ProgressOhio

COLUMBUS, Ohio – A new resource on the Secretary of State’s Web site now provides college students with the information they need to ensure they can vote, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner announced Wednesday.

The new resource, entitled “College Vote Ohio,” is an all-in-one stop where students, their parents, college administrators and student organizations can find information like voter registration deadlines, how to register to vote or vote absentee, how to decide where they should cast a ballot and a forum for sharing ways to get and keep more young people as active voters.

College Vote Ohio was developed by the Voting Rights Institute in the Secretary of State’s office in collaboration with Ohio college students and administrators.

“Because they often leave home to attend college, students of higher education face unique challenges in participating as voters. College Vote Ohio is a useful tool to help connect college students with their rights to vote as our newest generation of voters.  If we can instill familiarity with the process now, they are more likely to be responsible, lifelong voters in our democracy,” Secretary Brunner said.

College Vote Ohio is also a resource for dormitory Resident Assistants (RAs), college administrators and student organizations that assist students with an active campus life, with downloadable fliers to educate students about voting, and an avenue to share ideas about how to better reach young people during their college years and help them become active civic participants by voting.

The new page can be viewed via the following link: www.CollegeVoteOhio.com

The coming 2010 Census will kick off the next redistricting season, which determines how electoral district lines are drawn and, ultimately, who gets to represent the public in state capitols and Congress.

Please join us next Monday in Columbus for a forum on redistricting reform:

WHEN:  Monday, March 1, 2010, 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
WHERE:  Auditorium - Downtown Columbus Metropolitan Library, 95 South Grant Avenue, Columbus, OH, 43215
SPONSORS: Ohio Citizen Action, The League of Women Voters of Ohio Education Fund, Midwest Democracy Network, George Mason University, Brennan Center for Justice
This event is FREE, including lunch.
RSVP: Click here to RSVP for Monday's Forum

Motion of Jennifer Brunner, Ohio Secretary of State, to Intervene and File Answer and Counterclaim/Cross-Claim for Declaratory Judgement Instanter (PDF)

Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's Answer and Counterclaim/Cross-Claim for Declaratory Judgement (PDF)

Columbus – Today, joined by family and supporters at a press conference at Ohio Democratic Party headquarters, Clerk of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Maryellen O’Shaughnessy announced her candidacy for Secretary of State. O’Shaughnessy was introduced by Governor Ted Strickland.

“We need a Secretary of State who is strong, dedicated, experienced, compassionate, hard-working, courageous, and innovative,” said Governor Strickland. “Maryellen O’Shaughnessy will be that Secretary of State. Maryellen shares my philosophy that nothing is more sacred in our democracy than each individual’s right to vote. She will be a guardian of the integrity of our elections system and implement new ideas to increase voter participation and enhance voter protection.”

O’Shaughnessy said, “I am running for Secretary of State because I am passionate about our state and our democracy. I bring to this race my experience as a small business owner, a Council Member for the nation’s 15th largest city, and a County Clerk with a staff of 231 and budget of $12.5 million. As Ohio’s next Secretary of State, I will advocate for greater participation in our elections process by making it easier for Ohioans to register and vote. And I will work every day to administer elections in a free, open and fair way.”

O’Shaughnessy outlined several programs and initiatives that she will advocate, including:

• Assured registration of driver’s license and services applicant, unless they opt-out
• Secure online voter registration
• Enhancing programs targeted at increasing voter participation among young people
• Cracking down on petition circulation fraud
• Reapportionment reform that requires competitiveness and partisan fairness

View More Images Of The Announcement Here

The recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision lifted campaign spending limits for corporations. Now if the big banks on Wall Street don't like what Congress proposes, they can DIRECTLY try to buy a legislature more to their liking.

Stand with me to demand no corporation may spend from its treasury without the express approval of its owners. If the Supreme Court is going to treat corporations as persons with full First Amendment rights, then you and I need to make sure real people are making those decisions.

Sign the petition!

Sen. Brown Introduces The Citizens Right to Know Act

The Supreme Court dealt a body blow to democracy when it ruled, 5-4, that corporations can spend their huge profits to influence American elections. In a stunning display of judicial activism, the radical majority invented a case that was not before it so it could toss out a century of precedent and give corporations license to spend billions of dollars to influence political campaigns.

Well, this extreme corporate power grab will not go unanswered on my watch. I'm going to work to make sure that corporations:

1. FULLY DISCLOSE when they spend from their treasuries to protect special interest cronies in Washington
2. REQUIRE CONSENT from shareholders in the form of a majority vote before they advocate for or against candidates
3. PROTECT OUR ELECTIONS from the influence of foreign-owned corporations spending freely on American politics

The big banks, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies have enough power -- click here to help me curtail the influence of corporations to spend their massive profits to buy elections!

Even with 60 votes in the Senate, health care reform was hanging in the balance, clean energy legislation was imperiled, and reining in Wall Street excesses looked to be an uphill fight. Now if the big banks on Wall Street don't like what Congress proposes, they can DIRECTLY try to buy a legislature more to their liking.

In the last election, the most expensive in our history, candidates, parties, and outside groups spent $5 billion on the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and the historic election of President Obama. That's a huge amount of money, no doubt. But consider this comparison -- Goldman Sachs recently announced it would spend $16 billion on bonuses this year.

SIGN MY PETITION TO PASS COMMON SENSE REGULATIONS FOR CORPORATE CASH SPENT ON ELECTIONS

If corporations are going to play an outsized role in our democracy, then democracy needs to play at least some role in corporations. And if the Supreme Court is going to treat corporations as persons with full First Amendment rights, then you and I need to make sure real people are making those decisions. Join me today, and share our effort with your family and friends on Facebook.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-The-American-People-Ca-by-Kathleen-Wynne-Wi-100127-930.html

"It is important to note that American election integrity advocates haven't been the only ones protesting the use of electronic voting machines counting their votes in secret. Citizens of other democratic republics, such as, Ireland, The Netherlands and India, are but a few of the growing number of countries that have either banned e-voting or are presently fighting to ban them and demanding a return to hand counts and the kind of voting every citizen can oversee and understand. The most recent has been Germany."

"Therefore, the most effective and pro-active action we, the People, can take in the wake of this horrendous decision by our U.S. Supreme Court is to immediately demand a return to publicly hand-counted paper ballots at the precinct level on election night and to posting the results at the precinct - before any ballots are moved - so the results can be publicly documented by citizens which will protect the integrity of the final tally at local, state and federal levels."

The Supreme Court dealt a body blow to democracy when it ruled, 5-4, that corporations can spend their huge profits to influence American elections. In a stunning display of judicial activism, the radical majority invented a case that was not before it so it could toss out a century of precedent and give corporations license to spend billions of dollars to influence political campaigns.

Well, this extreme corporate power grab will not go unanswered on my watch. I'm going to work to make sure that corporations:

1. FULLY DISCLOSE when they spend from their treasuries to protect special interest cronies in Washington
2. REQUIRE CONSENT from shareholders in the form of a majority vote before they advocate for or against candidates
3. PROTECT OUR ELECTIONS from the influence of foreign-owned corporations spending freely on American politics

PLEASE SIGN MY PETITION FOR COMMON SENSE REGULATIONS TO KEEP CORPORATIONS HONEST NOW

Bush v. Gore was a brazen decision by the Court to decide a Presidential election for George Bush. It turns out that wasn't a rogue decision -- it was a road map for interference in the political process. The Citizens United v. FEC decision is an even more dangerous attack on our democracy. It could decide election after election as the people's voice is drowned out by a chorus of corporate causes, not just in Washington, DC, but in state capitals and city halls across the country for generations.

The big banks, pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies have enough power -- click here to help me curtail the influence of corporations to spend their massive profits to buy elections!

Even with 60 votes in the Senate, health care reform was hanging in the balance, clean energy legislation was imperiled, and reining in Wall Street excesses looked to be an uphill fight. Now if the big banks on Wall Street don't like what Congress proposes, they can DIRECTLY try to buy a legislature more to their liking.

In the last election, the most expensive in our history, candidates, parties, and outside groups spent $5 billion on the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and the historic election of President Obama. That's a huge amount of money, no doubt. But consider this comparison -- Goldman Sachs recently announced it would spend $16 billion on bonuses this year.

SIGN MY PETITION TO PASS COMMON SENSE REGULATIONS FOR CORPORATE CASH SPENT ON ELECTIONS

If corporations are going to play an outsized role in our democracy, then democracy needs to play at least some role in corporations. And if the Supreme Court is going to treat corporations as persons with full First Amendment rights, then you and I need to make sure real people are making those decisions. Join me today, and share our effort with your family and friends on Facebook.

Following the recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it was filing to run for U.S. Congress and released its first campaign video.

Watch It:

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions and influence peddling to achieve their goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate the middle-man and run for office ourselves.”

Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be the first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office. As Supreme Court observer Lyle Denniston wrote in his SCOTUSblog, “If anything, the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating them — under the First Amendment free-speech clause — as the equal of human beings.”

Murray Hill Inc. agrees. “The strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in the boardrooms, country clubs and Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG and Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?”

Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, and we’re going to keep it.”

Watch It:

Congressman Alan Grayson (FL-8) has introduced legislation to prevent a corporate takeover of government in America.  His “Save Our Democracy” Reform Package (H.R. 4431-4435) aims to stave off the threat of "corpocracy" arising from today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision. 

The Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission legalizes the use of corporate funds in political campaigns, striking down campaign finance laws that date back more than a century.  Congressman Grayson introduced the bills on January 13th, in anticipation of the Supreme Court's ruling.  Each of the five Grayson bills is clear and concise; none is longer than four pages.

“The Supreme Court in essence has ruled that corporations can buy elections.  If that happens, democracy in America is over.  We cannot put the law up for sale, and award government to the highest bidder.” Congressman Grayson said.

“By gutting the 100-year-old Tillman Act ban on corporate contributions, the U.S. Supreme Court has opened the door to political bribery and corruption on the largest scale imaginable. As Teddy Roosevelt said at the time, 'property belongs to man, and not man to property.'  That's why we have federal election laws, and that's why we need them, both then and now,” Congressman Grayson said. 

Here are the bills that Congressman Grayson has introduced, and what they aim to accomplish:

1)  The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431):  Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
2)  The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435):  Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
3)  The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434):  Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
4)  The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432):  Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.
5)  The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433):  Applies antitrust law to industry PACs. 

Sign Rep. Grayson's petition today, and show your support for saving our democracy. Together, we will move these bills forward and prevent the sale of our government to the highest bidder.m

Any chance that a legislative redistricting reform measure would make the May 4 ballot likely has disappeared given the aftershocks from last week's political earthquakes in Massachusetts and Washington. 

Newspaper editorial writers across Ohio have for months been badgering legislative leaders to act by the Feb. 3 filing deadline to place such a constitutional amendment before voters this spring.  Proponents say this is the best - and possibly only - time to bring fairness and equity to the process of redrawing state House and Senate districts since neither party can be assured it will emerge from the 2010 elections with control of the state apportionment board, the panel which redraws the political map on the basis of the 2010 census.

Redistricting reform is all very complicated and hopelessly infected by partisan maneuvering -- but no need to give it much thought now.  

Given the Republican senatorial victory in Massachusetts and the Supreme Court's grant of enormous electoral clout to corporate America, there's no reason to think that either Democratic or Republican party leaders here are left with any appetite for bipartisan cooperation.

Statehouse Republicans opposed such reforms when they were on the ballot in 2005.

They were only showing interest this year because Democrats seemed to be in a strong position to control the reapportionment board after this year's balloting for governor, auditor and secretary of state.  Even then, party support was far from assured - and that was before Republican prospects for this November spiked given the evident public anger at the Obama administration and the predicted flood of corporate cash now unleashed by the high court in favor of Republican candidates.

Democrats - namely party leader Chris Redfern and House Speaker Armond Budish - have been even more skeptical that redistricting reform at this time serves their interests. 

Even before last week's events, Budish was flatly predicting the matter would not be on this year's ballot.

http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2010/01/12/speaker_budish_redistricting_r.html?cxtype=feedbot

Neither was labor on board.

Reform proponents might now argue that it makes even more sense for Democrats to back redistricting reform and thus minimize the political damage if Republicans do come back strongly this November.  But so far, the Democratic battle plan appear to be to go back on the offense rather than call for a truce.

So much for "leveling the playing field" in 2010.

According to reform proponents, there is no Plan B if the reform measure  isn't on the ballot this year.

Other than to revisit the issue come 2020.

The Republican and Democratic Parties in Ohio will no longer have a lock on access to the ballot now that state election officials, making good on a court decision in the fall of 2006 that found the laws for political party formation and ballot access were unconstitutional, have enabled candidates running under the party name of Libertarian, Green, Socialist and Constitutional to join in the fun that is our representative system of government.

The good news for these outsider parties came in a state directive to all 88 county Boards of Election (BOE) that given that the General Assembly has not yet enacted a new ballot access statute following the September 6, 2006 court decision, and given the high likelihood of success on the merits of any new lawsuit to obtain ballot access, they are "hereby instructed to continue to recognize these political parties and to grant candidates of these political parties ballot access in the 2010 election cycle."

This decision now gives candidates of these four minor parties to qualify for the ballot under their party labels, an accomplishment the two major political parties -- Republicans and Democrats -- do not necessarily consider good for them or their candidates. ...

In this week’s address, President Barack Obama vowed to continue fighting for the American people to ensure their voices are heard over the special interests and lobbyists in Washington, despite this week’s Supreme Court decision to further empower corporations to use their financial clout to directly influence elections.

Watch It:

Full Transcript of the President's Remarks Below:

In a ruling with huge consequences for the 2010 elections and American politics at large, the Supreme Court rules that corporations can spend freely on elections.

Scotusblog's Tom Goldstein calls it "a small revolution in campaign finance law," and notes that it the end of a distinction between corporate and individual contributions will also apply to state elections.

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

The decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

The case also does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.