Most ballot initiatives are falsely marketed to voters, and a "yes" vote for the voter has unforseen consequences (although the consequences were not just forseen, but PLANNED by the moneyed interests that usually frame these ballot questions).
Funnily enough, this is the PERFECT description for this very initiative that you are in favor of. As for the "moneyed interests," in this case there appears to be one particular moneyed interest from outside OH who for some reason has a big stake in this -
So the lack of self-awareness in writing this, in this thread, as you proclaim your support for Issue 1, is as ironic as it is astounding.
It's not astounding at all. Moneyed interests are on both sides of the issue. Most ballot initiatives seek to use appeals that are manipulative and dishonest, so I view a 60 percent threshold as a means of blocking some stupidity.
Your personal attack on me was rather smarmy. I figured I'd mention it to help you with your own self-awareness level. Welcome to the Forum.
As you yourself said, there are "moneyed interests" on both sides of each issue, and so whichever side does a better job at persuading the people should win. It's not as if the yea side of ballot initiatives is automatically the side that receives more support from the establishment; both sides have various interests backing them up (in this case, it's well-established that the side pushing for Issue 1 was the more "moneyed" special interest).
Ultimately, though, you and I both know what the amendment's real purpose was, and on the off chance that you didn't, State Rep. Brian Stewart, the amendment's author, literally admitted that the purpose was to block the upcoming referendums on abortion, a higher minimum wage and fair redistricting from passing.
And if your real problem is the "moneyed interests," not a higher minimum wage or abortion rights or laws preventing GOP gerrymandering, then how about some stricter campaign finance laws?
Poll
