There has been a swift response by Congress to the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling on January 21.   Concerns focus on unregulated “big money” in politics leading to conflicts of interest and corruption.  Corporations, Unions and contractors can now directly fund advertising calling for the election or defeat of federal and state candidates.   Additionally there is much discussion of foreign owned corporations, and those with U.S. subsidiaries, influencing American elections. To understand the effects of the United Citizens decision, see Wilson Huhn’s post here.

A recent report by the Congressional Research Service advises Congress on ways it can respond to the decision.  Here are the options for Congress.

1.  Maintain the Status Quo by doing nothing.  This allows the court’s decision to stand. 

2.  Amend the United States Constitution to permit Congress to regulate campaign finance.  Two Constitutional amendments have been proposed so far.    The bills below are linked to the text of the legislation, bill summaries and status in the Thomas database (Library of Congress web site).
H.J. Res.  13 (sponsor Kaptur) proposes a Constitutional Amendment that gives Congress and the states the power to set limits on campaign contributions and expenditures.           
H.J. Res. 68 (sponsor  Boswell) would amend the Constitution to prohibit corporations or labor organizations from using operating funds from their general treasuries to pay for campaign advertising.      
See Wilson Huhn’s post for a list of what Congress currently cannot do under the U.S. Constitution. 

3.  Enact Public Campaign Financing.  Public financing offers matching funds to cover campaign costs.  In exchange for using public campaign funds the candidates agree to limit their private fundraising.  It has been in place since 1976 for Presidential campaigns and about 16 states offer public financing for state elections.  Under current law, there is no public financing available for House or Senate elections.   Since January 21, four pieces of legislation has been proposed to strengthen public campaign financing and to make it available for House and Senate candidates. 
H.R. 158 (sponsor Obey)- amends law to allow public financing for House elections. 
H.R. 1826 (sponsor Larson)- amends law to allow public financing for House elections, and much more.  It is a fairly comprehensive bill.  
H.R. 2056 (Tierney) – amends law to allow public financing for House elections and creates a Clean Elections Review Commission. 
S. 752 (Durbin)- amends law to allow public financing for Senate elections.  

 4.  Restrict Election Spending by Foreign Corporations.  Congress may amend current law to restrict U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations or add restrictions on Political Action Committees (PAC) of foreign owned corporations.  The House and Senate have been very busy proposing legislation in this category.
H.R. 3859 (sponsor Kaptur)- restricts PACs of foreign entities from making expenditures or contributions in federal elections. The following bills restrict political contributions and expenditures by foreign entities:
H.R. 4517 (sponsor Hall)  
H.R. 4522 (sponsor Pascrell)   
H.R. 4523 (sponsor Perriello)
H.R. 4540 (sponsor DeLauro)
S. 2954 (sponsor Menendez)   
S. 2959 (sponsor Franken) 

5.  Restrictions on Corporations with Government Contracts and Lobbyists
H.R. 4434 (sponsor Grayson)   Prohibit corporations receive government contracts from making political contributions and limit the amount of political donations from employees of these corporations.
H.R. 4511 (sponsor Grayson)  Proposing restrictions on political advertising by companies that employ lobbyists. 

6.  Give Shareholders additional voice in corporations’ political spending.  This can be accomplished by either requiring corporations to get shareholder’s permission before engaging in political spending or require corporations to provide advance notice of political expenditures.  The intent here is to increase the likelihood that corporations’ political spending will be consistent with a majority of the shareholders.
H.R. 4487 (sponsor Grayson)  This bill requires the approval of a majority of shareholders for any corporate expenditure to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company’s products or services.
H.R. 4537 (sponsor Capuano)   Requires the express authorization of a majority of shareholders of a public company for certain political expenditures. 
H.R. 4527 (sponsor Driehaus)  Requires corporate and union backed campaign advertising to identify the sponsors in the advertisement itself as it is now for candidates’ committees.

Read the entire report here –  Campaign Finance Policy after Citizens United: Issues and Options for Congress (published Feb. 1, 2010); By R. Sam Garrett. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Related Links

Hearing on the First Amendment and Campaign Finance Reform after Citizens United, held on Feb.  3   

House Committee on House Administration, Summary of the Feb. 3 hearing   

Summary of Citizens United Legislation (proposed in the House)  (H.R. 1826)  

Republican Study Committee, Policy Brief: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission   

Democrats’ response

Campaign Finance: Potential Legislative and Policy Issues for the 111^th Congress (published a year ago on Jan. 29, 2009, before Citizens United); By R. Sam Garrett.

Last week I posted information on how to track corporate election contributions under federal election law.  This week I will show you where to find campaign contributions for Ohio elections.

States regulate campaign finance three ways: disclosure, contribution limits and public financing.   All states require some level of disclosure on the amount and source of contributions and expenditures.  Until recently, states could limit the amount and source of campaign contributions which included corporate giving.  Several states offer public financing to candidates or political parties.  There are limits and regulations associated with public financing and the grants only cover a small portion of the campaign costs.  Source. 

State Election Contribution Limits

Contribution limits can take the form of:  who can receive contributions (candidates, political parties and political action committees), who can contribute (i.e., no unions or corporations), when contributions are permitted (i.e., not permitted during legislative session), and the amount of contribution.   As of January 25, 2010, there are 24 states that prohibit or restrict corporate or union contributions for candidates.  Ohio is one of those 24 states.   See chart.  Ohio corporate campaign laws are listed at the bottom of this post. 

“It is important to note that the Citizens United v. FEC decision does not strike down bans on corporate and union contributions to candidates, which currently exist in 23 states. Only the ban on direct corporate and union spending on campaign advertising is addressed by this decision.”  Source.

How to Find Political Contributions in Ohio

The Ohio Secretary of State supervises the administration of election laws and compiles campaign finance reports and statistics. 

For campaign disclosure information for past elections, begin here.  There are two ways to search Ohio’s campaign finance data. 

1. Use the Search Candidates and Committees link to access the Campaign Finance Query System.  This is the easiest method.  The tabs along the top allow users to search by candidate, political parties, Political Action Committees (PACs), and county political parties.  Choose your tab and then at the next screen pick contributions or expenditures.  You can search by name of candidate, contributor, city, zip code, amount of money, etc.  The results of the search can be viewed in the browser, printed or downloaded. 

 For a sample search I looked for contributors to the gubernatorial election 0f 2006, enter:

City =AKRON (enter any city using all capital letters) or use the zip code search box.

Report Type = pre-general  (for before the general election.  Can also search for primaries, special elections, annual, or monthly data).

Office = governor  (state elected officials, elected judges and retirement board elections are available).

Order by= I chose YEAR and DESCENDING so that the chart will display the latest election first.  Other options to sort by are contributor’s name, address, amount of money, committee name, etc.

Output Format = HTML, EXCEL or ASCII.  I chose HTML so that it displays in the browser.  The Excel option allows you to save the spreadsheet to your computer.

Run Report = click the Run Report button to generate the table.

The web site is slow so be patient.  The resulting chart lists individual and PACs contributions to the various candidates that ran for governor.  2006 data is displayed first. Click NEXT at the bottom of the chart to go to the next page.

There are other parameters to use for your search.  You may wish to narrow your search by year, or by amount of money, or by a candidate’s name.  To catch the last Presidential election, you can narrow the years using a BEGIN date of 01/01/2006 and the END date of 12/31/2008.

Conducting a similar search under the Political Action Committee (PAC) tab produces a list of contributors to each PAC.  The PACs listed include insurance companies, unions, banks, law firms, corporations, professional associations and public interest groups.  In summary, searching by PAC tells you who contributed to the PAC, and searching by candidate tells you which PACs supported what candidate. 

 2.   The second way to obtain campaign finance data is to use the Download Common Reports Via FTP.  For this method “the most commonly requested campaign finance data have already been queried and placed in a downloadable file.”  The file can be opened in many spreadsheet or database programs.  The choices are organized by contributions or expenditures for candidates, political parties or PACs.   Some of the data goes back to 1994!  I downloaded a few of the files and opened them in Excel.  It wasn’t that difficult.

Also under this option is a list of active candidates and an Active PAC List, both dated Jan. 28, 2010.  I searched for someone who is rumored to be a candidate but they were not listed, which may indicate a slight time lag between filing as a candidate to making it to the list on the web site.  The OHIO PAC list has over 1000 entities listed!

~~~~~~~~~~~

NOTE: Ohio’s election law R.C. 3517.103 was already declared unconstitutional by a state court case in August 2009!

See the Personal Funds Statute Warning  more here.

~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Ohio Corporate Contribution Laws

Below are the existing Ohio laws.  Look for changes in these laws in the future due to the recent U.S. Supreme Court Case.

No corporation, no nonprofit corporation, and no labor organization, directly or indirectly, shall pay or use, or offer, advise, consent, or agree to pay or use, the organization’s money or property for or in aid of or opposition to a political party, a candidate for election or nomination to public office, a political action committee including a political action committee of the corporation or labor organization, a legislative campaign fund, or any organization that supports or opposes any such candidate, or for any partisan political purpose.  §3599.03

No person shall make, during the thirty days preceding a primary election or during the thirty days preceding a general election, any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate using any contributions received from a corporation or labor organization.  §3517.1011(H)

Other Useful Links

National Conference of State Legislatures- Elections and Campaigns

National Conference of State Legislatures-  contributions limits with links to charts.  

Campaign Finance Legislation Database.  Search by states, topics related to campaign finance and year.  You can search for 2010 to find current changes in state election laws, but only some of the state legislatures are in session right now.  Many state elections laws will be affected by the Supreme Court opinion and will need to be brought into compliance with the ruling. 

Election Law @ Moritz web site and blogs sponsored by Ohio State University.  

Brookings Institute, on Campaign Finance.

I think not.

The recent Supreme Court decision, Citizens United v. FEC, deals with corporations, unions and other groups contributing to independent campaign advertising.  This case is discussed by others in this blog.     

Related to this case, did you know that campaign contributions are made publically available by the Federal Election Commission?  You can find out who contributed, how much to what candidate.   With a few extra steps you can trace it back to a corporation.  Instructions on how to find this information follows.

 Individuals’ Contributions

We will fist look at searching for individual contributions because it is rather easy.  Find out who contributed in the last political campaign and how much was donated to each candidate.  The Federal Election Commission web site provides this data and is easy to search.

Contributions to the 2008 Presidential Campaign are available here.  Search by donor’s name, by city or zip code.  When searching by name, enter the last name in the search box, then a comma, and then the first name.  So to search for the Ohio Governor’s contributions, the search would look like this  -  strickland, ted.  Try searching for celebrities or your own name!

Search here to find out how much an individual donated over several campaigns.

Want community wide figures?

Click on Ohio on this map, and then holding your mouse over Akron (zip code 443xx), and it will show that $493,833 was donated by individuals in the last Presidential Campaign.  Hmmmm.  It looks like Kent (zip 442xx) donated more ($691,349)!

To get data broken down for Akron, at the Presidential Campaign Finance page, click the down arrow and select to search by city.  Searching “Akron” generates a chart of people who live in Akron, how much they donated and to which candidate.  After a chart is displayed, columns can be sorted so try sorting the displayed chart by state, zip code or candidate’s name.  (There are other communities called Akron in the country so sort by state to get Akron, Ohio data grouped together.)

Corporation Contributions

Now for the fun part but not an easy search in this database!  First, you can search by Political Action Committees (PAC) or other political group/party (i.e., Green Party) by starting here.  Select the 2007-2008 election cycle.  Then search by your candidate’s last name.  At the next screen, click on your candidate’s name and then click on the Non-Party (PACs) link.   See how much money was donated by the unions, professional associations and PACs.  Some corporations form a PAC and donate that way.  So for instance, Goodyear’s PAC is called Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company Good Government Fund.

Next, in the list of Committees who gave to the candidate, click on the name of the PAC you are interested in.  I chose the National Rifle Association (NRA).  Click on the Contributions Received link.  Sometimes in the list of contributors you will see corporate donors listed.  For my NRA example we see that Microsoft Corp. Political Action Committee donated money to the NRA PAC back in 2000.  (Why would Microsoft donate to the NRA?)  So a corporate PAC can donate to an association’s PAC who eventually contributes to a candidate. 

This is one way to find corporate contributions.  It is rather difficult and requires several steps.  There is an easier way! 

Another web site that tracks Political Action Committees is  OpenSecrets.org.     It is not a government site.  Find out which PAC corporations are donating to which candidates.   Search for the corporation in the search box in the upper right corner of the OpenSecrets.org web page.  Change the campaign cycle using the drop down arrow in the middle of the page.  Let’s change it to the 2008 campaign cycle and we’ll try searching Microsoft again.  You get charts of spending and list of candidates supported (click recipients).  The list of donors shows who contributed to the corporate PAC.   So if you want to make it difficult for others to see who you contribute to, donate to a corporate PAC who in turn donates to an association PAC, who then donates to a candidate! 

 Independent Groups’ contributions

The Campaign Finance Institute  tracks campaign contributions by outside groups.  The institute is a non-partisan, non-profit institute affiliated with The George Washington University.   Independent Expenditures in 2008 General Election are found here (columns can be sorted),   click here for interests groups, and here for general financing of the campaign.

See this Wall Street Journal article which explains the effect the Supreme Court ruling will have on independent group spending on future election campaigns.  Some of the largest independent groups that contributed to the 2008 General Election are the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents businesses ($36.4 million) and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Labor Union ($27 million).

The fundamental premise of the Court's decision in Citizens United v. FEC is that a corporation should have the same First Amendment rights to engage in political speech as any citizen, because a corporation is simply an "association of citizens" in the "corporate form." I think this is going to lead to the politicization of everyday economic life.

The Court's reasoning that corporate speech is simply the collective speech of individual citizens does ring true for certain non-profit, ideologically-oriented corporations, especially when they are membership-driven. When the NRA or the Sierra Club takes members' dues and uses that money to speak on political issues, they in a rough way are simply amplifying the voices of their members, even if an individual member disagrees with one policy or another advocated by the group. That person can always quit.

BUT I don't think that most stockholders in for-profit corporations think that those corporations represent the stockholders' political views. We expect that corporation to be an economic actor, to be interested in making money, and to be generally agnostic with regard to political matters. They are the subjects of government regulation, not the makers of government regulation. Yes, we understand that our bank probably has a lobbyist that advocates a position with regard to banking regulation, but they aren't representing us in any but the most attenuated way. I suppose there's a sense in which we expect the bank to favor regulation that allows them to make money in the long run, but that could lead them to either support or oppose any particular proposal, depending on their political ideology, and I doubt that many people choose their bank based on its political ideology and attitude towards regulation.

So we tend to think of our market decisions and our political advocacy in different ways. We buy the best or the cheapest pizza without regard to whether the founder of the company and its top executives ardently oppose abortion.  We buy stocks of promising corporations without regard to whether its board of directors believes that global warming is a hoax.

This is of course a false barrier, and always has been. And it has already been breaking down. Recently several companies resigned from the Chamber of Commerce because of its strong political stance in opposition to legislation aimed at climate change. In the last election cycle there were websites rating companies as "blue' or "red" based on the proportion of employee contributions given to one party or the other. Readers were encouraged to support those companies that reflected the readers' political allegiances.

SO NOW the Supreme Court has exposed the connection between our political and economic commitments, and cognitive dissonance is no longer sustainable. The Court is telling us that Wal-Mart's speech is our speech when it works to oppose fair pay rules. That the Teamsters' speech is our speech when it opposes trade agreements. That Citibank speaks for us when it fights against banking regulation.

I don't see how I can now avoid making political calculations with regard to my investments and purchases. No, I won't be able to be pure in my judgments, and yes my decisions surely will be incomplete and inconsistent.  But the Court's decision challenges those who disagree with certain aspects of free market ideology to step out of it. It tells us that our corporate associations are not only economic but political. It's on.

     The Minnesota Supreme Court decided in favor of Al Franken yesterday, declaring him the winner of the 2008 election for U.S. Senator in the State of Minnesota.  One of Norm Coleman's arguments was that the counting of the absentee ballots violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause under the case of Bush v. Gore (2000).   Here is a link to the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision, and a description of this aspect of the decision follows.

     At pages 20-22 of its opinion the Minnesota Supreme Court discusses Senator Coleman’s argument that the counting of the absentee ballots violated his rights under Bush v. Gore (2000). The Court distinguished Bush v. Gore for the following reasons:

     First, in Florida the question was how individual ballots should be interpreted – remember the “hanging chads” and “pregnant chads”? In Minnesota the issue revolved around the acceptance or rejection of sealed absentee ballots.  Election officials in Minnesota were not determining the subjective intent of the voter but rather whether the voter had complied with election law in filling out the absentee ballot envelope. Unlike the Florida election officials, Minnesota election officials had no way of knowing which candidate voters had cast their ballots for.

     Second, in Florida there had been no uniform legal standards for determining the intent of the voter, whereas in Minnesota there were clear statutory standards for the acceptance or rejection of absentee ballots. While there were local variations in the procedures that Minnesota election officials used to review the validity of absentee ballots, there was no variation in the actual standards that were applied. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that local election officials may use different methods for complying with statutory standards – election procedures necessarily vary from locality to locality depending upon available resources, personnel, and technology.

     I would note two other differences between Florida, 2000, and Minnesota, 2008.  In Bush v. Gore the Supreme Court interpreted Florida law as establishing a time limit for the counting of ballots, and time ran out on December 12, 2000.   In this case there was (as we all know) no time limit for the counting of ballots.  Finally, and most importantly, in a Presidential election Congress is free to reject the returns from any state and if no candidate receives a majority of the votes from the Electoral College the election is thrown into the House of Representatives.  If upon recount Florida had gone for Al Gore the Congress would not have accepted that result and the House, voting by states, would have installed George Bush as President anyway.  Al Gore eventually saw the handwriting on the wall and conceded.

I was a poll observer on election day. I saw:

One poll worker who called everybody "baby," as in: "Have you ever voted before, baby? Well, sweetie, you just fill out the bubble for the person you want, OK baby? But don't write anybody's name down there where it says 'write-in,' baby, because then you're voting twice. OK, baby?"

Lots of people who filled in the bubble and then also wrote in Obama and Biden. The machine spits out their ballot and they have to start all over with a new ballot.

One polite young man who had voted in the primary but was no longer on the rolls. We called the Board of Elections and they had canceled his registration due to a felony conviction on July 1. No notice, no opportunity to re-register. He is in fact eligible to vote as long as he is not incarcerated.

One Hispanic couple who didn't have any idea they had to register in advance. They couldn't vote.

Many people who were at the wrong precinct. I think we caught most of them because we had internet access at the library where this polling location was, and between my laptop and two other outside volunteers, we were able to find where people were supposed to go vote, rather than having them cast a provisional ballot at the wrong precinct, which would not have been valid.

One person who had no ID, only the last four digits of her Social Security number, which should have entitled her to vote provisionally. I had to rather firmly persuade the Presiding Poll Judge not to check the box that says she has to come back to confirm her identity within 10 days in order for her vote to count.

Poll workers very prone to just issue a provisional ballot at the drop of a hat–which are less likely to get counted, due to technical errors in filling out the required form.

A half-hour to 45-minute wait right when the polls opened at 6:30, but no lines at all at the usual rush time, 5 to 7:30 close. We were worried about turnout. The tentative summary currently shows that this precinct had 108 percent turnout, which can't be right.

Lots of first-time voters.

A friendly, helpful environment, even with the Republican observer there. (In Ohio, we have bipartisan rather than nonpartisan observers–I was appointed by Barack!)

Summit County's 57-40 margin and 45,000 vote edge contributed greatly to Ohio's 200,000 vote margin for Obama.

Presidential candidate John McCain said in last week's debate that ACORN, a group pushing to register over a million new voters this election cycle, "is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."  Wow.  Very strong words.  But is this really the case?  What kind of fraud are we talking about here?

The allegations seem to be that certain ACORN registration collectors, who were paid for each registration collected, filled in fictitious registrations in order to get paid more.  This is voter registration fraud.  Thus we get the the stories that Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys were newly registered to vote in Nevada this fall.  (After today's loss, the Cowboys MAY want to move to Nevada …)  But it's not an election fraud problem — that is, it has no potential to effect the election — unless Mickey Mouse and his friends show up to vote in November.

As Prof. Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School says, claims like McCain's are

hyperbole because there’s no good evidence that voter registration fraud leads to election fraud that changes elections. And it’s irresponsible because it gins up worries that the election is going to be stolen.

I think Prof. Hasen has it about right.

Now a word from our Irony Department.  The owner of Young Political Majors, a firm hired by the California GOP to sign up new voters, has been arrested on suspicion of voter registration fraud.  Mark Jacoby allegedly registered himself at a childhood address so that he would meet a requirement to gather signatures in California.  A warrant for Mr. Jacoby's arrest for voter registration fraud and perjury was also issued earlier this month by the L.A. D.A.'s office, arising out of charges that YPM allegedly tricked voters into registering as Republicans by saying they were signing a petition to toughen penalties against child molesters.  Sigh.

As a class project in my Election Law class, two of my students prepared a brief, nonpartisan "Elizabeth and Clarissa's Handy Dandy Summit County 2008 Election Guide." (I have changed their names to protect their anonymity.) They were dismayed to find how difficult it was to find information about various candidates and issues. They recommend such websites as Project Vote Smart, the League of Women Voters, the Summit County Board of Elections, and the Ohio Secretary of State. Their guide, with sources noted, is after the break.

The following is not a political advertisement, and nobody approved it.

Elizabeth and Clarissa's Handy Dandy Summit County 2008 Election Guide!

(Made in Association with Rock the Vote and Professor Lee's Election Law class)

Disclaimer: There are the issues according to our interpretation. All of our sources are listed. If you would like more information, you can look it up yourself. However, if you feel that we have blatantly misrepresented an issue or candidate . . . whine about it in your blog.

Happy voting!

Representatives

13^th District Court Congressional Representatives

David S. Potter

Bio:

• worked for Johnson and Johnson, Proctor and Gamble, and Cardiva Medical.

Issues:

• Supports Energy Independence – reducing our reliance on foreign oil, but using our own resources.
• Promotes exploration of alternative energy sources including nuclear power plants
• Will give tax breaks to companies using better energy sources.
• Increase efficiency of Medicare and Medicaid system, reducing government spending in these areas.
• Supports legislation to reduce illegal immigration and opposes any legislation that will offer more amnesty programs.
• Supports continuing the war on terrorism
• Supports increasing funding to intelligence agencies.
• Wants to widen I-71
• Implement Free Choice Flat Tax, Eliminate Death Tax and Capital Gains Tax
• Set single income tax rate at 17% for everyone. Information gathered at

Source: http://www.potterforcongress.com/issues.html

Betty Sutton

Bio:

• member of the House Rules Committee and the House Judiciary committee

Issues:

• Work toward keeping Oil prices down.
• Three part plan to revitalize the economy
  • Support Ethics regulations
  • Support Entreperneurial Innovation
  • Supports better education oppertunites
• Supports increasing veteran benefits.
• Dedicated to fighting corruption
• Would allow reimportation of drugs from Canada and other countries and supports legislation to set prices on prescription drugs.
• Supports protecting pension and retirement benefits, improving acess to health care and increasing the minimum wage.
• Supports legislation that would encourage small business.

Source:  http://www.bettysuttonforcongress.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={7B4FF5BC-F1CD-4EA2-953C-67E866D3C429

14^th District Congressional Representative

Steven C. Latourette

Bio:

• Served Seven Terms in the House of Representatives
• Graduated from the Cleveland Marshall College of Law

Issues:

• Support legislation to prohibit the funding of abortion and would allow abortions if the mother's life is in jeapordy
• Supports decreasing Taxes
• Eliminate Inheritance taxes
• Supports constitutional amendment that would define marriage at between a man and a women
• Supports increasing funding to the war on drugs
• Supports strengthening environmental control standards
• Supports Oil Drilling in Alaska
• Opposes time lines in Iraq
• Supports legislation to provide healthcare to the uninsured
• Help support legislation to fix Ohio roads.

Source: Information found at http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=21798

Bill O'Neill

Bio:

• Vietnam veteran
• Appellate judge until he ran for congress

Issues:

• Supports reducing the number of troops in Iraq and Increased veteran benefits
• Supports reducing imports from China until they meet labor and environmental regulations
• Supports expanding healthcare to all Americans and expanding Stem Cell research
• Opposes the No child Left behind act
• Supports increasing Pell Grants and Reducing Interest on Student loans.
• Supports reducing greenhouse gas emissions and clean energy standards.

Source: http://www.oneill08.com/homepage

David Macko

Issues:

• Never vote to institute a draft
• Never vote to increase taxes or regulations
• Promises to always support his constituents unless it violates the above principals

17^th District Congressional Representative

Duane v. Grassell

Bio:

• Math teacher

Issues:

• Supports balancing the budget and reducing the nations debt
• Supports imprisoning illegal immigrants living off welfare
• Opposes income tax
• Supports separating Medicare and Social Security from the general treasury, so that it can only pay out what goes into it
• Opposes funding for abortions and stem cell research
• Supports local government over federal government
• Opposes earmark legislation
• Opposes federal regulation of education – Supports State funded education
• Opposes any legislation that spends federal money to fight Global Warming
• Increase funding to the nation's intelligence agencies
• Supports reducing medical malpractice suits to drive down costs of healthcare

Source:  http://www.grassellforcongress.info/

Tim Ryan

Bio:

• Stuff

Issues:

• Supports eliminating public funding for abortions
• Supports increasing funding to public health services and universal healthcare
• Opposes the national missile defense program
• Supports campaign finance reform
• Supports measures to increase crime prevention and criminal rehabilitation
• Supports increasing funding to education programs
• Supports strengthening environmental regulations
• Supports improving the area through rivers, museums and amphitheaters

Source:  http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=45638

28th District State Senator

James R. Carr

• No Information available

Thomas C. Sawyer

Bio:

• Ohio House of Representatives 1977-1983
• Mayor of Akron 1984-1986

Issues:

• Voted ‘yes' on ‘Gambling Restrictions' Bill in 2007
• Voted ‘no' on ‘Lethal Force Against Intruders' Bill in 2008
• Voted ‘yes' on ‘Short Term Loans' Bill in 2008

Source: http://www.votesmart.org

Attorney General

Richard Corday

Bio:

• State Treasurer since 2006
• Previously worked in Attorney General's office
• University of Chicago Law School
• Clerked for 2 U.S. Supreme Court Justices

Issues:

• Wants to "enforce legal standards at charter schools that receive state funds."
• Advocates for stricter disclosure laws for lending companies when giving loans to students to pay for college.
• Target on prosecuting online predators, scam artists who target the elderly, white collar criminals.

Source:  www.cordrayforohio.com

Mike Crites

Bio:

• Former United States Attorney
• Vietnam veteran
• Ohio Northern School of Law
• Experience as a federal, state, and local prosecutor

Issues:

• Streamline procedures for consumer complaints against companies.
• Expanding new criminal justice technologies to help law enforcement.
• Restore credibility to the AG's office.

Source: www.critesforohio.com

Robert M. Owens

Bio:

• County Prosecutor
• Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge
• Capital University Law School

Issues:

• Opposes "overreaching bureaucratic regulation being imposed by government agencies on small businesses and government managed free trade agreements which favor large corporations and special interests over small businesses and consumers."
• Make more AG's office activities available online for the public to review.
• Eliminate the "slush fund" system at the AG's office
• Expand law enforcement training of conceal and carry laws.
• Supports the choice of parents to home-school children.
• Enforce legal restrictions on abortion according to ORC §2919
• Reduce judge activism

Source: www.owens2008.com

Justice for the Ohio Supreme Court

Maureen O'Connor

Bio:

• Magistrate in Summit County 1985-1993
• Summit county Prosecutor 1995-1999
• Lieutenant Governor 1999-2003
• Ohio Supreme Court Justice since 2003
• Cleveland-Marshall College of Law

Judicial Philosophy:

• Interpret the law as written, not based on personal beliefs
• Importance of Separation of Powers

Source: www.oconnorforjustice.com

Joseph D. Russo

Bio:

• Cuyahoga County Common Please Court Judge, 2001-present
• Case Western Reserve School of Law

Judicial Philosophy:

• Restore philosophical and political balance to the Supreme Court.
• Reduce the influence of cash contributions to judicial elections.

Source: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080928/NEWS09/809280322/-1/NEWS

Justice for the Ohio Supreme Court

Peter Sikora

Bio:

• Judge for the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
• President of the Ohio Association of Juvenile and Family court Judges
• Graduated from Case Western Reserve University of Law

Judicial philosophy/endorsements:

• Believes in protecting voter confidence by lessening favorable judicial decisions for large campaign contributors
• Supports increasing affordable legal help
• Recommended by the Ohio State Bar association
• Supports Scared Straight program for female offenders

Source: http://www.sikoraforjustice.com/About.html & http://www.lwvohio.org/pdf/LWVOEF%20Fall%202008%20Voter%20Guide.pdf

Evelyn Stratton

Bio:

• born to missionary parents in Bangkok Thailand
• Graduated from The Ohio State University College of Law

Judicial Philosophy/endorsements:

• Voted favorable to large campaign contributors 55%, and against 45%
• Encourages affordable legal help
• Led efforts to streamline appeals in adoption cases
• Helped form the Supreme Court of Ohio Advisory committee on Mental Illness – dedicated to mental health initiatives in the court system
• Won award for her leadership on behalf of abused and neglected children
• Supported by the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio

Source: http://www.strattonforsupremecourt.com/?page=about_justice_stratton &             http://www.lwvohio.org/pdf/LWVOEF%20Fall%202008%20Voter%20Guide.pdf

9^th District Court of Appeals Judge

Eve Belfance

Bio:

• Member of the Akron Human Society
• Member of the League of Women voters
• Helped develop the Akron Court's DUI Court.

Judicial Goal:

• Interested in ensuring public safety, securing neighborhoods and families, and a fair judicial system.

Source:  http://judgebelfance.com/home.aspx

William Wellemeyer

Bio:

• Graduated from the University of Akron School of Law
• Currently the assistant prosecuting attorney for the Summit County Prosecutor

Issues:

• Supports an impartial and restrained judiciary
• Member of the NRA and Sons of the American Legion
• Endorsed my May Taylor, CPA, Ohio Auditor of State

Source: http://wellemeyerforjudge.com/_wsn/page2.html

Summit County Executive

Jim Laria

Bio:

• Clerk of Akron Municipal Court since 1997
• University of Akron graduate
• Bailiff for Judge Spicer 1979-1980

Source: www.electjimlaria.com

Russ Pry

Bio:

• Summit County Executive since 2007
• Kent State graduate
• University of Akron School of Law graduate

Issues:

• Job creation as #1 priority
• Open-door policy of interaction between political groups and public interest groups.
• Stressed importance on regionalism, economic development, tax incentives.

Source: www.russpry.com

State Issues

State Issue #1 : Change deadline for submitting signatures on initiatives from 90 days pre-election to 125 days pre-election.

Pro:

1) "ISSUE 1 PREVENTS WASTE OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

In 2007, taxpayers paid more than $300,000 to advertise information about a ballot issue that ultimately did not qualify for the ballot.  Additional expenditures were incurred by local boards of elections to verify signatures.  Issue 1 helps prevent this wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars from occurring in the future by establishing firm deadlines for the administration of state ballot issues and resolving legal challenges.

2) "ISSUE 1 HELPS MAINTAIN VOTER CONFIDENCE IN ELECTIONS.

Only statewide issues that qualify for voter consideration should be printed on the

ballot.  During the last two general elections, however, litigation had not concluded at

the time ballots had to be printed so voters considered issues that were ultimately not

counted.  Issue 1's new deadlines helps maintain voter confidence in elections by

preventing this waste from occurring.

3) "ISSUE 1 PROMOTES EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE ELECTIONS.

Issue 1 establishes clear timelines for filing and reviewing statewide issues petitions, and for filing legal challenges to those petitions.  This helps ensure smoother and more

efficient elections."

Source: Ohio State Representatives Jon Peterson and Dan Stewart, the group appointed by the Ohio General Assembly to prepare the argument for Issue 1

(http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/1ArgFor.pdf).

Con:

1) "Issue #1 creates delays in new laws taking effect.

The Constitution reserves to the People the power to propose laws, amendments to the

constitution, and to approve or reject laws passed by the legislature.  Issue #1 creates earlier filing deadlines which can cause a referendum petition to effectively delay for months the effective date of a law passed by the legislature.  This is because the deadline for filing a referendum petition depends on when the law being referred to the voters was passed by the legislature.  If the deadline to file the petition is after the new proposed deadline in the Constitution, the law referred by the petition won't be able to be on the ballot until the next election, which could be over a year away.

2) "The immediate effect of the filing of a referendum petition is to stop the law from going into effect until voters decide the issue at the ballot.  State Issue #1 gives people with the money to circulate petitions for hundreds of thousands of signatures increased power over the state legislature to delay laws passed from going into effect for months or even more than a year.

3) "Issue #1 means More Expensive State Issue Campaigns.

The delays caused by Issue #1 can be expensive.  Putting the issues off so long may mean that large amounts of money will have to be spent to get the attention of voters.  Millions of dollars are already being spent for issues that are fresh in the voters' minds.  More money is likely to be spent to inform voters when the issue is stale.  With these powers reserved to the People, this proposed amendment makes it even more expensive and difficult for ordinary citizens to undertake the efforts to speak through the state initiative and referendum process."

Source: Prepared by the Ohio Ballot Board in the absence of any submission in opposition, as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 3505.063(B)

(http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/1ArgAgainst.pdf).

State Issue #2: Borrow $400 million for environmental conservation, preservation, and revitalization purposes.

Pro:

1) Voting YES for Issue #2 l "protects clean water, creates jobs, conserves natural habitat, preserves family farms and does not raise taxes.

Source: Ohio State Representative Barbara Sears, Ohio State Senators Mark Wagoner and Sue Morano, the group appointed by the Ohio General Assembly to prepare the argument for Issue 2 (http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/2ArgFor.pdf).

Con:

1) "Issue #2 Would Authorize the Government to Spend More in Bond Money.

The economy is in bad condition. When times are hard, this is when we must tighten our belts and spend only what is necessary and only what we can cover with incoming revenues. Issue #2 authorizes the government to take out more debts to pay for environmental revitalization and conservation. While this may be worthwhile, the State of Ohio should not be going into further debt.

2) "Passing Issue #2 Means Taxpayers Will Have to Pay Back These Bonds.

Issue #2 authorizes $400 Million Dollars in debt to be used for conservation purposes.  You and your children will have to pay this money back.  This money could be retained by taxpayers for their own purposes or used for other plans and directly helping people in need."

Source: Prepared by the Ohio Ballot Board in the absence of any submission in opposition, as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 3505.063(B)

(http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/2ArgAgainst.pdf).

State Issue #3: Creates constitutional amendment protecting property rights along with the passage of the Great Lakes Water Compact.

Pro:

1) Voting ‘yes' on Issue #3 "protects the private property rights of Ohioans, safeguards

Ohio's natural resources, and maintains the stability of Ohio's jobs and economy by

recognizing and protecting property interests in ground water, lakes and watercourses."

Source: Ohio State Senators Timothy J. Grendell and Capri Cafaro, the group appointed

by the Ohio General Assembly to prepare the argument for Issue 3

(http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/3ArgFor.pdf).

Con:

1) "Issue #3 is an unnecessary addition to the Ohio Constitution. 

The Supreme Court of Ohio already determined that private property owners have rights to the ground water underlying their land and to the watercourse flowing on and through their land.

2) "Issue # 3 makes changes to the Constitution so specific that they mention legal doctrines that are not contained in the Constitution.

What if those legal doctrines change by court rulings? Parts of our Constitution would no longer be relevant. That is not appropriate for our Constitution, which is supposed to be the voice of the People.

3) "Issue #3 does not give an accurate picture of a private property owner's rights.

Property owners do not actually own the water beneath their land.  They have a right to a reasonable use of that water, but the state always has the power to regulate how it is used and take it for just compensation.  Issue #3 gives private property owners the false sense of security that their land cannot be taken away at a later date.

4) "We do not know what the future will hold.

We should not limit ourselves by passing this amendment.

Source: Prepared by the Ohio Ballot Board in the absence of any submission in opposition, as required by Ohio Revised Code Section 3505.063(B)

(http://www.sos.state.oh.us/SOS/Upload/ballotboard/2008/3ArgAgainst.pdf).

Issue 5: Referendum on legislation making changes to check cashing lending.

• Caps Interest rate payday lenders may charge at 28%.
• Limit borrowable amount to 25% of their monthly income, not to exceed $500.
• Limits barrowers to four loans per year.
• Minimum of 30 day period for barrower to pay back loan.

A YES vote will cap the annual interest for payday lenders only at 28%.

A NO vote will not put the issue into effect

Pros:

1) Lenders may currently charge up to 391% interest.

2) It breaks the "cycle of debt" many customers are trapped in.

3) Helps insure that customers only barrow what they can pay back.

Cons:

1) Payday lenders say they will be forced out of business by this law

2) Will take away access to emergency assistance loans that are cheaper  (if repaid on time) then overdraft fees

3) Limits barrower options. Each barrower has the right to choose the terms of their loans and what they do with their money.

Issue 6: Constitutional amendment to allow for a casino near Wilmington in southwest Ohio.

• Authorizes a privately owned casino in Clinton county that will be taxed 30% of its Gross Casino receipts.
• The tax allocation would be used to:
• Fund a gaming regulatory committee
• Up to 1% would be used to support programs for gambling addicts
• 10% of the tax would go to Clinton County. The remaining proceeds would be distributed to the remaining counties.
• Casino operator must make an initial investment of 600 Million dollars in a casino resort, including hotel and other amenities.
• Licensing fee caped at $15 million, which will be credited against the tax on the gross receipts.
• The state may not limit the amount of wages or hours of operation of the casino.
• If another casino enters Ohio, this Casino will pay the same tax rate as that casino.

A YES vote allows the Casino Amendment

A NO vote does not allow it.

Pros:

1) Keep competitive with the other 38 states that have casinos, instead of losing money to other states.

2) All counties in Ohio could receive some tax revenue from the casino.

3) Casino will create jobs and stimulate the economy with hotels, restaurant and other business.

Cons:

1) Will increase the number of Gambling addicts in Ohio and the allocated money for treatment of such problems may not be sufficient.

2) If an Indian Casino that is tax exempt enters Ohio, the casino may not pay at all.

3) Amendment reads more like a business contract with one Casino. It is not appropriate for a constitutional amendment.

Source: http://www.lwvohio.org/pdf/LWVOEF%20Fall%202008%20Voter%20Guide.pdf

Ohio looks to be an important swing state (again!) in the upcoming Presidential elections. But you might not have realized that legal issues may determine the outcome. Efforts to settle these issues in advance seem to have failed. Here are a few of the battles currently being fought:

Five-Day Window: Republicans have sued to try to prevent voters from registering to vote (must be at least 30 days before the election) and then, on the same day, voting by absentee ballot (may be done up to 35 days before the election) during the 5-day window when they are eligible to do both. They claim to be concerned about vote fraud.

Vote Caging: Democrats are seeking to end the practice in some counties of eliminating or challenging the registration status of some voters based on mailed notices having been returned undelivered. They claim that typos, students away at college, and military personnel may have their votes unfairly taken away.

Meanwhile, in Cincinnati, voters who responded to an erroneous absentee ballot application mailed out by the McCain campaign may find their applications ruled invalid by Democratic Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, although she has offered an easy way for voters to correct their applications. Pho has the statutory language.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could just focus on which candidates were supported by more people?