Government is out of control. We the people tell the government what they can do, not the other way around. We can't be ruled by fear. We all need to listen to each other--but politicians need to listen to the demands of the people more than the people need to listen to demands from "the experts." That's true on every issue.
Mandel said time will prove that Trump won the election. "I think over time, we're going to see studies come out that evidence widespread fraud," he claimed. "You know, what you see with any type of fraud, it usually takes time to investigate it and to dig it out, and it might be months, it might be years, it might be decades. But I think when we look back on this election, we'll see in large part that it was stolen from President Trump."
Sherrod Brown (D): Yes. "Special interests should not have a louder voice. than middle-class families."
Jim Renacci (R): No stand found. Did support strengthening Federal Elections Commission.
Q: Support Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited political donations from corporations & unions?
Sherrod Brown (D): No. "Corporations are not people." Supports amendment to overturn.
Jim Renacci (R): Yes. Considers political donations to be political speech--"the most protected speech there is."
Richard Cordray (D): Yes. Supported McCain-Feingold bill. Also supports public financing of campaigns.
Mike DeWine (R): No. Voted against McCain-Feingold.
Richard Cordray (D): No. "The right to vote is vital to our democracy." Make it "more accessible to Ohioans," don't take it away."
Mike DeWine (R): Yes. Applauds US Supreme Court decision upholding Ohio's strict method for purging voter rolls.
Richard Cordray (D): Yes. Supported McCain-Feingold bill. Also supports public financing of campaigns.
Mike DeWine (R): No. Voted against McCain-Feingold.
Richard Cordray (D): No. "The right to vote is vital to our democracy." Make it "more accessible to Ohioans," don't take it away."
Mike DeWine (R): Yes. Applauds US Supreme Court decision upholding Ohio's strict method for purging voter rolls.
Sherrod Brown (D): Yes. "Special interests should not have a louder voice. than middle-class families."
Jim Renacci (R): No stand found. Did support strengthening Federal Elections Commission.
Q: Support Citizens United decision, allowing unlimited political donations from corporations & unions?
Sherrod Brown (D): No. "Corporations are not people." Supports amendment to overturn.
Jim Renacci (R): Yes. Considers political donations to be political speech--"the most protected speech there is."
Sherrod Brown (D): No. Should be encouraging people. Photo-ID rules make it harder.
Jim Renacci (R): Unknown.
A: Oppose
Husted said he ordered detailed reviews of credible allegations of voter fraud & voter suppression after the last 3 federal elections. The investigations were conducted by Ohio's 88 bipartisan county boards of elections. None found significant instances of voter fraud or abuse
Portman: Yes
Strickland: No. Supports constitutional amendment to overturn.
Q: On Campaign Finance: Do you support the DISCLOSE Act, which requires key funders of political ads to put their names on those ads?
Portman: No. Voted against it.
Strickland: Yes
Ted Strickland: The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision opened the doors to unlimited dark money and for millionaires and billionaires to try and buy elections for themselves. It undermines our democracy and rightly makes people even more frustrated with politics. It has created a rigged system where the Washington establishment and the wealthy special interests spend millions to elect those like Senator Portman who are pushing their agenda at our expense. In the U.S. Senate, I will work to overturn Citizens United so that to our country cannot be bought and sold, and I'll support additional campaign finance reforms to increase transparency and accountability in campaign donations and spending. I will also support Supreme Court judges that will put our democracy before the interests of corporate billionaires.
[After that] the closest he came to broaching the subject of campaign finance reform was when he declared that "sometimes I think these laws can work, but unfortunately I think they work mostly on the margin." Got it? Neither do we.
Kasich took a different tack last month when he said that "a handful of billionaires should not decide who is president." But, even then, he was unsure of a solution to the problem.
Kasich has an unlimited-money super PAC. Earlier this year, it announced raising more than $11 million from 166 reportable contributions.
Two years ago, the Supreme Court invalidated a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. And in states all across America--including Ohio--cut-backs in early voting and calls for photo IDs--which an estimated 25% of African-Americans don't have--are the transparent tools of voter suppression.
Republicans say they're only trying to stop voter fraud. But even in the hotly contested 2004 Presidential election, Ohio's rate of voter fraud was 4/1000 of 1%--or roughly the same odds as being struck and killed by lightening. So the real fraud isn't coming from voters. The real fraud is coming from politicians--and we can't let them get away with it.
Q: "What would you do to end corruption of our government by big money, and more specifically, would you support and work for a constitutional amendment clarifying that the constitution applies to natural persons only?"
A: "I'd like to say a couple things about campaign finance laws. First of all it is a bad system when billionaires can be the ones to pick a president, I don't like that. And here is the beauty of New Hampshire: they could spend all the money in the world but money don't buy you love in New Hampshire. So I'm concerned about it, and I will have something to say about it at an appropriate time, but I want to think it through. I think there is an element of fundraising influencing decisions. It's an issue & it will be dealt with."
A: One thing that is new in the sense that it is not implemented right now: I do believe we need a Constitutional amendment to overturn the post-Citizens United corrosive role of money in politics.
Q: That's not a new issue, though. Since the Supreme Court ruling, that's been an issue.
A: I'm trying to put forth things that aren't currently in play. If we get more leaders like me, we can make it happen.
ACLU-Ohio opinion on this bill: While SB 205 does make some positive improvements for voters with disabilities, it fails on several fronts to make voting easier for Ohioans. One of the most concerning aspects of SB 205 is the addition of the word "incomplete" in reference to a voter's absentee ballot identification envelope. Giving discretion to a few election officials to define exactly what this word means is likely to result in more ballots not being counted. Additionally, this language is overly broad and could violate federal law. The ACLU encourages the legislature to steer away from creating a "race to the bottom" by limiting ballot access of voters and contemplate more constructive ways to improve the absentee ballot process.
ACLU-Ohio opinion on this bill: SB 238 moves Ohio election administration in the wrong direction. Eliminating "Golden Week" and shortening the early voting period will needlessly complicate the voting process and place additional burdens on voters. Voters with disabilities, seniors, the homeless, new residents, people with a lack of transportation, among many others, have utilized Golden Week as a flexible way to register & vote simultaneously. While the bill's sponsors may point to concerns over possible voting irregularities, there is almost no evidence to justify those fears. Rather than seeking to curtail the ability of voters to cast their ballot more easily, Ohio's legislators should strive to provide a fair, flexible and secure system that benefits all voters.
ACLU-Ohio opinion on this bill: While SB 205 does make some positive improvements for voters with disabilities, it fails on several fronts to make voting easier for Ohioans. One of the most concerning aspects of SB 205 is the addition of the word "incomplete" in reference to a voter's absentee ballot identification envelope. Giving discretion to a few election officials to define exactly what this word means is likely to result in more ballots not being counted. Additionally, this language is overly broad and could violate federal law.
Legislative outcome: Passed Senate, 22-10-1, on Nov. 6, 2013; passed House, 60-38-1, on Feb. 19, 2014; signed by Gov. Kasich, Feb. 21, 2014
ACLU-Ohio opinion on this bill: SB 238 moves Ohio election administration in the wrong direction. Eliminating "Golden Week" and shortening the early voting period will needlessly complicate the voting process and place additional burdens on voters. Voters with disabilities, seniors, the homeless, new residents, people with a lack of transportation, among many others, have utilized Golden Week as a flexible way to register & vote simultaneously. While the bill's sponsors may point to concerns over possible voting irregularities, there is almost no evidence to justify those fears.
Legislative outcome: Passed Senate, 22-10-1, on Nov. 20, 2013; passed House, 59-37-3, on Feb. 19, 2014; signed by Gov. Kasich, Feb. 21, 2014
ACLU-Ohio opinion on this bill: While SB 205 does make some positive improvements for voters with disabilities, it fails on several fronts to make voting easier for Ohioans. One of the most concerning aspects of SB 205 is the addition of the word "incomplete" in reference to a voter's absentee ballot identification envelope. Giving discretion to a few election officials to define exactly what this word means is likely to result in more ballots not being counted. Additionally, this language is overly broad and could violate federal law.
Legislative outcome: Passed Senate, 22-10-1, on Nov. 6, 2013; passed House, 60-38-1, on Feb. 19, 2014; Rep. Pillich voted NAY; signed by Gov. Kasich, Feb. 21, 2014
ACLU-Ohio opinion on this bill: SB 238 moves Ohio election administration in the wrong direction. Eliminating "Golden Week" and shortening the early voting period will needlessly complicate the voting process and place additional burdens on voters. Voters with disabilities, seniors, the homeless, new residents, people with a lack of transportation, among many others, have utilized Golden Week as a flexible way to register & vote simultaneously. While the bill's sponsors may point to concerns over possible voting irregularities, there is almost no evidence to justify those fears.
Legislative outcome: Passed Senate, 22-10-1, on Nov. 20, 2013; passed House, 59-37-3, on Feb. 19, 2014; Rep. Pillich voted NAY; signed by Gov. Kasich, Feb. 21, 2014
ACLU-Ohio opinion on this bill: SB 238 moves Ohio election administration in the wrong direction. Eliminating "Golden Week" and shortening the early voting period will needlessly complicate the voting process and place additional burdens on voters. Voters with disabilities, seniors, the homeless, new residents, people with a lack of transportation, among many others, have utilized Golden Week as a flexible way to register & vote simultaneously. While the bill's sponsors may point to concerns over possible voting irregularities, there is almost no evidence to justify those fears.
Legislative outcome: Passed Senate, 22-10-1, on Nov. 20, 2013; Sen. Schiavoni voted NAY; passed House, 59-37-3, on Feb. 19, 2014; signed by Gov. Kasich, Feb. 21, 2014
ACLU-Ohio opinion on this bill: SB 238 moves Ohio election administration in the wrong direction. Eliminating "Golden Week" and shortening the early voting period will needlessly complicate the voting process and place additional burdens on voters. Voters with disabilities, seniors, the homeless, new residents, people with a lack of transportation, among many others, have utilized Golden Week as a flexible way to register & vote simultaneously. While the bill's sponsors may point to concerns over possible voting irregularities, there is almost no evidence to justify those fears.
Legislative outcome:ÿPassed Senate, 22-10-1, on Nov. 20, 2013; Sen. Turner voted NAY; passed House, 59-37-3, on Feb. 19, 2014; signed by Gov. Kasich, Feb. 21, 2014
ACLU-Ohio opinion on this bill: While SB 205 does make some positive improvements for voters with disabilities, it fails on several fronts to make voting easier for Ohioans. One of the most concerning aspects of SB 205 is the addition of the word "incomplete" in reference to a voter's absentee ballot identification envelope. Giving discretion to a few election officials to define exactly what this word means is likely to result in more ballots not being counted. Additionally, this language is overly broad and could violate federal law.
Legislative outcome: Passed Senate, 22-10-1, on Nov. 6, 2013; Sen. Schiavoni voted NAY; passed House, 60-38-1, on Feb. 19, 2014; signed by Gov. Kasich, Feb. 21, 2014
ACLU-Ohio opinion on this bill:ÿWhile SB 205 does make some positive improvements for voters with disabilities, it fails on several fronts to make voting easier for Ohioans. One of the most concerning aspects of SB 205 is the addition of the word "incomplete" in reference to a voter's absentee ballot identification envelope. Giving discretion to a few election officials to define exactly what this word means is likely to result in more ballots not being counted. Additionally, this language is overly broad and could violate federal law.
Legislative outcome:ÿPassed Senate, 22-10-1, on Nov. 6, 2013; Sen. Turner voted NAY; passed House, 60-38-1, on Feb. 19, 2014; signed by Gov. Kasich, Feb. 21, 2014
But Mandel seemed to indicate he opposed all bailouts. "I'm not a bailout senator," he said. "There's no government bailout that I can think of that I would ever support."
This raises a question: Why did Mandel recently declare in a public document that he got gifts from 31 people in 2011? That number of gift-givers, and their names, showed up in the state financial disclosure statement that Mandel filed this week. This disclosure led incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown's campaign to declare that Mandel lied when he told reporters that he doesn't take gifts.
Mandel's campaign spokesman says the gifts were primarily meals at "family gatherings, weddings, meetings and charity events."
If there were gifts of significantly high value or items that went beyond food or drink, the disclosure forms do not say, as the Ohio Ethics Commission only requires state officeholders to disclose the source of gifts valued at more than $75 but does not require specificity as to the gifts themselves.
The US Senate require only gifts worth more than $335 to be reported. Brown's most recent form said he had none. Mandel "goes above and beyond what is required on his disclosure forms," the spokesperson said. "More elected officials should do that."
End The Influence Of Special Interests--Build common-sense solutions to our problems and kick out those who, for too long, have kept us from fixing all that is wrong in our state
A: Yes.
Q: Should Congress regulate indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
A: No.
Q: Do you support removing all contribution limits on federal campaigns?
A: Yes.
Q: Should candidates for federal office be encouraged to meet voluntary spending limits?
A: No.
A: Yes. First amendment rights appear to protect all campaign contributions without limits, but limits must be in place to keep us from creating class warfare and to keep foreign influences out of our election system.
Q:Should Congress regulate indirect campaign contributions from corporations and unions?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support removing all contribution/spending limits on federal campaigns?
A: No.
A: No.
Q: Do you support limiting the President's ability to define how legislation is applied through the use of signing statements?
A: Yes. Presidential signing statements should not change the intent of the very laws passed by congress and should only be used to clarify (after consultation with congress) or to protest the possible Constitutionality of the new legislation.
A: Yes.
Q: PAC contributions?
A: Yes.
Q: Corporate?
A: Yes.
Q: Political Parties?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support imposing spending limits on state level political campaigns?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support partial funding from state taxes for state level political campaigns?
A: No.
A: Yes.
Q: PAC contributions?
A: Yes.
Q: Corporate contributions?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support imposing spending limits on state level political campaigns?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support partial funding from state taxes for state level political campaigns?
A: Yes.
A: Yes.
Q: PAC?
A: Yes.
Q: Corporate?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support requiring full and timely disclosure of campaign finance information?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support imposing spending limits on state level political campaigns?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you support partial funding from state taxes for state level political campaigns?
A: No.
Q:
| |||
| 2020 Presidential contenders on Government Reform: | |||
|
Democrats running for President:
Sen.Michael Bennet (D-CO) V.P.Joe Biden (D-DE) Mayor Mike Bloomberg (I-NYC) Gov.Steve Bullock (D-MT) Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-IN) Sen.Cory Booker (D-NJ) Secy.Julian Castro (D-TX) Gov.Lincoln Chafee (L-RI) Rep.John Delaney (D-MD) Rep.Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Sen.Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Gov.Deval Patrick (D-MA) Sen.Bernie Sanders (I-VT) CEO Tom Steyer (D-CA) Sen.Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) Marianne Williamson (D-CA) CEO Andrew Yang (D-NY) 2020 Third Party Candidates: Rep.Justin Amash (L-MI) CEO Don Blankenship (C-WV) Gov.Lincoln Chafee (L-RI) Howie Hawkins (G-NY) Gov.Jesse Ventura (I-MN) |
Republicans running for President:
V.P.Mike Pence(R-IN) Pres.Donald Trump(R-NY) Rep.Joe Walsh (R-IL) Gov.Bill Weld(R-MA & L-NY) 2020 Withdrawn Democratic Candidates: Sen.Stacey Abrams (D-GA) Mayor Bill de Blasio (D-NYC) Sen.Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) Sen.Mike Gravel (D-AK) Sen.Kamala Harris (D-CA) Gov.John Hickenlooper (D-CO) Gov.Jay Inslee (D-WA) Mayor Wayne Messam (D-FL) Rep.Seth Moulton (D-MA) Rep.Beto O`Rourke (D-TX) Rep.Tim Ryan (D-CA) Adm.Joe Sestak (D-PA) Rep.Eric Swalwell (D-CA) | ||
|
Please consider a donation to OnTheIssues.org!
Click for details -- or send donations to: 1770 Mass Ave. #630, Cambridge MA 02140 E-mail: submit@OnTheIssues.org (We rely on your support!) | |||