#ohio-statehouse-corruption

[morosestferret]

The Cincinnati Enquirer: Ex-Ohio GOP leader Matt Borges faces sentencing in corruption case

[occupyhades]

The shame of Ohio: Corrupt, gerrymandered Statehouse Republicans assault voters, again - RawStory.com

Just moments after I watched Ohio Senate Republicans pass a resolution for 41% minority rule over the Ohio Constitution on Wednesday, I walked past a field trip of Ohio children touring the Statehouse.

[mongowheelie]

The shame of Ohio: Corrupt, gerrymandered Statehouse Republicans assault voters, again - Raw Story - Celebrating 19 Years of Independent Journalism

[faulentzer]

You have love these republican paragons of virtue. The entire party is run by criminals who exemplify the worst traits that a public official can have. Their constituents are unbelievably ignorant and this scumbags take full advantage of the situation.

[karen-anti-r-cml]

Federal Prosecutors have called the Republican House Bill 6 Conspiracy the Largest Corruption Case in Ohio History

2014: FirstEnergy started pursuing bailouts in Ohio

2017: FirstEnergy spun off a subsidiary, FirstEnergy Solutions (FES), and saddled it with 2 Coal Plants; the following year, FES declared bankruptcy.

March 2017 to March 2020: Ohio Republicans Paid Millions by "The Ohio Valley Electric Corporation" To Pass Republican "House Bill 6"

"House Bill 6" Objectives 1) Add an additional monthly surcharge to Residential Customers of "FirstEnergy" across Ohio 2) Help bail out 2 old, hyper-polluting coal plants owned by TOVEC 3) Gut Renewable Energy Standards across Ohio by reducing Utility Companies renewable requirements from 12.5% by 2027 to 8.5% by 2026, Exempting Large Industrial Customers and Ending Requirements by 2027. 4) Gut Energy Efficiency Standards: Ohio Utilities were Required to Reduce Customers’ Energy Use 22% by 2027 Through Energy Efficiency Programs, these were set to save Ohio Ratepayers $4 Billion over 10 years. HB 6 Allowed Utilities to Abandon Those Programs Entirely once they hit 17.5%.

Despite a Tsunami Of Dark Money supporting the bill, HB 6 was Overwhelmingly Opposed by Ratepayer Groups, Business Groups, Free Market Conservative Groups, Environmental Groups, and Ohioans Generally. Support for HB 6 came Only From The Beneficiaries… The Bailed-Out Plants… Their Owners, Employees, Communities where the Plants Are Located

And

Possibly Then republican President… donald trump

July 2019: The Republican-Controlled Ohio Legislature Passed HB 6.

July 2019: Ohio Republican Governor Mike DeWine signs HB 6 into Law

July 2020: Department of Justice: U.S. Attorney’s Office: Southern District of Ohio 5 Individuals are Charged by Criminal Complaint and Indicted By A Federal Grand Jury in Regards to HB6

larry householder, Former Ohio House Speaker

matthew borges, Former Ohio GOP Chairman and Lobbyist

neil clark, Lobbyist and Major Powerbroker in the Ohio Statehouse

jeffrey longstreth, Longtime Campaign and Political Strategist for larry householder

juan cespedes, Lobbyist

And

Generation Now, A "Nonprofit" Set-Up to Take Dark Money Donations from FirstEnergy and its Affiliates to Benefit householder and his Efforts to Become Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives In Exchange For His Support of HB 6

Charge - They conspired to violate the racketeering statute through honest services wire fraud, receipt of millions of dollars in bribes and money laundering.

August 2020: Lawyers for borges, clark, longstreth and cespedes entered not guilty pleas

October 2020: jeffrey longstreth and juan cespedes Pleaded Guilty to Their Parts in a Racketeering Conspiracy to Get HB 6 Passed

February 2021: Generation Now, The Not So Nonprofit Pleads Guilty to a Federal Racketeering Charge of accepting bribes from FirstEnergy and its Affiliates for householder and his allies in exchange for the passage HB 6

March 2021: neil clark, had not yet been tried for his involvement in HB 6 was found dead from an apparent suicide in an isolated area of Collier County, Florida just days before a tell-all book he wrote came out

June 2021: householder, was 1 of Ohio’s most powerful republican politicians, he is now expelled from the legislature

June 2022: borges has repeatedly maintained his innocence from the start, he claims the investigation against him was retribution for his work to defeat Republican trump in the 2020 election.

That trump and his allies were no fans of borges is indisputable. Following trump’s victory in 2016, they set about ousting him from his chairmanship, eventually replacing him with jane timken.

trump himself recounted his team’s successful effort to boot borges out of the post

borges is awaiting trial

January 2023: Jury Selection started for Trials of Republicans householder and borges, they face racketeering charges involving HB 6

householder and borges have pleaded not guilty and denied wrongdoing.

householder said he pushed for HB 6 because he supported it, not because of campaign contributions,

And

borges has said he was not part of the alleged conspiracy

January 23, 2023 householder and bogens trials are set to start

"Ohio just passed the worst energy bill of the 21st century" https://www.vox.com/energy-and environment/2019/7/27/8910804/ohio-gop-nuclear-coal-plants-renewables-efficiency-hb6

"Political strategist & lobbyist each plead guilty in federal public corruption racketeering conspiracy involving more than $60 million" https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdoh/pr/political-strategist-lobbyist-each-plead-guilty-federal-public-corruption-racketeering

"4 Ohio operatives plead not guilty in $60M bribery probe" ://apnews.com/article/ohio-columbus-racketeering-government-and-politics-cf2b377370605cdf5e9bc165635e2b08

"Generation Now, the nonprofit that prosecutors say received millions in bribes, pleads guilty to racketeering charge involving House Bill 6" https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2021/02/generation-now-the-nonprofit-that-prosecutors-say-received-millions-in-bribes-pleads-guilty-to-racketeering-charge-involving-house-bill-6.html

"From powerbroker to pariah: House Bill 6 allegations devastated lobbyist Neil Clark, friends say" https://www.cleveland.com/politics/2021/07/from-powerbroker-to-pariah-house-bill-6-allegations-devastated-lobbyist-neil-clark-friends-say.html

"Matt Borges says House Bill 6 bribery case is a political attack because of opposition to Donald Trump" https://www.cleveland.com/news/2022/06/matt-borges-says-house-bill-6-bribery-case-is-a-political-attack-because-of-opposition-to-donald-trump.html

"Trial begins for ex-Ohio House speaker Larry Householder in federal House Bill 6 corruption probe" https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/01/trial-begins-for-ex-ohio-house-speaker-larry-householder-in-federal-house-bill-6-corruption-probe.html

[day0one]

Ohio House votes to remove Larry Householder as Ohio Speaker following corruption arrest

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The Ohio House of Representatives has voted unanimously to remove Larry Householder as Ohio House speaker a little more than one week following his arrest on federal corruption allegations.

Members approved the measure swiftly without debate in a Thursday morning session. The vote was 90-0, with 9 members, including Householder, absent. Additional “yes” votes could trickle in as Thursday continues — some of the “absent” members were nearby but missed the vote since it happened so quickly.

The move doesn’t remove Householder from office entirely — it just removes him from his job as Speaker, a powerful position that schedules House votes and decides what will be voted on. Householder remains in office, and is up for re-election in November.

Householder, a political aide and three lobbyists, including former Ohio Republican Party Chairman Matt Borges, were arrested last Tuesday in what federal authorities described as a $60 million bribery scheme. They were formally indicted on Thursday, minutes before the vote.

The FBI says FirstEnergy funneled the money to Householder and his allies, including a network of shadowy political groups, to help elect Householder as speaker, in exchange for a nuclear bailout bill worth more than $1 billion that Householder pushed through the legislature.

With Householder removed as speaker, House Republicans are working behind the scenes to pick a new one, with state reps. Jim Butler, of suburban Dayton, and Bob Cupp, of Lima, emerging as the lead candidates. Cupp is a former Ohio Supreme Court justice, while Butler served under Householder as the number-two ranking House Republican.

House Republicans said the plan is to hold a private vote for Butler or Cupp behind closed doors, and then vote unanimously for the winning candidate in a later, public vote to make it official. They were scheduled to meet privately immediately following the session, but the caucus was delayed until 1:30 p.m. so additional representatives could make it to Columbus.

State Rep. Jon Cross, a Kenton Republican who was a close Householder ally, said following the vote he thinks Republicans will be able to unite behind either candidate.

“I’m hoping we can make a very unified decision, get together and vote and get this done,” he said.

State Rep. Jack Cera, a Belmont County Democrat and longtime state legislator, said he’s saddened by Thursday’s vote. He said the Householder episode illustrates the need for campaign-finance reform.

“The public going back years and years has thought that all politicians are crooks. And stuff like this paints us all with the same brush. And we’ve got to do something about the money in the political system if we want to change that,” he said.

[feelingbluepolitics]

Part Three of a glance through Midwestern politics, the epicenter of many Blue voters' contortions over "electibility" given our very large field of candidates, and our grim need to eject trump.

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,  Kansas,  Michigan, Minnesota,  Missouri,  Nebraska, North Dakota,  Ohio,  South Dakota, and Wisconsin

Picking up here with:

Ohio. Buh-bye, Ohio. The Buckeye state is a black eyed state, beaten into a stranglehold red miasma.

Forced motherhood has been much in the news during May, but Ohio was already there by November of 2018.

The 2018 Midterm Blue Wave crashed and died in Ohio. Only Sherrod Brown hung in there as the only state-wide elected Democrat in the state.

Ohio harbors Gym Jordan, who is too disgusting and hateful to talk about.

The following article groups Texas in with "swing states like Ohio."

https://theweek.com/speedreads/826395/texas-now-2020-swing-state

At this point, any article discussing swing states has more credibility leaving Ohio off the swing state list.

The surprise blue spotlight in Ohio is Sherrod Brown deciding not to join the presidential hopefuls because he has more than enough to do right there at home and in the Senate.

"Even though he won’t be on the ballot, Brown could still be a major figure in the 2020 race. Ohio’s politics are tricky, and there are few in the Democratic Party who have so successfully navigated its intricacies. Only once since 1974 has Brown lost a race in Ohio. The failure of the blue firewall in Ohio in 2016 was a warning sign more broadly."

When it was a perennial swing state, Ohio was the infallible "bellwether" state, but now that it's rammed full into Republiconism, it's predictive powers are castrated.

Can we go now?...No?...Because somewhere along the way in Part One or Part Two, I said that Democrats shouldn't cede any state? (Except for Fracking North Dakota.)

Nan Whaley does not believe Ohio is lost to Democrats, and she's Dayton's progressive mayor.

"Those who see 2018 as a blood bath for Ohio Democrats are forgetting that Senator Sherrod Brown won by 6.4 percentage points. This was a larger margin of victory than he had in 2012 — when he shared the top of the ticket with President Barack Obama, who also carried the state.

..."In statehouse races, Democrats nearly matched Republicans in total votes statewide, but they saw limited gains because of Republican gerrymandering. Our current legislative maps border on the absurd — despite winning just over 50 percent of the vote, Republicans will control more than three-fifths of the state legislative seats. Thankfully, voters in May enacted redistricting reforms that will make our next maps much fairer, allowing Democrats to compete on a more level playing field beginning in 2022.

..."While Republicans will control the governor’s mansion for another four years, Democrats continue to dominate in Ohio’s largest cities and counties. In places where Republicans can’t gerrymander the lines — including the 12 largest cities — local Democrats have been pursuing bold, progressive policies that strengthen communities."

So the final call for Ohio is actually, get in there and work very hard.

South Dakota. Reliably Republicon since 1968. (It's like they're twins, or something; see North.)

But. South Dakota voters are mad. They are mad because SD ranks as the "4th most corrupt state."

They are mad because "[i]n 2016 South Dakotans made history as the first state in America to pass a statewide Anti-Corruption Act. This landmark Act closed lobbying loopholes, enhanced political transparency, and created an independent ethics commission. A clear majority approved the measure." Their Republicon state legislature actually declared an "emergency" to give itself the power to kill it, because they decided the voters didn't understand what they were trying to do.

If it keeps going, voters will shoot to make it a constitutional amendment, and therefore Republicon "lawmaker" proof. An additional option is to elect Democrats to listen to them, with the bonus of teaching a lesson.

Democrats need to be running on anti-corruption at every level anyway.

Billie Sutton ran an unusually competitive race to get a Democrat (technically) into the governor's mansion. Although he ultimately lost to Kristi Noem, Sutton scared both SD and D.C. Republicons, which is remarkable in itself.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/19/politics/sutton-noem-south-dakota/index.html

Recently, Noem supported an outrageous anti-protest, pro- Keystone XL pipeline bill, and now isn't allowed to step onto tribal lands.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/441921-american-indian-tribe-bans-gop-governor-from-reservation-over-her

Even though trump won over Hillary here almost by double, voters are really mad at corrupt, power-grabbing Republicons in South Dakota, and that could open some state elections.

[publius1787]

Compromise of 1877

Immediately after the presidential election of 1876, it became clear that the outcome of the race hinged largely on disputed returns from Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina–the only three states in the South with Reconstruction-era Republican governments still in power. As a bipartisan congressional commission debated over the outcome early in 1877, allies of the Republican Party candidate Rutherford Hayes met in secret with moderate southern Democrats in order to negotiate acceptance of Hayes’ election. The Democrats agreed not to block Hayes’ victory on the condition that Republicans withdraw all federal troops from the South, thus consolidating Democratic control over the region. As a result of the so-called Compromise of 1877 (or Compromise of 1876), Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina became Democratic once again, effectively marking the end of the Reconstruction era.

Compromise of 1877: The 1876 Election

By the 1870s, support was waning for the racially egalitarian policies of Reconstruction, as many southern whites had resorted to intimidation and violence to keep blacks from voting and restore white supremacy in the region. Beginning in 1873, a series of Supreme Court decisions limited the scope of Reconstruction-era laws and federal support for the so-called Reconstruction Amendments, particularly the 14th and 15th, which gave African Americans the status of citizenship and the protection of the Constitution, including the all-important right to vote.

Did you know? After the most disputed election in American history, the Compromise of 1877 put Rutherford Hayes into office as the nation's 19th president; outraged northern Democrats derided Hayes as "His Fraudulency."

In addition, accusations of corruption within the administration of Ulysses S. Grant and an economic depression had heightened discontent with the Republican Party, in the White House since 1861. As the 1876 presidential election approached, the Democrats chose as their candidate Governor Samuel B. Tilden of New York, while the Republicans nominated Rutherford B. Hayes, governor of Ohio. In his acceptance of the nomination, Hayes wrote that if elected, he would bring “the blessings of honest and capable local self government” to the South–in other words, restrict federal enforcement of unpopular Reconstruction-era policies.

Compromise of 1877: Election Results

On Election Day that November, the Democrats appeared to come out on top, winning the swing states of Connecticut, Indiana, New York and New Jersey. By midnight, Tilden had 184 of the 185 electoral votes he needed to win, and was leading the popular vote by 250,000. The Republicans refused to accept defeat, however, and accused Democratic supporters of intimidating and bribing African-American voters to prevent them from voting in three southern states–Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina. As of 1876, these were the only remaining states in the South with Republican governments.

In South Carolina, the election had been marred by bloodshed on both sides of the party line. Supporters of the Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wade Hampton, a former Confederate general, had used violence and intimidation to confront the African-American voting majority. A clash between black militia and armed whites in Hamburg in July ended in the death of five militia men after their surrender, while at Camboy (near Charleston) six white men were killed when armed blacks opened fire in a political meeting. With both sides accusing each other of electoral fraud, South Carolina, along with Florida and Louisiana, submitted two sets of election returns with different results. Meanwhile, in Oregon, the state’s Democratic governor replaced a Republican elector with a Democrat (alleging that the Republican had been ineligible), thus throwing Hayes’ victory in that state into question as well.

Compromise of 1877: Congress Steps In

To resolve the dispute, Congress set up an electoral commission in January 1877, consisting of five U.S. representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices. The commission’s members included seven Democrats, seven Republicans and one independent, Justice David Davis. When Davis refused to serve, the moderate Republican Justice Joseph Bradley was chosen to replace him.

During the commission’s deliberations, Hayes’ Republican allies met in secret with moderate southern Democrats in hopes of convincing them not to block the official counting of votes through filibuster and effectively allow Hayes’ election. In February, at a meeting held in Washington’s Wormley Hotel, the Democrats agreed to accept a Hayes victory, and to respect the civil and political rights of African Americans, on the condition that Republicans withdraw all federal troops from South, thus consolidating Democratic control in the region. Hayes would also have to agree to name a leading southerner to his cabinet and to support federal aid for the Texas and Pacific Railroad, a planned transcontinental line via a southern route. On March 2, the congressional commission voted 8-7 along party lines to award all the disputed electoral votes to Hayes, giving him 185 votes to Tilden’s 184.

Compromise of 1877: The End of Reconstruction

Hayes appointed Tennessee’s David Key as postmaster general, but never followed through on the promised land grant for the Texas and Pacific. Within two months, however, Hayes had ordered federal troops from their posts guarding Louisiana and South Carolina statehouses, allowing Democrats to seize control in both those states. As Florida’s Supreme Court had earlier declared a Democratic victory in the 1876 gubernatorial election, Democrats had been restored to power all across the South.

The Compromise of 1876 effectively ended the Reconstruction era. Southern Democrats’ promises to protect civil and political rights of blacks were not kept, and the end of federal interference in southern affairs led to widespread disenfranchisement of blacks voters. From the late 1870s onward, southern legislatures passed a series of laws requiring the separation of whites from “persons of color” on public transportation, in schools, parks, restaurants, theaters and other locations. Known as the “Jim Crow laws” (after a popular minstrel act developed in the antebellum years), these segregationist statutes governed life in the South through the middle of the next century, ending only after the hard-won successes of the civil rights movement in the 1960s.

[polixy]

Both Republicans and Democrats cite masks as a negative effect of COVID-19, but for very different reasons

Both Republicans and Democrats cite masks as a negative effect of COVID-19, but for very different reasons;

Anti-mask protesters outside the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus on July 18, 2020. (Jeff Dean/AFP via Getty Images)

The COVID-19 outbreak has upended life across the United States and exposed growing divisions between supporters of the two major political parties. And when Americans are asked to describe in their own words how the outbreak has affected them negatively, no topic divides Democrats and Republicans more than the subject of masks, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of survey findings collected in late August and early September.

Overall, 14% of U.S. adults mentioned the word “mask” when asked how the pandemic has made their life difficult or challenging. That made “mask” the fourth most common term in these responses, behind “family” and “work” – each of which was mentioned by 19% of the public – and “friend,” mentioned by 14% of respondents.

For this analysis, we surveyed 9,220 U.S. adults between Aug. 31-Sept. 7, 2020. Everyone who completed the survey is a member of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP’s methodology.

Respondents to the survey were asked to describe in their own words how their lives have been difficult or challenging since the beginning of the coronavirus outbreak. The Center used a variety of text processing procedures to clean the responses, correct for misspellings and reduce words to their root form (for example, “families” to “family”). Researchers then identified nearly 150 words and phrases that were used by at least 100 respondents and examined these keywords for patterns. The full methodology can be found here.

“Mask,” however, was the single most-used term among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, who were roughly twice as likely as Democrats and Democratic leaners to mention it in the context of negative effects from the outbreak (19% vs. 10%, respectively).

To gain further insights into these differences, researchers examined each of the nearly 1,000 open-ended responses that mentioned the term “mask.”

Americans frequently brought up masks in their responses simply to complain about them in a general sense or to cite them as an example of how things have changed since the pandemic began. But a third of those who mentioned masks provided more detailed opinions on face coverings and safety precautions in general. These detailed opinions illuminate a clear divide between those who are skeptical of masks and those who are concerned about other people refusing to wear them.

Among the Americans who mentioned masks in their responses, 15% expressed frustration with other people not wearing them or refusing to follow safety precautions more generally; lamented the politicization of basic safety precautions; or expressed concern that some people were not taking the pandemic seriously.

These concerns were largely concentrated among Democrats. Some 31% of Democrats who brought up masks did so to complain or express concern about other people not wearing them. By comparison, just 5% of Republicans who brought up masks expressed this sentiment. Put differently, Democrats accounted for around three-quarters (76%) of those who expressed worry about others not using masks.

Quotes from Democrats expressing concern about others not wearing masks

(The responses below are lightly edited for spelling, style and readability.)

“Customers complaining about masks and not wearing them are both the biggest personal issues COVID has caused. The maskless customers are usually ruder than other people.” –Man, 24

“Having to be around people at work who don’t wear masks despite it being required by our governor. Feeling like I need to check the news about the virus only to be constantly reminded that Trump is actively trying to kill off Americans, incite violence, start a civil war, and become a fascist dictator and the corrupt GOP are actively allowing it to happen and the Dems aren’t doing enough to stop it. This country is falling apart and it’s extremely depressing and scary.” –Woman, 26

“I live in Missouri in a smaller town, less than 5K. Everyone thinks it’s made up, no one wears masks or social distances. […] I don’t feel safe or protected by my managers but I also can’t say anything because I need the job.” –Woman, 36

“I wear [a mask] for at least 8 hours a day along with a face shield, gloves and lab coat. I see approximately 100 patients a day and when I hear people complain about having to wear it for 20 minutes or those who refuse to wear it, I just have to scream silently inside.” –Woman, 59

“Some people who refuse to wear a mask. I am a believer in Jesus and to see other so-called Christians rebel against wearing a mask and calling COVID-19 a hoax is depressing. And discouraging to find out what really is in their hearts. It’s all about their rights only.” –Woman, 68

“I have chronic asthma so I am fearful of being exposed to the coronavirus. It makes me extremely angry to go out and see people not wearing masks or keeping social distance. And my intense dislike of Trump has grown because he lies about the coronavirus and there is blood on his hands. His lack of telling the truth about the coronavirus and his attempt to use the public health systems of the U.S. for his own political ends are the equivalent of murdering thousands of people.” –Man, 73

On the other hand, nearly one-in-five of all respondents who mentioned the word “mask” (18%) specifically called masks unnecessary, ineffective, oppressive or unfair; stated that they refuse to wear masks; expressed skepticism about the COVID-19 pandemic in general; or expressed a belief that the pandemic is being used to manipulate Americans for political gain.

These responses were far more common from Republicans: 27% of all mask mentions by Republicans expressed such views, compared with just 3% among Democrats who brought up masks. Looked at another way, Republicans accounted for 92% of those expressing skepticism or opposition to masks.

Quotes from Republicans expressing skepticism about masks

“Forced to wear masks for a virus that killed less than 10,000 people, I am more likely to be murdered in Kansas City than catch COVID there.” –Man, 28

“The entire unnecessary shutdown of the country got my husband furloughed for 9 weeks, more government overreach with mask orders, people are just so terrified to live it’s disgusting, so the ones of us like me who aren’t scared get treated like we are awful people” –Woman, 31

“Being forced to wear a completely useless mask when going into businesses. I have bad allergies and can’t breathe well. The CDC has reported that the masks are useless, which to me indicates they are virtue signaling items and are being used to control people.” –Woman, 70

“The total and arbitrary violation of our civil rights by stooge governors (Whitmer, Cuomo, Newsom). The frustration of listening to little Fauci who has been wrong on almost everything. The dishonesty of the media to accurately report. I refused lockdown, I refuse masks, I refuse to participate in any of this bogus crap.” –Man, 60

“I really do think this outbreak is not a big deal. We have more people dying from the flu, heart disease, overdoses, car accidents, suicides. I really believe it is a government control thing to see how far they can push us. I am here to tell you! The American veteran will not stand by and let government take away our rights!!! If they are looking for a civil war they will get one. Don’t mess with the 1st and 2nd Amendment.” –Man, 67

“Masks! Being told to wear one even though we all learned in Microbiology 101 that they don’t work. I’m heartsick that kids can’t go to school. I’m disgusted with people who wear masks outside when exercising. I loathe the lying mainstream media even more for their negative influence on media.” –Woman, 72

Since answers to open-ended survey questions can be wide-ranging and varied in length, any specific keyword or topic typically only appears in a minority of responses. Overall, just 5% of Republicans expressed skepticism of masks and only 3% of Democrats brought up concerns about others not wearing them.

Still, the hundreds of responses from Republicans and Democrats that did express these views highlight a growing divide among partisans about coronavirus-related restrictions and safety measures. In June, 77% of Democrats – compared with 45% of Republicans – said they were very or somewhat concerned that they might unknowingly spread COVID-19 to others. And nearly two-thirds of Democrats (64%) were very or somewhat concerned that they would personally get COVID-19 and require hospitalization, while just 35% of Republicans expressed the same concern. In the same survey, Democrats were about twice as likely as Republicans to say that people in their community should always wear a mask (63% vs. 29%).

At the same time, the Center has also found that majorities in both parties say they are making regular use of masks, even if some may be skeptical about their effectiveness. In August, 92% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans said that they had worn a mask or face covering when in stores or other businesses most or all of the time during the prior month.

Note: Here is the methodology for this post.

Dennis Quinn  is a computational social scientist focusing on data science at Pew Research Center.

; Blog (Fact Tank) – Pew Research Center; https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/10/29/both-republicans-and-democrats-cite-masks-as-a-negative-effect-of-covid-19-but-for-very-different-reasons/; https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/FT_20.10.21_MaskWearing_feature.jpg?w=1200&h=628&crop=1; October 29, 2020 at 02:34PM

[occupyhades]

'Sold the Statehouse': Jury convicts 2 well-known Ohio Republicans in $60 million racketeering case - RawStory.com

In Ohio, two well-known Republicans — Larry Householder, former speaker for the Ohio House of Representatives, and ex-Ohio Republican Party Chairman Matt Borges — have been facing federal corruption charges in connection with a $60 million bribery scheme. 

[christinamac1]

Ohio Attorney General could seek injunction to stop nuclear plant surcharge

Ohio Attorney General could seek injunction to stop nuclear plant surcharge

Ohio AG Yost considering lawsuit to halt nuclear plant surcharge, LIZ SKALKA. The Blade. lskalka@theblade.com–26 Aug 20, COLUMBUS — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost on Wednesday said he’s prepared to seek an injunction that would stop the imposition of a ratepayer surcharge flowing to two northern Ohio nuclear power plants at the center of the $61-million statehouse corruption scandal.

Mr.…

[plusorminuscongress]

New story in Politics from Time: Tom Steyer Has Spent $47.6 Million on His Presidential Campaign. That Money Could Help Democrats in Hundreds of State Races

California billionaire Tom Steyer has spent $47.6 million dollars of his own money in 84 days on his longshot presidential bid, according to FEC filings, making him one of the biggest self-funded presidential candidates in American history.

Steyer spent most of that money on advertising in early states to help him meet the polling and small donor threshold for Tuesday night’s debate. He’s polling below 2% nationwide. In early states, he’s at 8%, according to the latest Morning Consult poll. But after a lackluster performance in Tuesday’s debate — which ended up costing him roughly $37,000 per word he spoke — that massive advertising push is looking less and less fruitful.

Steyer has long been a top Democratic donor and had bankrolled major initiatives like NextGen America, which organizes young people to vote, and Need to Impeach, a campaign to increase public support for impeaching Trump. He committed $50 million to continue funding those initiative as well as grassroots organizing group For Our Future.

“For more than a decade Tom Steyer has put his time, his heart, and his financial resources behind his values to fight corporate greed and corruption, and organize people in support of progressive causes,” a spokesman for Steyer said in a statement. “As the current election continues, Tom has publicly pledged that he will continue supporting Democrats and progressive causes regardless of the outcome of his candidacy.”

But some of the “structural changes” Steyer talked about on Tuesday night — especially voting rights — are actually decided on the state level, where Steyer’s $47 million could go a lot further than it would for a presidential candidate who was recently polling within the margin of error of zero. In 2010, Republican strategists spent $30 million in ads to help the GOP win 700 state legislative seats, which helped them wipe out Democratic power in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin and gave them control of redistricting and voting rights in those states. If Democrats win control of key state legislatures in 2020, they will make crucial decisions on voting rights, health care, and reproductive access. More important, strategists say, is that whichever party controls state legislatures next year will draw congressional districts, which could determine Democrats’ chances on the federal level for the next decade.

“He as a donor could max out to every Democrat running for state legislature and not spend $47 million,” says Amanda Litman, co-founder of Run for Something, which recruits and trains progressive millennials to run for state and local office. And if he did that, Litman says, he could get a lot more bang for his buck: according to Run for Something, it costs less than $200,000 to run for legislature in 24 states. In some states, like Maine and Mississippi, the average statehouse race costs less than $20,000; in Vermont, New Hampshire and Montana, it costs less than $10,000.

“If his goal is ostensibly to ensure progressive policies moving forward and make big structural changes to our government,” Litman says. “There are better ways for him to spend $47 million.”

Other comparisons are even starker. According to Catherine Vaughan, Co-founder of Flippable and Chief Strategy Officer of SwingLeft, $47.6 million is equal to the total contributions to all 2018 Democratic state legislature candidates in Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Michigan and Minnesota combined. It’s more than the total contributions to all 2018 Democratic state senate candidates in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina and Pennsylvania. Combined.

Vaughan points out that Democrats are two seats away from flipping the Arizona statehouse (according to Litman, Arizona state legislature races cost around $250,000) and nine seats away from flipping the Texas state legislature (where races cost around $600,000.)

“There is a lot of money being spent on Democrats fighting other Democrats right now that could be spent on the general election,” Vaughan says. “There are a lot of other races on the map that are as or even more important, including all these state legislative races that will control the future of how districts are drawn in this country.”

“It’s his money, he can spend it however he wants,” Litman says. “For a businessman, this is a very low return on his investment.”

By Charlotte Alter on October 16, 2019 at 06:04PM

[kansascityhappenings]

Cory Booker announces he’s running for president in 2020

Sen. Cory Booker, a New Jersey Democrat who rose to prominence as Newark’s charismatic and ambitious mayor, announced Friday that he’s running for president.

Booker chose the first day of Black History Month to launch his campaign, timing that nods to Booker’s own heritage and suggests he will put it at the center of his pitch to voters.

“The history of our nation is defined by collective action; by interwoven destinies of slaves and abolitionists; of those born here and those who chose America as home; of those who took up arms to defend our country, and those who linked arms to challenge and change it,” Booker narrates in a video released on Friday morning, which features him walking through his Newark neighborhood.

“I’m Cory Booker and I’m running for president of the United States of America,” he says in the video.

Booker joins a crowded and growing Democratic field that is already the most diverse in history — with multiple women, one gay candidate, a Latino and, with Booker now in the mix, two black candidates.

His announcement comes nearly a year to the day from the Iowa caucuses and the start of the primary calendar. Booker plans to head to Iowa February 8-9 and then to South Carolina on February 10. He also intends to visit New Hampshire over Presidents Day weekend.

Booker is one of several senators running for president or seriously considering it. At 49, he is the youngest among his Senate colleagues in the race. His age is not all that sets him apart: Booker is unmarried and vegan, two unique qualities among the emerging Democratic field.

In his announcement video, Booker also notes that he is “the only senator who goes home to a low-income, inner city community” in Newark, “the first community that took a chance on me.”

In the Senate, Booker has at times favored a pragmatic approach, teaming up with like-minded Republicans on issues like criminal justice. But he has also emerged as a passionate interrogator of President Donald Trump’s nominees — including Justice Brett Kavanaugh, at whose confirmation hearing Booker memorably unloaded in a heated “Spartacus moment.”

Public polling suggests Booker is unknown to many Americans. But in a field where there is no clear front-runner, he brings a raw political talent that some Democrats believe could set him apart and make him a powerful contender.

The campaign message of Booker, who’s a gifted orator on the stump, will center on his signature themes of finding “common purpose” and a bringing about a “revival of civic grace” in American society, drawing a stark, if implicit, contrast with President Donald Trump’s harsh rhetoric.

While Booker has been reluctant to attack the President directly, not wanting to emulate his tactics, Trump has not hesitated to target the senator — saying during a White House event in October that Booker “ran Newark, New Jersey, into the ground.”

It’s unclear how Booker’s record as mayor will play in the Democratic primary or beyond. Critics say Booker did not meet his lofty promises to reshape the city, with some progressives faulting his support for school choice, among other issues. But Booker’s allies believe this chapter of his story will be an asset, affording Booker some distance from Washington and demonstrating his executive chops.

As a senator, Booker has sought to sand off some of his rough political edges ahead of 2020, burnishing his progressive credentials by signing on to policies such as “Medicare-for-all.” Last year, he announced he would no longer accept corporate PAC money; some progressives have been skeptical of Booker for the support he has received from Wall Street donors. Booker will also oppose super PACS supporting his candidacy or others.

Reflecting its central place in Booker’s story, Newark will be the headquarters for his campaign. Logistically, that home base will offer the candidate and his team easy access to the power hubs of Washington and New York, plus proximity to three major airports to facilitate travel to key primary states and fundraising hotspots around the country.

His campaign manager is expected to be Addisu Demissie, a veteran of Booker’s 2013 Senate race, who most recently ran Gavin Newsom’s successful bid for California governor. Demissie also boasts experience on the ground in Iowa, having cut his teeth as a field organizer for John Kerry’s 2004 caucus campaign, returning in the 2008 cycle on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Booker’s path to the nomination would almost certainly run through South Carolina, where African-American voters compose a majority of the Democratic primary electorate. But Booker has also aggressively cultivated a network in Iowa, recognizing that a strong performance there would build valuable momentum for later contests.

To steer his Iowa operation, Booker has already lined up a team of sought-after operatives: Michael Frosolone, who led Iowa Democrats’ statehouse campaigns in 2018; Joe O’Hern, who ran the Democratic coordinated campaign in Ohio during the midterms and oversaw Martin O’Malley’s 2016 caucus efforts; Haley Hager, most recently the Iowa director for Tom Steyer’s NextGen group targeting young voters; and Tess Seger, outgoing communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party.

Born in 1969 in Washington, Booker enjoyed a comfortable upbringing in the post-civil rights era, a lot he ascribes to a “conspiracy of love” that enabled his parents to break barriers. Cary and Carolyn Booker were among the earliest black executives at IBM and, because of anti-discrimination laws, they were able to buy a home and raise their children in the affluent, mostly white community of Harrington Park, New Jersey.

Booker attended Stanford as a star football recruit, playing for four years but, by his own admission, never breaking through at the college level. Booker’s interests were broad, however: He also served as student body president and ran a crisis hotline for students. He would go on to attend Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and later graduate from Yale Law School.

With an elite law degree in hand, Booker bypassed more lucrative opportunities and moved into an affordable housing complex in one of Newark’s poorest neighborhoods, planning to lend his skills to a nonprofit. He soon turned to local politics, however, unseating a longtime incumbent on the City Council.

In 2002, Booker once again took on an uphill political battle, mounting a challenge to Newark Mayor Sharpe James, an avatar of old-school political corruption. Although Booker fell short by a few thousand votes, he won in losing — becoming a media and political darling in the process.

Four years later, Booker ran again and won, cementing his status as a rising star in the Democratic Party.

As a talented and ambitious black politician, Booker has elicited predictable comparisons to former President Barack Obama, whom he endorsed during the 2008 primary and campaigned for in 2012.

Booker has acknowledged the trope and jokes about it, but he doesn’t neatly fit the mold. Whereas Obama often was guarded and serious, Booker is an extrovert whose unbridled enthusiasm and brimming energy can seem almost comical.

Booker also did not take the express lane to a presidential bid, as Obama did. Instead, he served nearly eight years as mayor, passing on an opportunity to lead Obama’s Office of Urban Affairs in 2009, before successfully running for Senate in 2013 in a special election following the death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg.

Booker will be up for re-election in New Jersey in 2020; state law would permit him to run for Senate and president simultaneously.

Booker’s core message has remained consistent over many years in politics — with a focus on love and unity that undergirds everything else.

In some ways, Booker is a political heir to former President Jimmy Carter, who in the aftermath of the Nixon administration pledged a government “as good and honest and decent and compassionate and filled with love as are the American people.” Booker recently described Carter as a “moral (giant) in America” and a model for “what I want my message to be in leadership.” Carter, for his part, had urged Booker to run for president.

Sen. Kamala Harris of California, who seems poised to be one of Booker’s chief rivals, also embraced some of Carter’s signature themes in her debut rally last week, repeatedly invoking the Carter-esque term “truth.”

But Booker makes a distinctly emotional appeal, with soaring, often sermon-like oratory. Last year, he said he doesn’t know if he has tapped into “a winning political message or not, but I will always be talking about trying to unify this country, trying to bring us together.”

And he has not been cowed by steep political odds before.

“He’s a person who operates between instincts, gut and faith,” said Rep. Cedric Richmond, a Louisiana Democrat who’s the most recent former chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. “What he did when he decided to take on an incumbent mayor, I think he’s driven more by faith and purpose than politics.”

from FOX 4 Kansas City WDAF-TV | News, Weather, Sports https://fox4kc.com/2019/02/01/cory-booker-announces-he-is-running-for-president/

from Kansas City Happenings https://kansascityhappenings.wordpress.com/2019/02/01/cory-booker-announces-hes-running-for-president-in-2020/