sleeper;962575 wrote:Campaign financing is definitely a problem. We need to go beyond SB5 in limiting the influence of monetary donations from corporations and unions.

Why stop at corporations or unions....oh, that's right, they disagree with your idealogy.

George Soros ring a bell??

Yes, I know that Soros is a Dem and you are a tea-bagger, but campaign contribution reform is needed for both sides.

Yes, the 1% should also not be allowed to donate since they can give more money that the common citizen.

I feel VERY strongly about Senate Bill 5 passing.

Scarlet_Buckeye;963109 wrote:I feel VERY strongly about Senate Bill 5 passing.

I hope you're right. I have a bad feeling, but am staying positive.

Glory Days;962563 wrote:what about unliminited private funds? corporations are people, why cant unions be people?

If the private entity is to negotiate with the official being elected, then it would also be collusion, and thus, should be disallowed.

It's not the large donation quantities that I personally find problematic. It's when those large donations go toward a candidate that is intended to work from the other side of the bargaining table. That's textbook collusion. As such, I don't really care if it's a union or a private entity. Collusion is collusion.

O-Trap;963168 wrote:If the private entity is to negotiate with the official being elected, then it would also be collusion, and thus, should be disallowed.

It's not the large donation quantities that I personally find problematic. It's when those large donations go toward a candidate that is intended to work from the other side of the bargaining table. That's textbook collusion. As such, I don't really care if it's a union or a private entity. Collusion is collusion.

but isnt that the whole reason anyone donates money to candidates?

O-Trap;963168 wrote:If the private entity is to negotiate with the official being elected, then it would also be collusion, and thus, should be disallowed.

It's not the large donation quantities that I personally find problematic. It's when those large donations go toward a candidate that is intended to work from the other side of the bargaining table. That's textbook collusion. As such, I don't really care if it's a union or a private entity. Collusion is collusion.

And yet it is OK for a corporation or private entity to suport a candidate that best supports thier ideas or viewpoint? There is no bargaining, these are back room deals that never see the light of day.

The fact remains that we are suppossed to trust the people making these deals to be of the highest integrity. And as far as measurements go, I find that most of OUR elected officials come up wanting.

While collective bargaining is NOT a right, It is protected by federal law. This legislation as well as Issue 3 will be challenged and overturned by the Federal courts if passed.

Issue 2 an 3 are going down like a 5 dollar crack whore in a 20 dollar massage parlor today. Neither a worthy of a constitutional ammendment and are both giong to cost Ohio a lot of money if passed.

Glory Days;963182 wrote:but isnt that the whole reason anyone donates money to candidates?

Collusion?

Devils Advocate;963184 wrote:And yet it is OK for a corporation or private entity to suport a candidate that best supports thier ideas or viewpoint? There is no bargaining, these are back room deals that never see the light of day.

Where did I say that was okay? That would ALSO be collusion if back room deals were to take place.

Support is fine, so long as no foreseen negotiations are to take place, whether in the open or behind closed doors (are union negotiations any more a matter of public record than a backroom deal would be? I genuinely don't know).

However, pointing out an entity's corrupt behavior (back room deals) does not give credence to other parties engaging in the same corrupt behavior.

Devils Advocate;963184 wrote:The fact remains that we are suppossed to trust the people making these deals to be of the highest integrity. And as far as measurements go, I find that most of OUR elected officials come up wanting.

You certainly won't get a disagreement out of me here.

Devils Advocate;963184 wrote:While collective bargaining is NOT a right, It is protected by federal law. This legislation as well as Issue 3 will be challenged and overturned by the Federal courts if passed.

Issue 2 an 3 are going down like a 5 dollar crack whore in a 20 dollar massage parlor today. Neither a worthy of a constitutional ammendment and are both giong to cost Ohio a lot of money if passed.

Merely curious. How are they going to cost Ohio money if passed in your estimation?

By the way, pardon any errors. I'm on my phone.

[h=6]Dear Ohio citizen:

Let me help you with Issue 2…

The average income per Ohio citizen = $32,000
The average Teacher salary = $52,000
The average Public employee = $42,000
The average Police/Fire = $45,000

By voting ‘No’ on Issue 2, you will be giving automatic salary increases to those who make more than you but pay less for medical & retirement, increasing your taxes, increasing your property taxes, and providing the public employee with better medical and retirement packages than you have earned.

Vote ‘YES’ on Issue 2 and help yourself out for once…[/h]

The responses...

Person #1

Let me show you the average teacher pay check and show you how wrong you are. The average public employee dedicates their livelyhood to helpi8ng others- how much do you spend of your time helping others and your community?

People are getting really testy on Facebook today. A guy I know wrote "If you vote yes on issue 2, I hope the fire dept lets your house burn down, the EMT's let your grandma die, and the police let your mom get raped"

LJ;963394 wrote:People are getting really testy on Facebook today. A guy I know wrote "If you vote yes on issue 2, I hope the fire dept lets your house burn down, the EMT's let your grandma die, and the police let your mom get raped"

A good example of the emotion that has become the basis for argument in the "vote no" camp. According to them, if you vote yes, you hate fire and police personnel. They also portray a Ghandi complex with all public servants being of the utmost sanctity in helping their fellow man while the rest of us selfishly serve ourselves.

The point of this bill is to deal with the costs and basic flaws in public employees bargaining. Public employees don't get rich doing what they do. However they also make a very nice living with a lot more security and benefits than the average Joe. Also don't forget that the CHOSE this line of work. As spenders of the public's money, they are accountable us in terms of the decision making that regards their reward package. They are being asked nothing more than what is asked of millions of the rest of us.

LJ;963394 wrote:People are getting really testy on Facebook today. A guy I know wrote "If you vote yes on issue 2, I hope the fire dept lets your house burn down, the EMT's let your grandma die, and the police let your mom get raped"

A teacher I know blamed Kasich for trying to hide Issue 2 on the ballot. :rolleyes:

O-Trap;963285 wrote: Merely curious. How are they going to cost Ohio money if passed in your estimation?

If passed, suit will be filed in a Federal court. By obligation, The Atty General of Ohio will have to "defend" the will of the voters. These siuts always take years and millionsof dollars.

Devils Advocate;963453 wrote:If passed, suit will be filed in a Federal court. By obligation, The Atty General of Ohio will have to "defend" the will of the voters. These siuts always take years and millionsof dollars.

Why would this state issue go to the feds? It didn't when it was passed initially.

I voted Yes today; I am standing with the citizens and taxpayers of Ohio, for a better future. I oppose the union money laundering machine and the incredible greed that goes with it, not to mention the anti-competitive position it has put us in.

'Oats

Dr Winston O'Boogie;963434 wrote:A good example of the emotion that has become the basis for argument in the "vote no" camp. According to them, if you vote yes, you hate fire and police personnel. They also portray a Ghandi complex with all public servants being of the utmost sanctity in helping their fellow man while the rest of us selfishly serve ourselves.

The point of this bill is to deal with the costs and basic flaws in public employees bargaining. Public employees don't get rich doing what they do. However they also make a very nice living with a lot more security and benefits than the average Joe. Also don't forget that the CHOSE this line of work. As spenders of the public's money, they are accountable us in terms of the decision making that regards their reward package. They are being asked nothing more than what is asked of millions of the rest of us.

And how is that any different from the vote 'yes' people who are perpetuating untruths in their ads.....such as "Public union workers make 43% more than private sector workers" and "Public union workers cannot be fired", etc etc etc

Devils Advocate;963453 wrote:If passed, suit will be filed in a Federal court. By obligation, The Atty General of Ohio will have to "defend" the will of the voters. These siuts always take years and millionsof dollars.

Why must these suits be filed, and by whom will they be filed?

Given that several states prohibit collective bargaining, it would seem that it is not enforced by federal mandate, or am I missing something?

wkfan;963506 wrote:And how is that any different from the vote 'yes' people who are perpetuating untruths in their ads.....such as "Public union workers make 43% more than private sector workers" and "Public union workers cannot be fired", etc etc etc

It's not different. The ad campaigns from both sides have been propagandistic swill.

Scarlet_Buckeye;963307 wrote:The responses...

Person #1

Does that included the three months off and all the paid holiday and service days mofo .Tell that the the DMV employee mofo:laugh:

I voted YES on Issues 2 & 3.

O-Trap;963519 wrote:Why must these suits be filed, and by whom will they be filed?

Given that several states prohibit collective bargaining, it would seem that it is not enforced by federal mandate, or am I missing something?

Can someone else answer this? I'm genuinely curious.

LJ;963394 wrote:People are getting really testy on Facebook today. A guy I know wrote "If you vote yes on issue 2, I hope the fire dept lets your house burn down, the EMT's let your grandma die, and the police let your mom get raped"

False, the police will rape your mom, the firemen would burn down your house to cover up the evidence, and the EMTs will punch your dad in the face.

QuakerOats;963505 wrote:I voted Yes today; I am standing with the citizens and taxpayers of Ohio, for a better future. I oppose the union money laundering machine and the incredible greed that goes with it, not to mention the anti-competitive position it has put us in.

'Oats

public workers are also citizens AND tax payers.

Glory Days;963630 wrote:False, the police will rape your mom, the firemen would burn down your house to cover up the evidence, and the EMTs will punch your dad in the face.

My dad would be safe, since all the EMTs around here work for private ambulances. I wonder how they do merit pay, since it apparently can't be done?