So I just read that one of the most backwards, homophobic, nasty, ugly, hate-filled conservative groups in Ohio (Citizens for Community Values) had a meeting with the nice folks over at Progress Ohio last week to discuss how they can work together to fight against bringing casinos to Ohio.

This bothers me for SO many reasons. So much so that I?ve decided to give up my self-imposed ban on posting about Issue 3 just this once.

My big pain point here is that CCV is using the same logic to fight the casinos that they used to fight the strip clubs. Namely, that it will “harm Ohio?s economy, increase crime and require increased social spending.”

In case you don?t remember, this is exactly the same reasoning they used back in 2007 to explain why strip clubs needed excessive regulations about proper attire, safe-distances between dancers and patrons, and early closing times.

And it?s exactly the same reasoning that Progress Ohio fought AGAI NST when they went head-to-head with CCV back then.

At the time, Progress Ohio mounted a great defense against CCV and the fucked up, backwards-ass, Christofascist regulations they were supporting. The Dancers for Democracy campaign was a huge win for Progress Ohio even if they eventually lost the war to those nutjobs.

And now PO is joining forces with these freaks? Flip-flopping on their original position? Adopting the same flawed logic for a different cause?

I?m not saying that it?s not plausable for PO to be against gambling ? a lot of liberal groups are taking the same stance.

But I do think it?s incredibly strange that PO didn?t think young ladies getting naked and dancing for money posed too much of a threat to our economy, crime rate or social spending yet old ladies dropping quarters into slot machines is going to bring about a Mad Max-like dystopian future to Ohio.

I really thought Eric and Tim were being too hard on Brian and Progress Ohio for selling out. But now I?m really starting to think they may be right.

 
  • iT SOCIALISM mR. pLUNDER 😉

    no on issue 3

    Just Say No To Corporate exploitation of the Masses

  • I opposed CCV’s regulatory push against exotic dancers, too. For one thing, the rules proposed by CCV never remedied any of the ills that the CCV warned against. They’re just nonsensical rules that don’t accomplish CCV’s alleged purpose. It was just a knee-jerk measure to encourage CCV’s donors to continue their support because CCV showed it could flex some muscle.

    However, the fact remains that gambling does indeed cannibalize the economy. That’s been a central issue on my own blog, but it’s hardly the centerpiece of Progress Ohio’s opposition to Issue 3. It’s unfortunate that this issue has to dominate Ohio’s political discussion, because I’d much rather the chatter be all about charting a course toward a healthier economy in Ohio.

    But even those who favor legalization of casinos have pointed out the folly of amending Ohio’s Constitution in the way that Issue 3 proposes to do. The loopholes written into the issue by its backers cannot be corrected by legislation if the issue wins on Election Day because a legislature cannot write laws that trump the Constitution. Therefore, all the flaws of this measure would be untouchable if this thing passes. This Constitutional facet of the issue is at the core of Progress Ohio’s opposition to Issue 3, but you’ve entirely omitted any mention of this core PO issue. Is this omission deliberate on your part? Or was it unintentional?

  • I actually have avoided posting about Issue 3 because I tend to agree that having casino operators write constitutional amendments is a pretty shitty way to bring gambling to the state.

    But I also support bringing casino gambling to Ohio and I know that the legislature will never get around to acting on the issue in a meaningful way.

    So I’m stuck on Issue 3 and decided not to take sides this time.

    I decided to write this post only after I heard the appalling news that Progress Ohio – a progressive group that I respect – was meeting with one of the most anti-progressive groups in the state (CCV).

    Citizens for Community values has one and only one goal: to force their outdated religious moral code on all Ohioans whether we want it or not. They are the worst kind of religious fanatics whose beliefs seem to be the exact opposite of anyone who claims to be progressive.

    I know Brian and the rest of the PO crew have way more experience in the political arena than I do – and I’m sure they have developed an effective strategy for achieving their short-term goals related to Issue 3.

    But it is seriously disappointing that PO would even consider working with the nutjobs over CCV for any reason and it comes across as PO abandoning their core beliefs for a cause that I would barely consider progressive.

    It really makes me wonder if they thought through the long-term consequences of making such alliances.

  • Well, if you had thought of supporting Issue 3 because you favor gambling and thought the legislature would never get around to proposing legalization of, you need not feel obliged to entertain thoughts of supporting Issue 3 any more, because State Rep Dennis Murray has introduced a bill in the Ohio House that would allow up to 15 casinos (not all owned by the same out-of-state cartel, either).

    http://buckeyerino.com/2009/10/13/state-rep-dennis-murray-opposes-issue-3-but-introduces-his-own-casino-bill/

  • Obviously he isn’t serious about the bill. And even if he was, Ohio could never support 15 casinos.

    Yes, I agree the state could raise more in taxes if the legislature had control of the process.

    But I’m surprised to hear any self-proclaimed conservative complaining that Ohio isn’t charging high enough taxes on a business.

  • Dennis Murray, the state rep sponsoring the bill, is not a conservative. He’s a “good old boy” Democrat.

    I don’t support the bill, and I don’t support Issue 3.

    Dennis Murray’s bill wouldn’t lock in 15 casinos. It merely sets that as an upper limit on what possibly could be authorized. If they think Ohio can only support four, the bill allows for those kinds of adjustments. It doesn’t lock in provisions the way Issue 3 does, particularly since the bill is not a Constitutional Amendment. Issue 3, however, is ironclad, with all its faults, because it IS a proposed Constitutional Amendment.

    Murry and Koziura (another Democrat state rep) and others want to see Issue 3 voted down so that they can put their casino bill on next year’s ballot, and all the nitty-gritty would not be ensconced in the Ohio Constitution. Instead, it would be in the Ohio Revised Code.

  • Pingback: Plunderbund - » Issue 3 Opponents Smell Defeat, Get Personal()

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!