It was a great night.

A few people took a shot at the percentage of voter turnout in the November election as not really reflective of the Brecksville electorate.

To those few who would rather argue at the fringes of the Citizens United issue rather than deal with it directly, here's a fun fact: Issue 25 garnered 3759 votes -- more than any local Brecksville candidate in any locally contested election in the last five years.

If you want to claim Issue 25 doesn't reflect the will of the people, then you'd have to say the councilmen don't really represent Brecksville. Just silly.

Our group, Brecksville Citizens for Transparent Politics spoke to our neighbors at the library and rec center. We held an informational meeting to which all Brecksville residents were invited. At that meeting we had a panel available to answer all questions from the public. We left literature at the homes of registered voters in Brecksville 2x’s, once before the early voting and again right before November 6th. We manned the polls both in the AM & PM talking to people. We were available for questions. Our contact information was always available for questions from our Brecksville neighbors. Lastly, the petition was available at City Hall for review before we began to collect signatures. This whole process was transparent.

This notion that Brecksville residents were just not able to “understand, or somehow had the wool pulled over their eyes is nonsense. If people were engaged, the information was there.

At its most basic level, the 2010 Citizens United decision has removed from our congressional and state legislatures the ability to place any campaign finance reforms into place. Our government is truly for sale to the highest bidders…and folks, that’s not us. That is an unnerving prospect. So, unless the U S Supreme Court reverses this decision, the only remedy to this ungodly situation is a constitutional amendment.

Great, great job by all!!!!

And shame on the Sun Papers for their typical, moronic, editorial.

No irony that the opposition's POV was heard as loudly and clearly as any other single citizen's.

Didn't cost him nothing, either.

So, a group wrapping itself in the name of "Democracy Day" has demanded that an elected official give up his right to free speech by demanding that he/she speak in favor of a specified position for a specific length of time? That hardly seems like a democracy.

The event reminds me of some in my Democrat Party-controlled most liberal state, CT. Think "Occupy (whatever)." Those who oppose the "democratic" event positions are labeled the fringe element.

We live in a representative republic. Each person within a designated geographic area votes for the candidate they feel best represents their views. It is up to the elected candidate to best represent all entities within the area they serve . In every case, that would include some number of businesses.

If you truly believe as you claim, you would also insist on no editorials such as the one in your local paper that refers to the Citizens United decision as 'abhorrent.' The media has undue influence and plenty of cash behind it. I don't know about your area but around here, union thugs are paid and brought in to populate Democrat candidate rallies, the sole goal of which is to intimidate opponents' supporters. Again, also consider "Occupy" groups.

The solution is simple. If you think that a politician doesn't represent what you stand for, vote them out. Ultimately, it's the individual who votes. If people are too stupid or lazy to determine the truth, it's no one's fault but their own.

Steve

It’s unreal to me how people distort things or otherwise just don’t understand reality. We live in a democracy. The Mayor serves his constituents. There was a lawful ordinance passed by the citizens of Brecksville Nov 2012. The “group” of people who voted for the ordinance were the people of Brecksville. The Mayor did his job. The ordinance doesn't restrict anyone's free speech. The ordinance requires a letter to be mailed to Ohio elected representatives stating the FACT that this ordinance was passed in November 2012. The letter will take no more than a few minutes to write and mail. There is no requirement that the Mayor or anyone else change their opinion of anything. The letter does not say that everyone in Brecksville voted in favor of this ordinance. Of course, there were both "yes" & "no" votes (that's why we have a VOTE). However, the "yes" votes won, so a factual letter is required to be sent. This is just one of myriad duties the Mayor is required to perform. The Mayor will also include responses from the Town Hall Meeting.

I am dismayed that people like Mr. Clemson Tiger, who is not brave enough to use his name, brings fear mongering and the worst kind of rhetoric into a debate that is both important and timely in this country. Bringing in Occupy Wall Street, which by the way, was a group of people worried about the takeover of our financial system by the big banks, and calling fellow citizens “union thugs” is a reflection of the writers inability to be gracious to those who don’t agree with him. I really don’t understand the hate….or the childish behavior.
Again, under the 2010 Citizens United decision, which is what we discussed in our town hall meeting, the Court has removed our right, as citizens of the State of Ohio, to require any type of restraint on money pouring into our elections. See the report on money in Ohio’s 2012 election: http://ohiopirg.org/reports/ohp/outside-spending-outside-influence.
I would guess that Mr. Tiger is a states’ rights person. Where’s your anger about that?

If the Petsche's were really serious about the money spent, they would have included the the word "union" along with "corp". How would the unions be prevented from spending? That was not addressed. Why are they so against corporations but not the unions?
The group had stated that they spent very little money on putting all this together. Those brochures were first rate and cost money. My husband and I were in the printing business and know this was not a "cheap" piece of literature.

They may be very sincere but once you take a way a freedom, it is very difficult to take it back. This is an attack on free speech. I do not want anymore government in my life.

More importantly, I believe this group is a set up to promote "Project 21" which is another attack against our American values.

I want to make this perfectly clear. NO group “wrapping themselves in the name of “Democracy Day demanded an elected office give up his right to free speech by demanding that he/she speak in favor of a specified position for a specific length of time”. The group responsible for “Democracy Day” was the group known as the plurality of Brecksville voters. They voted and they won.
Secondly I am NOT a member of “Occupy(whatever)” I DO associate myself with those who call anyone who opposed “Democracy Day” the minority. It passed because, simply, more people voted for it than those who voted against it. I also refuse to believe that the citizens of Brecksville are as dumb as to not be able to discern that unlimited money spent affects our elections in a way that limits free speech instead of promoting it. I think issue 25 passed in spite of those who attempted to paint it as a limiting of free speech. The intelligent majority of voters of Brecksville saw through that ruse.

The word UNION was on each and every petition the citizens of Brecksville signed to get the issue on the ballot. The board of elections chose the wording on the ballot, not the Citizens for Transparent Politics. The exact wording of the ordinance is available for all those who care to read it. It behooves those who refuse to accept facts to read the exact ordinance instead of making up stories about it.
I am thankful that Democracy Day was held on Monday Feb 25th. It was successful beyond anyone's imagination. I look forward to the next one for truly each and every single citizen got to speak their mind on this issue. I know that it will continue the next time we all get together for Democracy Day in two more years. I just hope that more citizens get involved.

Having just returned from Brecksville’s first Democracy Day, I had several thoughts of follow-up that time did not allow for last evening.

First, I thought the event was a successful exchange of ideas, done in a respectful and civilized fashion.

That said, it was less of a Democracy Day (DDay) in general terms and much more of a follow up on the Move To Amend effort to amend the US Constitution and limit First Amendment rights for corporations. Hopefully in the future it will return to its original stated intent.

The agenda was heavily stacked in favor of the Move To Amend effort. Perhaps next DDay, someone like Hillsdale College or the Heritage Group can be invited to speak.

I am not sure anyone changed anyone else’s opinion, but I was proud of the thoughtful and reasoned arguments presented by most speakers.

Several Items need to be addressed.

First, there was an inexplicable and ill reasoned characterization of all corporations as the denizens of evil and responsible for most of the ills of our society. This is ridiculous, and a lazy and cliched explanation of our problems. Corporations are made up of people, and reflect the personalities, morals and values of those people.

Many who spoke out against corporations forget that these same “artificial entities” are responsible for funding many of our hospitals, museums, sports arenas, charities, civic programs, special events and humanitarian causes.

Do corporations make these contributions because they are soulless monsters who care only about profit? I guess not. They are managed by people with values, interests and souls. People like us.

Further, many owners of these corporations donate profits from these corporations to various charities, hospitals and other humanitarian needs in their estates.

This wonderful aspect of corporations was totally ignored during the presentation.

Corporations are no more evil or noble than any other person. They also pay much of the tax used to operate the essential services of a modern society.

It is wholly inappropriate and simplistic to deposit the blame for our problems in the laps of corporate America.

And, what about individuals who can donate $500,000 to campaigns like Obama For America for the privilege of a meeting with the president? Are they evil too?

Do you think that evil lurks only in the hearts of corporations? Let me tell you a story.

All the ills and weaknesses of individuals, be they politicians or pedestrians, were ignored. There are many instances where the character and behavior of the corporation can be shown to be ethically superior to individuals or politicians.

Here’s a good example. The Tillman Act of 1907 was the first major legislation passed limiting corporate donations to campaigns. The man responsible for this law was Benjamin “Pitchfork” Tillman, a Democrat senator from South Carolina.

Tillman’s outspoken white supremacy and support for the lynching law provoked national controversy. Not a nice man.

Tillman represented some of the worst racist elements in the Democrat party at that time and wanted to preserve the segregation of blacks and whites. The railroads and other businesses, many of them Republican owned, favored the elimination of these separate facilities. Tillman pushed forth the legislation as a means of preventing corporations like this from contributing to campaigns that would overturn these racist policies.

Was society well served by this despicable act? I think not.

Curiously, the Tillman Act was missing from the otherwise very comprehensive timeline presented by the Move To Amend advocates at the meeting. Must have been an oversight.

Next, the issue of Fair Play. Liberals like to talk about "fairness".

It is undeniable that certain individuals are blessed with talents of writing, speaking or other skills that in essence “magnifies” their public presence. It may be that an athlete or media personality has access to media facilities and venues which increase the effect of their advocacy many times, over the average voter. Newspaper writers and journalists undeniably have this advantage.
It may also be true that someone else is blessed merely with financial wherewithal. Use of that money either directly or through an owned corporation is a means of establishing a level playing field with other individuals. Is this not fair play?

Finally, the topic of the Economic Collapse of 2008 was mentioned. The repeal of the Glass Steagall Act was offered as the reason for the collapse. This is inaccurate and very short sighted. In truth, the damage had been done long before the repeal of Glass Steagall. Its repeal was actually a reaction to the real problem rather than the cause.

The real problem was the social engineering policies of the government with respect to home ownership, as promulgated by the Community Reinvestment Act, signed into law initially by Carter and expanded by Clinton. This law put great pressure of the lending industry to loosen historical standards for loans. The result was the industry gave thousands of loans to people who were ill equipped to manage that commitment.

In order to eliminate the bottleneck of loans at the retail bank level, repeal of Glass Steagall allowed investment banks to purchase these loans and bundle them as investments for sale. In this fashion consumers could continue to have access to loans locally.

As reality set in and these loans began to fail, the underlying investments, referred to as collateralized debt obligations, or CDO’s, failed as well. This, compounded by the decision to force banks to value assets at market value, known as “mark to market”, caused the balance sheets of many to collapse almost overnite. This was the real cause of the stock market collapse and the Depression of 2008.

It's is important to know history.

Sorry...its fact. It was the CRA. There would have been no need for exotic investment vehicles like CDO's if there were not an overwhelming number of questionable loans to dish off. Lipstick was needed for these pigs or there would have been no way for the banking system to absorb all the debt. Fanny and Freddy were (and are still) busting at the seems. Certainly bad decisions were made, but the horses were "long out of the barn" by then. To say it not so is to ignore the facts. Instead you are saying that investors wanted to buy more mortgage backed securities so lenders graciously complied by selling more loans for them. How nice! What a fairy tale. hahahahah
By the way, the Bush administration tried at least three times to stop this practice during the early 2000's. Each time they were rebuffed by the likes of Barney Frank (D) and Franklin Raines(D) telling them that "the system is sound" and "there is no need for any reform". Really.....Watch the videos on Youtube.

Ed, here's an essay from John Carney in Business Insider, a former non believer...He now lays the blame squarely on the CRA...http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

HI Steve Bristol aka Clemson Tiger, nice to meet you.

Steve ...let me guess...Calif or Mass? I am for some rules of the road for all parties...I don't care if they're R's or D's or I's or Corp or Unions or 501(...) entities or billionaires. We had rules for 100+ years before 5-4 decision took the power out of the "peoples" house to regulate money in our political campaigns. This decision is beyond the pale. It took the right of our state, Ohio, to enforce their own campaign finance laws. I believe that too much money is a corrosive factor in politics. I believe that politicians are human and work in the system we have. If the system allows for the swamping of voices by a few with unlimited resources then that is wrong. I truly don't think this is a partisan issue for everyday people. Arizona & Montana found out that their voices don't count anymore. Ohio also didn't enforce their rules....this is just wrong.

Corporations are not simply the sum of human persons. They are legally distinct. Courts have ruled so.  

What's happening today was not the original intention of our founders. The Revolution wasn't simply a revolt against the King, but also his "Crown Corporations."

We the People assumed the role of The Sovereign from the King. This self-governing authority included the power to define all of our creations — corporations among them. The corporate charter was the democratic mechanism for that achievement, as they were granted by legislatures one at a time for specific purposes, specific time, to serve the public good. None of these charters that I've researched included the "right" to be involved in politics. They were not intended to be superior or even equal to their human creators, but subordinate. In exchange for limited liability, corporations had to agree to the "package deal" of rules. No one was forced to form a corporation. If a group of people wanted to get together to do whatever, fine. But if corporate owners wanted to be protected by the government via the limited liability shield, they had to agree to the terms set forth in the legislatively enacted charter. Without government, they could be no corporations. Charters were the set of rules the government set for incorporation.

That's now it once was…and was intended to be. It only changed when the activist Supreme Court began finding corporations in the Constitution where they were never intended to be.

Great post Greg. When all the distractions are peeled away the core issue is the question of whether corporations (all legal entities) are people with the same constitutional rights as human beings. I just can't see how anyone can believe that a legal construct is a person. It's fictitious; the corporate charter is a paper document in a binder somewhere on a shelf. Our corporate charter is on a shelf behind my desk at our office. I have never thought of our company as a person. Also, as a small business owner, I don't want large corporations to be able to drown out my small business voice. Big business doesn't care about small mom & pop business as evidenced by the devastation big box business have done to our town squares across small town America.

We are not trying to stop anyone’s speech. We just want some rules. We cannot have an activist court throw out 100+ years of congressional legislation on campaign finance reform or throw out duly passed campaign reform laws by the individual states.

Steve, we certainly will not see eye-to-eye on this. I'm just glad that we were able to bring up the issue and bring it to a wider audience. People will be able to compare our ideas on this and judge for themselves. I do appreciate anyone who thinks about these important issues.

One thing we can agree on is that only reversing corporate personhood will not be enough. We also need to state that money is not equal to speech and therefore can be regulated for political purposes. I would imagine that part 2 will really set your hair on fire!

Hi Darlene, I absolutely will ask the Mayor to make sure it's clear that the actual word "union" will be included in the letter. Although, it's my understanding, that under the law, unions, pacs & superpacs are included with the defition of corporations. I want to make clear that we want all legal entities to be included. I feel all should be treated equally. Unions were included in our petition and will also be included in the mayor's letter. I hope this puts your mind at ease.

Answer to question:
Yes, Citizens United applies to corporations and unions.

501c3 organizations are non-profit, tax-exempt corporations.

501c4 orgs are non-profit corporations that aren't tax exempt, but still considered "social welfare" groups.

Unions are 501c5 groups, "labor, agricultural and horticultural" organizations which are incorporated. So, yes they are corpses but unlike business corpses, their hurdle to become recognized is far higher than a business corporation. People wanting to form a business corpse simply have to fill out a form and pay cash, and viola they're a corporation. People wanting to form a labor corporation (union) have to jump through several hurdles before they're recognized by the government. Even people wanting
to form non-profits (especially 501c3s) have to fill out many documents and wait many months before hearing whether they meet the criteria. There are some unincorporated unions, but they can't sue or sign contracts. Their members can also be sued (since they don't have the union equivalent
of a limited liability shield) over strikes or other labor actions that might cost an employer cash.

So even though most labor unions are, in fact, corporations -- most people don't think of them that way -- and, of course, the criteria is much more lax for business corpses than labor. This is why it's important, despite the redundancy, to say that citizens united applies to both corporations and unions.

WoW!
Well, the few posters here are sure getting their free speech!
All I have to say is the government, both sides, does not represent me.
The democrates don't represent me, they are controlled by unions and special interest groups...the Republicans SURE AS HELL dont represent me, I'm neither wealthy or a big business. Who am I? I'm a 55 year old man, who still gets up everyday and goes to work....Even when I dont feel well...I dont get weeks of sick time, paid snow days off, or a pension...I have a degree, I put myself through college, I raised four children. I pay my taxes, I live within my means...and you want to know who represents me??? -NOBODY...that's who!!! -NOBODY!!! No union to protect my job, I have to ensure that my work speaks for itself, I'm not in a special interest group. I think there's a lot of people like me out there...and I think our hard work, due to lack of representation and benefits, is subsidizing the wealthy, the special interest groups, and the union government workers. Guys like me should probably be represented the most, but were not...why? -No corporate money, and no union money...and that's just WRONG!
-Pays his taxes to support those who dont support me

Steve,

Actually, the fact that a corporation is legally distinct from the group of people composing them is directly relevant here. Only human beings possess inalienable constitutional rights, Our nation’s founders fought a revolution against the King, his Redcoats, AND his Crown Corporations (Mass Bay Co., Carolina Co, Baltimore Co, Maryland Co, etc.), which were chartered by the King to do his governing in the colonies. Our founders had no intention of letting corporations exert Bill of Rights rights. Sovereignty was reserved exclusively to humans. There’s a reason corporations aren’t mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. It was only the activist Supreme Court which concocted this bizarre constitutional construct…and have been doing it ever since. Only a constitutional amendment can end the perversion of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments – there may be others – and permit democratically elected legislators to establish the boundaries of corporations in our self-governance.

Our forebears controlled corporate actions via charters and laws. They did so not to punish corporations but to preserve our self-governance. When corporations acted beyond their chartered authority, their charters were dissolved by legislature and courts. By the dozens. Over many decades. Including Ohio Republican Attorney General David Watson who sought to revoke the charter of Rockefellor’s Standard Oil Corp.

One more thing.

Our forebears also passed laws which prohibiting corporate involvement in elections.

From a 1908 law passed by the Ohio General Assembly:
“That no corporation doing business in this state shall directly or indirectly pay, use or offer, consent or agree to pay or use any of its money or property for, or in aid, of any political party, committee or organization, or for, or in aid of, any candidate for political office or for nomination for any such office, or in any manner use any of its money or property for any political purpose whatever, or for the reimbursement or indemnification of any person or persons for moneys or property so used.”

No messin' around here. People were in charge of their legal creations. As it was intended to be. As it once was. As it should be again.

Rose and Greg

However, if there is a Federal law that deals with the same issue, the Federal takes precedence ie. the various states' marijuana legalizations, same sex marriages and so on.

My problem with things re: corps is, if they are located w/n the district, why SHOULDN'T they be allowed to attempt to get a favorable situation--it's part of doing business without actually having a right to vote.

However, below is something to read that should REALLY get you going crazy. What I find troubling in it is that the national party (in this case the DNC but could be either and irritate me) that isn't paying their debts. No wonder the Dems are saying we don't have a spending problem.

http://radioviceonline.com/symptom-of-the-disease-duke-energy-writes-off-6-million-loan-guarantee-to-dnc/

Cheers,
Steve B

Steve S.

Didn't you know? The Chosen One can do anything he wants without rebuke. After all, he IS so much smarter than everyone else. He knows better than us what we want.

One thing I've left out of the undue outside influence discussion is campaigning by high-level politicians. Any time that POTUS flies to an area important to his party--and therefore him/her--WE are paying for it because he usually ties some governing provision to it. That's usually a HUGE expense and has a HUGE effect....and done on OUR dime. Heck, just look at the MILLIONS we've paid recently for POTUS to golf with Tiger and travel the country LYING about sequester origination and effects.

Further, how about all the damage caused in state capitals as union groups--from inside AND out of state--to protest legally passed employment bills?

As I've been opining all along, if you don't/can't eliminate ALL influence from elections, it's wrong to only eliminate SOME of it.

Steve B.

Neither Steve gets it. The real issue is Congress's right to control the money spent on elections. Steve's company's few hundred bucks really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, its the millions of dollars of foreign money that matters to me. It is completely uncontrolled and gives foreign nationals more speech and therefore more control over our elections than the citizens of Brecksville or most other US citizens. Our legislative branch should control it. That control was taken away by the Supreme Court.
I am surprised that those who have no relationship to unions seem to know so much about them. The union members I talk to are completely in favor of Move to Amend including unions since they know that unions have such little money compared to the big dollars corporations can and do spend
I would hope the reason that Rose has yet to respond to the question about the president's non extreme efforts to lobby the Supreme Court is because this forum is not about discrimination, "DEMOCRATICALLY'" voted on or not. It is about freedom of speech, corporate or individual.
I believe discrimination of any sort, whether voted on "DEMOCRATICALLY" or not, is wrong and I believe our President and all those who condemn it are right. However, it is a different subject than the need for an amendment to the constitution to correct the mistaken Citizen United decision by the Supreme Court. That is what this forum is about.

Hah. Sorry Fred. You do not get to dictate the parameters of the discussion. Its a democracy (day) after all. :) However, I agree with you regarding foreign money. And I am sure you will acknowledge that the president's campaign was a major recipient of millions of dollars of undocumented and possibly illegal campaign donations. I will join you in condemning this and salute your forthrightness.
Regarding union spending vs corporate spending, you are mistaken. First, corporations divide their contributions between both political parties fairly evenly, according to the WSJ, 55% to Democrats in 2008 in fact! Unions are overwhelmingly pro union, 92% per the WSJ.
Second, both contribute hundreds of millions of dollars. What is not counted are the hundreds of thousands of man hours logged by union members, or the intense pressure exerted by unions to support Democrat candidates.
What I find depressing is your rationalization of which votes and voters are to be ignored. The determination of what is discrimination re Prop 8 is your opinion not a calculus.
There has been no good response because there is none.
Who gets to decide which votes are "good" and which are "bad"?

Steve, I have a non-partisan documentary called "Priceless" that talks about the corrosive impact money has on our public policy. I'd love for you to watch it. Interested?

Rose

I found the video and the Bullfrog website. I think I may have actually seen it at some point. Quite the list of chosen reviewers. Several names I recognize, as well as their 'politics.' Hardly a surprise they speak glowingly. Also hardly non-partisan I'd love to know their list of benefactors. If that's the best you have to offer.....

Of course, that's not to say that SCOTUS won't change its political make up or that some states won't pass their effort at an amendment. I can honestly see it here in CT because, seemingly forever, the far left has had a stranglehold on political control. Right now we're in the fight of our lives to keep the extreme left from becoming NY State by moving down the road towards firearm confiscation....driver's licenses for illegal immigrants which would likely lead to voting privileges....among several other attacks on rights.

Have a sparkling day.
Steve B.

I find it interesting that the zealousness for defense of the sanctity of the vote of an individual can become such a whimsical sacrifice of convenience, when circumstances present a political challenge comfortable to the once-upon-a-time zealot...in other words, you agree with the Ninth Circuit, so no problem! No regret, no remorse...The heck with Democracy...

In an administration where a president condemns waterboarding as torture, but endorses drone attacks which frequently kill innocents, where same sex marriage is shunned one day but promoted the next out of political advantage, where the Attorney General Holder refuses to state that it is unconstitutional to kill a US citizen without due process, we should not be surprised.

Moral relativism can cut both ways. A Supreme Court constituted differently might one day not give you such a comfortable reversal of the people's vote. That's why absolutes such as the Constitution are so important, and should not be casually meddled with...
Finally, the SCOTUS will tell us whether they believe Prop 8 to be constitutional soon, regardless of the decision of the notoriously liberal Ninth and the openly gay District Court Judge Walker who overturned the original legislation. No personal agenda I am sure...

It also almost humorous, if not so sad, that a constitutional amendment is sought to overturn a so called "ridiculous" Supreme Court Citizens United ruling, but oh my, let's support the Supreme Court overturning a vote of the citizens on Prop 8....wow...

Finally, to bring back a focus to the discussion, I find the following to be true...

It appears from the data, that extreme amounts of money do little to affect the results of elections. Just ask Karl Rove.

Foreign money should be excluded in any case, especially the alleged hidden donations promoted by the president during the last campaign.

I have absolutely no confidence that Move To Amend intends to fairly restrict both money and resource/manpower equally from both corporations and unions.

Move To Amend does little if anything to control any excesses of donations by people like Soros, Zuckerberg or Maher or Adelson for that matter.

People in media, journalism, entertainment and the like, as well as the Unions, have advantages of influence and pressure, which are offset by corporations or other individuals who can make large donations.

Campaign finance needs improvement.

A Constitutional amendment via Move To Amend is not the right solution.

Steve S. kind of piggybacks on what I've been saying all along and that is--if you can't eliminate all out-of-area undue influence (which you can't), then to limit SOME of it denies SOME the right to free speech. He obviously knows the "Move to Amend" group far better than I--although it's not a unique situation--but I expect it is very much the same as those who ultimately just wish to limit opposing views. It's like those who say they want 'bi-partisanship' when all they really want is for the other side to cave.

To Greg's (above) comment--amazingly, when Dems join Reps it's called selling out/being stupid but when R's join D's, it's bi-partisanship. I would not exactly consider S. D. O'Connor as staunch conservative, especially after Thomas joined SCOTUS. As a 2 x Navy officer Dad, I respect McCain but I probably disagree w/ him more than I agree.

Aside from the beneficial economic impact that I mentioned in one of my first posts here, I also feel that the $$ is obscene. No one is arguing differently. As Steve S. said, go ask Karl Rove (or Mitt) if more $ guarantees success. However, IT'S NOT JUST THE MONEY THAT UNFAIRLY INFLUENCES. And, for the umpteenth time, if the individual does as they are supposed to and do--ignore the 'noise' and do a little basic research or at least pay some attention before making their choice. I consider it my DUTY to do so. I also find it extremely simple. To NOT do so is simply being lazy.

Steve B.

Of course, I'm STILL waiting for someone from the group--or a poster here--to explain to everyone just how ALL outside or undue influence can be removed from the process without just limiting one particular side from expressing their Constitutional Right to Free Speech.

So far, all I've heard is crickets....which is exactly what I expected.

Steve B.

Greg
You are cherry-picking from what I said. I wrote that 'it's no surprise the far left is opposed' to Citizens. I never said others aren't. To include McCain means nothing to me; losing a Presidential primary and the a Presidential campaign shows he doesn't even have the support of a majority of the minority party. Add to that he's likely quite ticked off that his campaign finance bill--presented alongside one of the furthest 'left' Democrats--got tossed to the side of the road. Now he's ticked that he's losing his power in the Senate as the 'young guns' are assuming the front role. I expect JM thought he'd be the new "Lion of the Senate" once Teddy "Waitress Sandwich" Kennedy was gone.

I've read your 'amendment.' Absent from it is any/all mention of outside politicians or other entities coming in to support their allies/issues or the prevention of the media chiming in--either directly or indirectly. I repeat...you've cherry-picked from what I've said as well as leaving out a major influence to the benefit of Democrats/'progressives/liberals.

If you want fair, then be fair. However, since you can't hold elections in a vacuum, then don't set up a system that favors one side over the other. You all keep avoiding that factor as though it doesn't exist. Quite simply, you all are either being blind or purposely dishonest. Which is it?

Steve B.

Move to Amend is just one of many groups calling for an amendment. It doesn't mean that MTA‘s wording will be the wording of an amendment. MTA is just one vehicle for "we the people" to express our discontent over the current system. I envision the rumblings of the people from cities such as ours to be the reason our elected officials are moved to do something about the current system in place since the Citizens United decision. Even if we get the “Disclose Act”, which has been filibustered in the Senate several times, it would be a success. We will never get any changes unless we demonstrate our dissatisfaction with the way things are right now.
I really believe this is a non-partisan issue. I went door to door in our city without regard to party identification. People signed the petition because they are fed up with the money that is smothering our democratic process. Look at the signatures on the petition and you’ll see what I’m saying. People get it. People wanted to have a chance to vote on this and they did. We won. With few resources, we won. Those people who paid attention understood what this was about. People asked us questions at the polls. People actually had our literature in their hands as they went in to vote.

This movement, to be successful, needs everyone. It would be great if we could look at this through the eyes of a citizen of America instead of a partisan. We all want our voices and opinions to matter. Corporations & unions are not people. Money does not equal speech. There is no sane explanation grounded in reality that can refute that statement.

I will not get embroiled in a discussion of anything other than the corporate personhood discussion. All else, to me, is a distraction. This is the issue from which all other problems emanate. .

Rose and Greg

Of course you don't want to discuss anything besides money because it's obviously contrary to your cozy little agenda . Also, because you know Steve S and I are right. I have said--more than once--that I don't like all the money but unless ALL is prevented then none should be. To use one of BHO's favorite words--that would be FAIR.

Your voice DOES matter. Corporations and the like can't vote--you can. It's your own darned fault if you choose to listen to the campaign noise. It's your own darned fault if you don't hold your reps' feet to the fire.

Regarding the political nature of the media--I would have to go back and look for the exact % but I believe that ~90% of the major media were registered with the Democrat Party and it DOES make a difference when they are carrying the Democrats' water for them. That has more influence than ANY $$ ever could. They routinely edit audio/video to fit their agenda use lame excuses when shown that they have butchered the evidence. How many of the major networks or papers even bothered to cover Benghazi and the lack of leadership? News articles read like WH editorials. How about Rather's known forged "W" service documents?

Refusing to include "in a discussion of anything other than the corporate personhood" is intentionally ignoring the greatest part of the problem which shows yourselves as intentionally dishonest, and that affects those in your district who you are claiming to want to help.

Sad, very sad.

Rose
Maybe I'll forego a possible run of my own around here and head out your way to work and campaign and raise (local) money and support for whatever candidate you and your group are opposing. I'm sure you'd let me into Brecksville because you obviously would welcome Code Pink, Occupy ___, SEIU, The New Black Panthers, The Anarchists, MSNBC and so on and I KNOW you wouldn't try to block someone else. After all, you're really only concerned about the money.

News Flash----McGovern lost. Pull up your big boy/girl pants and deal with it. (BTW--I worked--as a 16 year old--in the second worst neighborhood in the USA for McG...then I grew up, got a job, and realized the error of my ways.)

People of Brecksville: "Move To Amend" is concerned ONLY with making sure that THEIR favored candidates or issues have a chance. They don't care one whit about YOU. Save yourselves.

No wonder my friends didn't want to post...you can't debate someone like you guys that intentionally ignore logic and/or common sense.

See you next local election!!

Steve B

I deleted my last comment. No need to address the obvious anger in your statement. I have not engaged in anything but respectful dialogue on this site and will continue to do so when discussing the corporate personhood issue.

Our group was formed to specifically address the corporate personhood issue in response to the 2010 Citizens United v FEC decision. Our group is non-partisan. We do not now nor have we ever promoted any specific candidate or any specific issue other than the aforementioned 2010 Court decision.

Rose

Too bad, I'm sure it was quite the enlightening effort. I wish I had seen it but, after losing power here all day Friday, I left for northern Vermont once I could finally return to the power grid and not worry about flooding or massive food spoilage.

Anger? Seems you're wrong about that, too. Actually, I feel quite happy--because I finally succeeded and got you to expose yourself and your colleagues as I knew you would. I must be slipping; it usually doesn't take so long...although Patch TOS make it more of a process. You see, the far left likes to insist that it's only conservatives who raise big money so, naturally, that needs to be stopped to 'level the field;' just as income must be re-distributed to 'make things fair.'

You can claim non-partisan status all you want but even the most casual observer sees right through that charade. At the invitation and behest of friends in your town, I decided to help shine a bright light on what you have admitted to wanting to remain hidden in the dark. As with political campaigns, I say let's put it ALL out there and let the people decide (as they should and do)....continued below

The mere fact that you PURPOSELY STATE you are avoiding the whole influence side of things demonstrates how unfair you strive to make things. A Constitutional Amendment is such a rarity and so very difficult to pass that to intentionally omit half an issue is irresponsible. It would be similar to passing an Amendment to allow only one party to vote (or some other similar exclusion.)

That's not to say that, at some point, a changed court wouldn't overturn Citizens; it happens. It doesn't even require further changes. Heck, Mr. 'I want to be a high-profile popular Chief Justice' Roberts is certainly a wild card. In my opinion, it would have to be a reversal as there's little chance your 'effort' would become # 28 or 29.

Personally, I think a better Constitutional battle would be against the one being waged AGAINST the citizenry as we speak. The two-year Democrat monopoly and now majority of DC has been stomping all over our sacred document. Obamacare--the evils of which are still not all known--was a mangling/manipulation of the 10th Amendment, current efforts are attempting to turn the 2nd on its head and there have been numerous efforts to strangle the 1st. That doesn't even include the snubbing of rules dealing with Senate Democrats refusing to pass a budget in order to continually and automatically increase expenditures. That's not to say R's have been fiscally sound but, like in the mid-90's, at least they have been trying to walk the walk.

Just to further illustrate my point about The Left and their accusations of The Right raising the lion's share of the money--not to mention the fairness of The Press, here's an article to read:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/why-do-the-koch-brothers-get-all-the-sunshine/article/2523869

Granted, The Examiner is a Conservative site but I'm not highlighting opinion. The Left is very accepting of George Soros' billions, whether through The Tides or any of its foundations and organizations they bankroll. The Left is accepting of the blatant bias of The NYT and Tribune newspapers, etc. They have embraced the BHO Campaign, Part III--aka Organize For America.

The Right's money is declared bad and must be stopped. We just don't talk about The Left's money or the influence that money controls.

Brecksville---your 'concerned neighbors' are bullying you...as only The Left can do (and get away with).

Steve B.

Rose and Greg

Sorry for the absence but one the SpecOps officers KIA by Afghan cops was the son of a friend. Having a current Navy LT and all the pals of his I know plus also having a future USNR Officer, I've been pre-occupied.

You've been exposed and, whether you attempt further bogus claims and lame arguments or not, the truth isn't going away.

I'm starting to think the leftist extremists all share the same workbook. I saw an article the other day about the OFA (BHO Campaign, Part III). If you just switch out a few letters, it could have been about Brecksville's MTA...and just about any other far left element. I've included a piece:

"In yet another defensive maneuver, OFA....reaffirming the group’s commitment to transparency, thwarting special interests, and acting as a nonpartisan organization for advancing the president’s agenda..." “I want to say a word about what we aren’t: We are not a partisan organization."

Steve S.---It's up to you and other Constitutional faithful Brecksvillites to organize your own ballot initiative. Don't let these bullies steamroll your area and the great state of Ohio with their Alinsky game plan. No need to get hysterical; methodically keep to the facts and the truth--it's easy to do against their ilk. They will never argue logic; it will always be emotion.

Just staying in touch.
Steve B.

I’m sorry to hear about the death of your friend’s son. I can't imagine anything more painful than that.

I don't believe legal entities are people. I don't believe money should equal speech. That means the more money you have the more speech you have. We should be able to place some limits on the use of money in politics. I don't believe that legal constructs should have equal weight under the constitution as human beings. It's that simple. I don't think it's a partisan issue. I just don't. Others may want to paint this in a partisan manner, but I don't. Of course, this is my feeling on the subject.

The people of Montana and Arizona voted for laws that tried to restrict the influence of corporations (unions) and money in their politics. These are conservative states. The Supreme Court threw out those laws voted in by the people. It's shameful. It’s wrong and we have to fight to restore the ability of Congress and the individual states to have the right to place limits on campaign contributions. The only way to do that is an amendment. That's the only recourse we have.

Steve maybe you should move to Ohio so you can understand how we were deluged for months on end by unending negative commercials during the last campaign. ALL the commercial time in Ohio was bought up by the campaigns. We couldn't get away from it. Month after Month after Month. It was over the top and resented by everyone I spoke to.

Rose
I turn away from political ads and let my answering machine screen calls during election season. You don't like it...turn it off. Ignore it. There's no mystery; you KNOW it's biased. They mean nothing other than money in the broadcasters' pockets.

Money DOESN'T equal free speech. PEOPLE vote. Besides, as I have tried to pound into your skull, the media are the biggest campaign 'contributers.' Is there any news publication that doesn't offer editorial campaign selections? Nope. Does their 'reporting' get tilted one way or the other? Yep. That's worse than ANY PAC because people (foolishly) think they are getting news and/or fact. Now THAT'S political power!!

Just because people vote for certain laws doesn't make them legal. Let's say that a conservative state passes a resolution that women can't vote...does that mean it's legal? Same thing. Besides, state laws get superseded by federal...and I sure don't want any incumbent politician who would benefit greatly by limiting an opponent's campaign making rules to do just that.

The ads are everywhere, OH's not special in that regard. So what? If anything, untruthful ones are going to make me more likely to vote AGAINST the person being promoted.

Cont.

I just read the following; it certainly applies here----"In 2010, after the Supreme Court struck down several campaign finance restrictions in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court came under intense criticism for harboring an alleged pro-corporate bias. In response, Thomas reminded those critics that the cause of campaign finance regulation was not exactly squeaky clean.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Thomas told an audience at Stetson University College of Law, referring to the Tillman Act of 1907, an early campaign finance law sponsored by Sen. Benjamin Tillman, a leading Southern Progressive and notorious white supremacist. “Tillman was from South Carolina,” Thomas continued, “and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks, and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

Cont.

cont--

No, Rose...as a long ago Const Law and Const. History student, a long-time 'student' of politics, a participant in same, your group's battle cries are as transparent as (clear) glass. Much like the aforementioned Sen. Tillman, you all desperately want to limit any Conservative attempt to balance the information equation...and you're more than willing to include any conned right-leaning people you can. My presence here is simply to call a club a club (don't want any racist accusations)..and I will continue as long as my presence is requested by friends--and maybe even longer because I despise attempts to limit political discussion. You've already learned that ignoring me doesn't make me go away; there is tremendously important balance to maintain.

You guys and all your protestations remind me very much of teachers, who claim they're all about the kids, going out on strike because it's REALLY all about the MONEY and POWER. Oh yeah, I just realized...you have that problem, too.

DON'T TREAD ON ME.

Steve B.

Rose

"...deluged for months on end by unending negative commercials." Closely following thousands of elections on many levels for just over 40 years has taught me that that is simply liberal code for 'you're making my candidate look bad.' Heck, I used it myself many years ago. Funny thing, that interpretation was never used to self-assess.

What is it that makes these commercials negative? It overwhelmingly describes one side--usually conservatives--as pointing out how the liberal and his/her policies have been, or will lead to, a bad result. The other typical instance is showing how the left's ads are blatant lies. These are not negative ads. EX: If you posted that I was a drug addict , and I replied that that was not true, my response is not negative. If you posted that my opinions supported drug addiction and my reply showed that they didn't, my response is not negative. Same thing.

Last year, we were blitzed by ads from Democrats that were blatant lies; even the Tribune-controlled ultra-liberal Hartford Courant would, on occasion, admit as much. When the target would respond to defend themselves, the Democrat Party would blister them with claims of 'negative ads.'

I would love for some of the local RTC to assume some of the load-bearing. We have our own huge battles here; notably local and state budgets, the gun confiscation issue Dems call "common sense gun control" and driver licenses for illegals, which is one step removed from illegals voting.

S.B.

Regressive Rose

How do you feel about OFA? They're not 'campaigning,' they're not voting, but they sure are the marketing department for BHO and the Regressive liberals. They're all over the media, they even run BHO's twitter account. They supply all kinds of fodder for MSNBC, NBC, CNN, CBS, ABC, Tribune Newspapers. Shouldn't THEY be shut down, too?

How about NBC and affiliates looking to hire every single first-term BHO officials? Do you think that our former crook and co-waitress sandwich partner with Teddy K. and one of the main enablers of the entire housing crisis, etc. would have been hired by Hollyweird had he not been a Senator? There are also former Reps who prosper from their former jobs. These examples of money/power are far more dangerous than any transparent PAC.

Then look at existing Sens and Reps, and State office holders. They are 'free' to exert all the direct influence they want to benefit themselves and friends.

Your efforts are horribly transparent, dangerously misguided and damaging to total public discussion. It's time that people hold you and your ilk accountable for the damage done to this Representative Republic.

Steve B

Open question to anyone pushing MTA:

BHO Campaign, Jr. (Organizing for America) has joined with several far left groups and anti-second amendment Gov Cuomo in NY to push for public funding of campaigns. They will be throwing considerable money and weight behind other orgs to push the effort. Among these groups is the Working Families Party, a front for far left Democrats.

This must present quite the conundrum for you. I mean, here's an outside group pumping out cash and propaganda to influence the outcome of a state issue. The very nature of your group would dictate that you vehemently oppose these efforts.

OFA seeks to influence elections and policy throughout the country. BHO is obviously complicit as OFA is selling direct access to POTUS. Now, before you use the battle cry of 'everyone does it,' The Left has claimed BHO wouldn't BE like everyone else. Of course, this is the man who promised to live within public-financing rules only to completely reject the idea for his campaigns. He has zero credibility on almost everything that comes out of his mouth.

I'm asking an honest question. Here are directly-connected groups, pumping out money and 'labor' to ram an agenda down citizens' throats. You say you oppose such things--though I have provided factual instances why that's a farcical claim--so what's your stance and what do you plan to do about it?

Steve B.

Rose

Or...how about the millions Bloomberg, Carrey, etc are spending to push gun 'control?' How about the millions spent--of OUR money--spent by POTUS/VPOTUS/FLOTUS to push for their agenda? Better yet, how about all the state/local campaign stops made ON OUR DIME to support and endorse a particular candidate? Or even to attend their own fundraisers? All they need to do is very loosely tie some bogus non-political event and WE pay for it.

There are so many holes in your argument and no amount of crying about only wanting 'fair and transparent politics'--which, as I have fully explained, is a complete misnomer--changes that. Your ilk couldn't be any MORE partisan or LESS transparent if you tried. I hope the citizens of Brecksville can now see through your political machinations.

Good luck, my Brecksville friends, if these 'regressives' continue to hold sway in your community.

Steve B

Steve, you've been busy on here. To your question, I am strictly for all "legal entities" having the right of corporate personhood rescinded. I don't care which side they advocate for and I don't care about their philosophy. If they are not a human, breathing person then they can be regulated by congress and the states. End of story. I'm not sure what you find so hard to understand about this position. It's non-partisan. It's non-discriminatory. It applies to all "legal entities" across the board. That's my view. Have I made myself clear? Again, this isn’t a partisan issue, in my view. Now, if you see things differently well, that’s ok, too. I just hope there are more ppl who agree with me than you..;> http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-personhood/ ---> Corporations are NOT people and therefore don't have the same rights as natural human beings <-- ***all your blathering and yammering cannot change that unalterable truth.***

Rose, Greg, Jack, Tabitha, etc.

I see my last post was removed. There was nothing whatsoever offensive in it nor did it truly violate any Patch TOS. However, all of that information has already been passed along to and discussed with Brecksville residents. I sure hope they use it to further expose what's going on.

Based upon arguments put forward by BCTP, others not put forward, past practices of affiliated and endorsing organizations, and extensive experience with some of those groups, I stand by my statement that the entire purpose of this group and movement is to completely control the dissemination of information and shut down one entire side of it in an effort to control political power. Bottom up, top down, inside out.

Good luck, Brecksville and CVR.
Steve B

Heh, imagine that

I would never have guessed this blue state's Flagship University would have taken such appropriate action.

http://today.uconn.edu/blog/2012/04/university-to-discontinue-student-fee-charged-to-support-uconnpirg/

Pay particular attention to the paragraph starting--"Following a routine audit.." Imagine that...forced (at many schools) contribution to an organization that injects itself into local, state and national votes. By the way, they also get funding from hundreds of ultra-liberal groups.

Sounds like an outside group attempting to influence local decision-making. Lest you forget, these UniversityPIRGS also often directly/indirectly attempt to prevent conservative speakers from speaking on campuses.

Just some more very inconvenient truths.
SB

Since BCTP has such close ties with PIRGs--just look at the dais for DDay--here's another interesting link:
http://futuremajority.com/node/534

SB

BCTP does not have close ties with Ohio PIRG. We recently met Tabatha from Ohio PRIG and she offered to give us "facts" and "data" about the 2012 election, both federal & state. Are you saying that the information presented by Ohio PIRG was not factual or was incorrect? Is that what you’re saying? Do you have concrete information that casts doubt on the presentation made by Ms Woodruff?
I'm frankly tired of your trying to denigrate our group. We are all long-time Brecksville residents who embarked on a quest to bring attention to the issue of money in politics and the effect the 2010 Citizens United decision has had on our federal, state & local elections. You're constant effort at trying to paint us as something other than concerned citizens is, frankly, tiring and says more about you and your quest to inject yourself into our local election then it says about any of us. You engage in McCarthy style rhetoric. Why not stick to the facts and discuss how money in politics has affected all of us rather than your surreptitious innuendo about our group and the way you try to paint guilt by association.

I believe that average Americans are having their voices drowned out in the avalanche of money pouring into our political system. I believe that public policy is not set based upon what is good for the middle class but what is good for those with the most money. Again, hopefully, enough people of good will can see how our economy has been hurt by the policies that promote the outsourcing of our jobs, by the hiding of profits overseas so the payment of taxes can be avoided , by the denigration of our educational system and on-and-on.
All of our country’s problems, in my opinion, stem from the ungodly amount of money sloshing around our political system. Pay-to-Play, Crony Capitalism, is the way business is conducted in the USA. The only remedy, and I stress ONLY, after the Citizens United decision is an amendment to the constitution saying that “corporations are not people and money is not equal to political speech and can therefore be regulated.” This amendment will RETURN to congress and our individual states the ability to regulate our elections. I think that’s a good thing for democrats, republicans, independents, libertarians etc….
I don’t understand people like Mr. Clemson, from Connecticut, who want to insist that legal entities are people and that money is speech.

We don't have to just sit by and let our country turn into a banana republic ruled by a wealthy elite. We can take action to stop this...our group, Brecksville Citizens for Transparent Politics elected to do *something* about this problem. It might not be THE answer, but at least we stepped up to the plate and tried to make a difference. I'd be happy to entertain any suggestions by others as to how we fix the problem of unregulated corporate money, money from foreign corporations & vast amounts of money pouring into PACS & Superpacs by all "legal entities" and wealthy individuals. It's the wild west right now in our political elections. How is that beneficial to American small businesses, families and workers?

Rose
There's more of a PIRG connection than Tabitha based upon some easily done digging, but the post stating so and suggesting ways for Brecksville residents to do some of their own was removed almost instantly. If you're tired of me then don't respond. I've been waiting for the "McCarthy" comment; very predictable. I was invited into the discussion by some of your very concerned residents who are tired of being bullied by you and your group.

The fact remains that you only want to stop ONE SIDE of the situation and you refuse to even address it. The fact remains that none of these corporations can vote and wealthy individuals only get to vote once---as opposed to the pollworker and the other 18 being charged in ONE COUNTY IN OHIO. Or Bridgeport, CT union members handing out pre-filled out ballot sheets. Or....

Repeat after me: ONLY PEOPLE CAN VOTE. I don't understand why that's such a difficult concept for you to comprehend.

Trying to make a difference doing SOMETHING sounds like the moves to regulate firearms and ammunition. Dare I ask...How do you feel about THAT?

Have a sparkling rest of the weekend!
SB

First of all Steve B, let’s get a couple things straight. I for one do not like the your implication that the citizens of Brecksville are incapable of fighting their own battles. You say that you were invited into this discussion by a citizens here in Brecksville. I do not believe anyone from this town would ask you to fight their battle for them. They apparently determined they were incapable of rebutting our arguments in favor of an amendment to the constitution that would restore the power to Congress to regulate political funds contributed by corporations and unions. I don't believe the citizens of Brecksville need any help to argue for or against the issue.

I resent you stating that anyone involved with BCTP bullied any citizen of Brecksville. I and the rest of BCTP worked hard to get our initiative on the ballot, voted on and passed by a plurality of Brecksville voters. None of us reduced our efforts to the level of bullying. The bullying was from the opposition who mistakenly called one of our leaders a liar during our first Democracy Day meeting.
The fact remains that our efforts clearly have been focused at repealing the Supreme Court ruling which affects both corporations and unions and that was specifically spelled out in detail on every petition we circulated and is, in fact, part of the city ordinance. I firmly believe that our citizens are fully capable of dealing with our own issues without some outsider from the east coast butting in.

Fred

You must be the next batter up, eh?

How else would I have even known about your town, let alone your group, had I not been invited? I know lots of people who don't wish to engage as I do, or have the info that I do, or know how to get that info. I've passed along quite a bit of that to my Brecksville friends, as in "give a man a fish...teach a man to fish...."

Go back and read my posts. I've fully explained how eliminating one 'side' and not the other is, by definition, not non-partisan. I also don't understand how you folks can't grasp the concept that PEOPLE vote. NO amount of outside influence changes that--except for those (as in OHIO, Chicago, etc) who vote many times.

Resent all you want. I've dealt with much better bullies than you folks for MANY years. It's ALWAYS fun exposing them for what they are. I'm certainly hoping that those who I have corresponded with--at their request--will now be able to carry the battle because we have our own much bigger fish to fry around here.

Oh and, at least until Progressives manage to take the 1st Amendment away--just as POTUS is trying to do in Hartford at this very moment--plus a couple others, I'll still be around.

SB

Steve S.

Since you may still be checking once in awhile, you may want to call the WAAAAAAAAAAmbulance for your Progressive neighbors.

Steve B.

Fred
1) By the way, Steve S. wasn't one of my 'hosts, ' just someone I've come to be acquainted with.
2) I think you mentioned once that I had no knowledge of unions. Well I was a union member--had to be--for ~20 years and I even helped negotiate a contract that was accepted by both sides. I still have friends in a couple different unions--and they couldn't care less about MTA.

HAve fun!

Steve B,
1) Why would you think that anyone suspects Steve S of being one of your 'hosts'? Steve S is fully capable of speaking his own mind and does so.
2) I am glad you were a union member, there certainly is not enough of em. That your union 'friends' in a couple different unions could not care less about MTA is of zero concern to me either or anyone else I know. What is important is I DO care.

This is fun!.

Steve B,
I cannot say for certain whether I am the next batter up but you confuse me with your wanting me to go back and read your posts. I also have no clue where you get the idea that we want to eliminate anything. We do not. This is what happens when someone from the outside tries to stick his nose into a local issue. I also am certain that every single one citizen of Brecksville understands that people vote, it is not a difficult concept. I have never missed the opportunity to vote. I am a person. What it seems you cannot get is that corporations and unions are NOT people.
As long as you resort to calling us names I will continue to refute it. We have not done anything that can be defined as bullying, all we have done is put our work ethic out there for all to see. Hard work pays off and it always will.
Sometime when you get the opportunity you should come to Brecksville. I would be glad to take you out on my lake and teach you how to fish. I know you will be right at home as there are some pretty big fish in my lake. If not you can fry your own big fish right there in Connecticut.
Just in case you are wondering, in addition to working on our local issue, I would gladly serve again to protect YOUR first amendment right you seem to be concerned about.

Fred

For the gazillionth time, you're trying to eliminate the money that corps, etc. spend as in advertising. This is usually in reference to Conservative groups. However, as Rose so often put it, you're not concerned with the undue influence that the predominantly leftist media has...or the legions of unions, anarchists, professional protestors, etc that get paid to go into an area on the side of the Democrat Party. In other words, you're eliminating one side of the equation.

A perfect example--besides the Progressive (if that's name-calling, you're pretty thin-skinned) MSNBC--is the fact that CNN is running an all-day assault on the 2nd Amendment....designed to convince people to pressure their reps as votes are coming to the Congress very soon.

Again, if you don't stop ALL of it, you can't fairly stop any of it.

You keep saying that corps aren't people so they shouldn't be able to voice their opinions. Well, I've said a million times that they DON'T vote PEOPLE do...so what difference does it make? You can't have it both ways.

Your sarcasm needs work.

I know how to fish....and I'm concerned about EVERYONE'S Constitutional rights...but thanks anyway.

SB

After reading Issue 25 and the petition, I fully understand how it gained enough sigs to be placed on the ballot and how it passed. There are three possible reasons, the magnitude of each matters not.
1) Some people will sign ANYTHING. Others won't sign anything so I'm guessing that's not too big a consideration.

2) There are a plurality/majority of Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, whatever. Of course they'll sign something that adversely affects Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Party members. A big consideration to be sure.

3) Finally, after reading the BCTP groups posts, it's crystal clear that the actual effect of the Issue is not being mentioned to obscure the fact that you ARE only striving to eliminate just one side's ability to get the word out and/or defend themselves against attack. It SOUNDS good...unless you actually pay attention.

I'm quite familiar with that strategy as I've dealt with PIRGS, unions, Occupy groups, and even groups as small as our local or state Democrats (and some republicans--like our State Minority Leadership). It's very effective--as long as people don't do anything more than accept the 'guidance' as truth. I've just been trying to help those who welcomed me aboard recognize those tactics and others...and to do their due diligence on such sanctimonious groups.

SB

Steve B
I am sorry that after a gazillion times we still don’t get it. I don’t care how much money corporations and unions spend on advertising. I honestly don’t. I just think that spending on POLITICAL advertising reduces free speech and also should be properly controlled by Congress as they have done over the years. It’s not about freedom of speech, it’s about taking it away by political spending unlimited amounts of money without regulation. It’s wrong; the vast majority of the people in this country, Dem, Rep, and Independent agree that it’s wrong. I certainly would not be interested in curbing the free speech of media, whether right or left. I am all for freedom of speech. That’s exactly why I am in favor of restoring to Congress the right to regulate the spending of money in politics. If I had my way the candidates would stand on their own merits period.
Oh and I am proud to be a Progressive, it’s the bullying thing that you keep trying to hang on our efforts to get Citizens United turned around like it should be. We don’t bully, we never did bully.
We do not understand this thing about stopping all of it or some of it. We do NOT want to stop anything. We simply want to restore the power to control political spending by corporations and unions back to Congress where it belongs. Once again, that’s the issue that has been the issue and will remain the issue.

Steve B
When you are wrong, you are really wrong. The 3 point thing, point one as you said can go either way. But I got some bad news for you, point two is completely wrong. The plurality/majority here in Brecksville belongs to the “Republicans, Conservatives, Tea Party members.” We “Democrats, Progressives, Liberals, whatever.” are in the minority. What did it for us is the majority of the people who voted agreed with us, it helps to be right.
That brings us to number three where once again you are completely wrong. There was no hiding, no trying to disguise anything. We were open, held forums where opinions were freely expressed, put a great deal of effort to make sure that the citizens of Brecksville had the opportunity to understand exactly what we were trying to do. We did not favor one side vs. another. The ordinance, as adopted is crystal clear. As simple as I can put it is we just want the power that the Supreme Court took away from Congress to be restored. It can only happen in two ways, one, the Supreme Court reverses itself which I for one, hope will happen. The other option is an amendment to the US Constitution. I much prefer the former but will settle for the later if the Supreme Court cannot wake up.
Hope those fish are frying there in Connecticut. Mine are pretty tasty here too.