls. Stepping into the voting booth is a personal and private act, a moment in time when each voter is free to make up his or her own mind without interference from anyone else. All the lobbying, all the campaigning, all the commercials are over. It is time to decide, and nobody else is privy to the decision that is made.

Citizenship should require a certain amount of effort by the citizens who profess to value it. Maybe for some people convenience trumps the overt act of going to the polls, but we would hate to see the precious privacy afforded at the neighborhood precinct diminished further.


 

I guess my question is why are unions so special that they deserve this?

We all have seen time & time again how the union representatives spent the retirement accounts of their (supposed) brothers who after the fact have nothing left to retire on. What a way to treat someone you call brother.

Union memberships are drastically down across the country and the teachers' unions are having a fit that they cannot get into the charter schools to liberalize the students. I understand there may possibly be some accountability issues within the charter schools, then again perhaps the unions who are so anxious to put their fingers into the charter schools must fix their own accountability issues before worrying about everyone else.