A "NO" vote on common sense background checks by Senator Rob Portman

Senator Portman ignores the majority of his Ohio constituents and caves to the NRA.

I am outraged that Ohio Senator Portman, in voting "NO" on the bi-partisan background check bill, decided to ignore the majority of his Ohio constituents on the issue of universal background checks for gun purchases.  (The poll, by Quinnipiac University, found that in Ohio, 90 percent of voters, including 86 percent of voters in households where there is a gun, favor background checks for all gun purchases.).  Senator Portman has been the recipient of $600,000+ in contributions from the NRA during the 2010 election cycle, according to www.opensecrets.org & The Center for Responsive Politics.  In fact according to the 2010 election cycle the NRA has contributed the following:  https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/indexpend.php?cycle=2010&cmte=C00053553

 Independent Expenditures, Communication Costs and Coordinated Expenses as of May 30, 2012:

Grand Total: $13,698,359

Total For Democrats: $287,276

Total Against Democrats: $3,509,275

Total For Republicans: $9,856,414

Total Against Republicans: $35,834

Is there any question that money buys political votes?  The vote on the gun background check bill was filibustered by 41 republicans + 4 red state dems.  They shut down the ability of the senate to give the majority of American citizens, who favor this law, a vote.  It’s shameful.  It’s unacceptable.  It’s undemocratic.  The people who have suffered from gun violence just wanted the opportunity for a fair up or down vote.  Obviously, this simple request in a democracy was too much for the senators who have been bought and paid for by the NRA. 

 I don’t see how anyone can feel this abuse of our system by special interests and big money donors can be allowed to continue.  If you are outraged get involved in www.movetoamend.org or www.freespeechforpeople.org.  This is not a partisan issue.  We all suffer when Corporations, Unions, PACS & Super-PACS can buy the votes of our elected officials.  These people who bow down to the moneyed interests don’t care about good public policy.  Their only desire is to get re-elected and to protect their job.  The root of the problem is money.  Too much of it:  unregulated, undisclosed and absolutely corrosive to our democracy.  www.rootstrikers.org/ted_promo?splash=1   

I would expect the usual partisan nonsense about this issue.  How absurd to view gun violence, gun deaths, gun maiming and the ways we can prevent further mayhem, to viewed through a partisan lense.  It's a sad commentary that we all can't get behind common sense gun regulation.  What this is really is about is the ability of the gun manufactures and the ammunition manufactures to continue with their billion dollar industry.  It's always about the money.  Too bad it's not about the good of the American people.  It never is.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Murphy-Solon April 24, 2013 at 11:07 AM
That's a categorically false statement Avon. Corporate money belongs to the shareholders. Under current law, corporations do not have to disclose their corporate donations, not even to shareholders. The Dems tried to pass legislation that would have required corporations to disclose these political donations to shareholders and, you guessed it, Republicans filibustered the bill. Seems those Republicans who feign this phony concern for union members didn't give a damn about shareholders when it doesn't suit their political ambitions.
Rose Petsche April 24, 2013 at 12:54 PM
In order for a union to negotiate contracts, represent members etc...they are incorporated. They are corporations and fall under the legal definition as such. See my original post. It does include unions.
A Lifetime Resident of Avon Lake April 24, 2013 at 01:06 PM
Is there an "ignore" button here somewhere so I can just turn some comments by certain individuals off! I ask very specific questions, but never get a response to a question, even if it can be answered with a yes or no answer. Never! Exactly what did I say above that was "false". Please reread, in your case with someone who may be able to explain it to you...like a third grader. Name a single corporation that can deduct money from anyone's paycheck to purchase their stock to support their political agenda????? Last chance to answer a specific question. Name a single corporation. I look forward to your response. Don't dance around it, just a single name please. Don't call me names, don't question my credibility, just give me a single answer. If you cannot name one, you are the one who "categorically wrong." No whining, no spinning, just answer the question. If you can't, then don't bother writing back! Just As for the comment above that "Republicans feign phony concern for union members" this is not true in my case. I could care less for unions. I will at least admit it. I have no hidden agenda here, and will never pretend to like something, or someone I don't. Dems try to pass lots of legislation against corporations. They don't believe in capitalism any away
James Thomas April 24, 2013 at 01:11 PM
Murphy-Solon' "I'll settle for ending the unconstitutional Republican effort of gerrymandering congressional districts in an effort deny Democrats their constitutional representation rights." Will you also support the unconstitutional Democrat effort of gerrymandering congressional districts in California, the state with the most districts, to deny Republicans their representation rights? California is now a one party state and I'm laughing at them. Consider the difference of the budgets and taxation of California and Ohio. Ohio is moving forward in a fiscally responsible manner if not one that pleases everyone. California is headed down the tubes.
Murphy-Solon April 24, 2013 at 01:27 PM
Corporations are owned by the shareholders. They have more rights than employees. Corporations use their money without their expressed authority or knowledge. The Dems offered a bill that would require that corporations must divulge to the shareholders how much of their money and to whom that money was being given to. The Republicans filibustered the bill. Republicans don't care one iota about union member rights. Their efforts are directed at weakening unions as a political force. Avon, you take cheap swipes at me yet you illustrate time and time again that you are not very well read on the issues. You hope I'll just go away but that's not going to happen. Republicans can't hide from the truth regardless of how nasty you get. You'll never intimidate me.
A Lifetime Resident of Avon Lake April 24, 2013 at 01:33 PM
Rose, You are correct, you did mention Unions...my apologies. The name of your movement is likely misleading to many however, as most do not view a Union as a corporations. The "average" voter views corporations as the opposite of unions, based on the political rhetoric which pits them against one another consistently. While a labor union may be a corporation under section 501(c)5, this is a nonprofit classification, versus the general perception that a corporation is a large for profit conglomerate. I do think the name is misleading, based on commonly applied perceptions and definitions of a corporation. Buy I do understand the name came from the Supreme Court ruling. Good luck with your movement, but always remember your philosophies must be applied consistently across all issues and all political parties. I am just not sure it is. Especially when you have as a mission in another organization in which you are an officer to promote the "Obama agenda." I am sure you can understand my confusion. Okay, I am now officially done here, good luck and I enjoyed the debate. God Bless America, even Murphy!......
Murphy-Solon April 24, 2013 at 02:54 PM
I'll agree with that James Thomas. Both parties contort districts to make them safe for their party. I brought up gerrymandering in response to talk about term limits. Term limits will not be effective if these "safe" districts are allowed to exist. As you've seen recently, most politicians are more concerned about being primaried by their own party because the district their running in is practically guaranteed to elect their party. This has created a race to the political extremes. Texas received to additional House seats after the 2010 census reflected population increases. The majority of the increase were attributed to increases in the Hispanic population. After redistricting in Texas, the Hispanic population ended up with less representation than they had before the two additional districts were added. I would have no problem if each state districts were placed on a sheet of simple graph paper and overlayed over a state and viola!! A simple unbiased way to determine district representation. So James, we agree in principle on this issue.
James Thomas April 24, 2013 at 03:06 PM
Murphy-Solon, trying to find an unbiased solution today might be nigh impossible. In Ohio over the years, each time it has been suggested that a change in the redistricting structure would be a good idea it has always been proposed by the minority party and shot down by the majority party. One might have to accept that the current process is the least broken one that we can get.
A Lifetime Resident of Avon Lake April 24, 2013 at 05:12 PM
Murphy, Simply answer my question.
Murphy-Solon April 24, 2013 at 05:15 PM
I've said all I intend to say to you Avon...
A Lifetime Resident of Avon Lake April 24, 2013 at 07:32 PM
So long Murphy from Solon. I suppose the facts finally got to you. I apologize for ruining you arguments with logic and reason, to the point you could never answer a single question directly. Even Fred Astaire had to stop "dancing" at some point. By the way, it is not Avon, it is Avon Lake. I suppose now you will debate that there is no difference and the maps are wrong!!! I agree, time to move on. This subject is now of the fourth page of the Patch, and with a big school levy on the ballot in Avon LAKE in a couple of weeks, I suppose my interest has moved elsewhere. Good luck and I wish you well
Murphy-Solon April 24, 2013 at 10:03 PM
Yeah, you were just too smart for me Avon. You're so brilliant, you must run into that problem all the time. Perhaps next time we meet you might actually add you're real name to your city. C'mon, stand behind your words.
Rose Petsche April 24, 2013 at 11:05 PM
People just don't understand that the corporate description covers many different kinds of entities. I'm not sure how to correct this perception which is why I always try to include the word "union" when discussing the issue of money in politics. I like to stress that the power structure in this county is not static. The ascendency of each party rises and falls over time. That's why the issue of money in politics has to apply to all legal entities and also must include the ability to regulate money in the political politics. It's great that this post generated such a lively discussion. It was not always polite but on the whole it was informative.
Murphy-Solon April 25, 2013 at 12:14 AM
You are correct Rosé. The legislation to disclose political donations (Disclose Act) applied equally to unions and corporations alike. The Republicans filibustered the legislation and now we're just as much in the dark when it comes to political donations of business corporations and unions.
Rose Petsche April 25, 2013 at 12:23 AM
James, I thought that California changed the way they drew districts. Also, don't they now have "run-off's" which is a different system then before? I'm no expert on Calif, tho...I'll have to check into that
James Thomas April 25, 2013 at 03:30 AM
Ms. Petsche, yes they did. And after 20 years of trying the Democratic Party in California now has a Super Majority in the State Government, a 38 to 15 Democratic Party advantage in the Congressional Delegation and both Senate seats. You may be of the opinion that this is just how Californians voted, but with politicians involved I am not so charitable. We shall all be witnesses as to how this political battle turns out. I'm not optimistic for the Californians.
Earl Elevant April 25, 2013 at 04:00 AM
Murphy dodges with the best of them if the answer doesn't promote her ideology. Get used to it.
Murphy-Solon April 25, 2013 at 04:01 AM
Can't get anything by you Earl.
Winston Smith May 08, 2013 at 01:44 AM
Sen. Portman voted correctly. This bill was all emotion, and no logic or reason. NOTHING in this bill would have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre. Portman hs my vote in 2016!
Murphy-Solon May 08, 2013 at 01:47 AM
You can vote for Portman if you wish in 2016. He will never attract the center as a result of his vote. He killed his 2016 aspirations out of a fear of the NRA. Just as well, he clearly is not a leader.
Eric Kvasnicka May 08, 2013 at 02:57 AM
A study released today by the US Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that firearm homicides in the US have dropped from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2010. States with conceal and carry laws have shown the most decreases. Places like Chicago with restrictive gun laws for law abiding citizens are the murder capitals in today's America. Good people carrying guns stop evil creeps carrying guns.
Murphy-Solon May 08, 2013 at 02:58 AM
That bears no relevance to this discussion.
Earl Elevant May 08, 2013 at 07:32 AM
C'mon Eric. Your facts are screwing up Murphy's story. Stop it, okay?
Carl S May 08, 2013 at 10:46 AM
hahahahaha Earl, you CAN quit your dayjob!! hahaha. touche !!! This is going to make my morning!! hahahaha
Murphy-Solon May 08, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Funny, but yet you keep losing elections, now that's funny LOL
Murphy-Solon May 08, 2013 at 11:46 AM
Oh fellas, Peter King (R) New York is on t.v. this morning announcing a background check bill that he introduced in the House and already has 150 sponsors. Looks like you're going to lose again. Ha ha ha
Rose Petsche May 08, 2013 at 11:53 AM
I'd like to congratulate our own Senator Portman for recently revealing that he was a marijuana user when younger...(my bet is he probably still smokes). http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/sen-rob-portman-says-yes-he-smoked-pot/ Of course this fact doesn't have any relevance to our discussion here but there is just something about Portman that cries out hypocrite. He, himself, was a drug user but then, for political purposes when he gets to elected office he votes to continue imprisoning people under our draconian marijuana drug laws. You can't trust him to do the "right" thing, only the "political" thing. Now we come full circle, that’s exactly what Portman did when he voted with the NRA to filibuster the background check bill.
Murphy-Solon May 08, 2013 at 11:56 AM
That's no surprise Rose. My observations suggest to me that if a Republican's lips are moving, in all likelihood, they're lying.
Rose Petsche May 08, 2013 at 12:41 PM
It's an integrity thing...isn't it? Portman is against gay marriage until it affects his family. I don't believe for a second that he didn't know his son was a homosexual. I mean, how is it that you don't know or at a minimum suspect? So he votes against allowing marriage equality until it's not convenient for him. He has no integrity...it's all about him and his ability to garner political money from his "funders". It's all about the money, it's not about the people he represents. Ohio was for this background check bill by 85 - 90%. We deserved a vote.
Murphy-Solon May 08, 2013 at 01:02 PM
I agree Rose, Cheney did the same thing when he found out his daughter is gay. It's very self serving. If Portman wasn't forced to face the gay issue within his family, he'd still be out there denouncing the immorality of it all. Look at South Carolina, they just elected Mark Sanford to their first district. Had a Democratic Governor left office having committed adultery, lying to his staff about his where abouts and illegally using taxpayer monies to fly down to Argentina, the Republicans would have crucified him at the polls. Republicans save their moral indignation for Democrats and make phony hypocritical excuses for their own. You know, do as they say, not as they do.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »