Another Dumb CoinGate Editorial

This one from the Toledo Blade; where it is all CoinGate, all the time...

Let's start with the author:

Ben Konop is a Toledo attorney and was an unsuccessful candidate for Congress in 2004. He will teach about the American political process at Bluffton University in the fall.

Once you read what his views are, you'll have no trouble figuring out which party he ran for...hint: it ain't the one with the elephants.

WHILE on one level, the "Coingate" scandal is about the greed and ethically questionable behavior of a few individuals, on a larger scale the scandal gives us an opportunity to think of possible solutions to two broader issues in politics today: campaign finance reform and gerrymandering.

So, a guy loses a congressional race and gets delusions of grand schemes involving black helicopters and Republican operatives gerrymandering districts to keep THE Ben Konop out of office.

No, Ben, CoinGate isn't about campaign finance reform or gerrymandering. It is, as you first suggested and then quickly tossed aside, about the misconduct of a few people who shouldn't be in office.

The current system used to fund campaigns at both the state and national level is clearly broken, and Coingate illustrates this well.

Sure, it's broke...the evidence: Democrats keep losing elections! Naturally...why didn't I see that...

The access and, in essence, the considerations that Tom Noe allegedly received in exchange for large campaign contributions likely goes on, albeit to a lesser extent, every day on both sides of the aisle and in every setting of government.

I believe that it is impossible for elected officials or candidates in our current campaign funding system to remain true to their constituents due to their connection to campaign funding sources.

Another Democrat projecting himself on to others... What Ben means is that he wouldn't have the integrity to serve the public faithfully had he won election...he said so when he said that he believed it is impossible for officlas or candidates to remain true to their constituents. So, we'll add the pile of facts against Mr. Konop. In addition to being a loser, he is also lacking integrity.

While Coingate is an extreme example of the damaging effects of money on sound public policy judgments, in order to significantly reduce the possibility of more Coingates in the future, serious campaign funding reform is needed.

Sadly, the Ohio Legislature just recently passed a Republican led "Campaign Finance Reform Bill" that raises the contribution limits 400 percent and allows wealthy Ohioans to give up to $10,000 per election cycle to an individual candidate or a Political Action Committee.

So in essence, this measure gives the Tom Noes of the world 400 percent more influence in the political decisions of Ohio's government.

Actually, I think all this "campaign finance reform" business is crap. All of these laws should be repealed as unconstitutional breaches of our freedom of speech.

In the wake of Coingate, this bill should be repealed and a clean election system implemented in which the public would fund candidates who agree to limit their spending and reject private contributions.

The public benefits by lowering the costs of campaigns, allowing the legislature to concentrate on legislating instead of incessant fund raising, leveling the playing field for new candidates, and reducing the influence of special interests and the wealthy on policy making.

I like this idea. Let me tell you why...

In the last presidential election, President Bush's campaign had a much bigger war chest from vastly more contributers than John Kerry and the democrats did. Mr. Konop is suggesting that we limit the influence of Peter Lewis (Mark: done anything about switching your insurance yet?) and George Soros. This hurts the democrats, not the Republicans...

Arizona and Maine have already implemented this system and it is now needed in Ohio to restore the public's trust in our elected officials.

Arizona and Maine are home to John McCain, Olympia Snowe, and Susan Collins...RINOs all around! And if it is good enough for RINOs in Arizona and Maine, surely it's good enough for the RINOs in Ohio. Right?

The Coingate saga also illuminates the corrosiveness of gerrymandering on the political process.

Simply stated, gerrymandering describes the deliberate rearrangement of the boundaries of legislative districts to influence the outcome of elections.

Historically, both major political parties have used gerrymandering to tilt the playing field to their advantage when they are in power, but since the Republicans have taken control of the executive branch of state government in Ohio, they have systematically undertaken a plan to carve out as many Republican districts as they possibly can on both the state and federal level.

This has led, in part, to one-party rule in a state that is split down the middle between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to presidential voting.

While Democrat John Kerry received nearly half of Ohioans' votes in 2004, the state GOP kept control of about two-thirds of the congressional and state legislative seats, ensuring one-party dominance for at several more political cycles.

Okay...let's put this "Ohio is a divided state" myth away right now. President Bush won re-election in this state by 200,000 votes. Does that sound like a "divided" state to you? Think about that for a minute and then ponder what Mr. Konop just said...

When one party is in total control of all aspects of state government, legislatures are less responsive to constituents and the checks and balances simply do not exist to prevent Coingates from occurring.

Various plans exist throughout the county to eliminate partisan politics from the redistricting process.

In Iowa, for example, as a matter of law the legislature must adhere to certain principles when it draws district lines.

The goals include creating compact districts, maintaining consistency with other political jurisdictions, and preserving "communities of interest" among voters. Iowa also prohibits mapmakers from using party registration or party performance data when they draw district lines, to avoid partisan gerrymandering.

These are the same people who think presidential primaries should be settled by a caucus instead of an election... No thanks, people of Iowa; Ohio should keep its own counsel, thank you very much...

If Ohio's political atmosphere becomes competitive and the big money interests take a back seat to the needs of the people, legislatures in both parties would be beholden to their constituents' interest instead of the interests of Tom Noe.

This would ensure a stronger representative democracy and a stronger state for all of us.

So...what did we learn from this? Konop is a sore loser with integrity problems and an inflated sense of self-importance. That's what I take away from this editorial. It surely didn't add anything to the discussion about CoinGate...

6/20 Update - Konop Responds

Mr. Konop responded in the comments section and I thought I'd enter it in to the official record as we will eventually lose the comments and what he has to say is interesting...

Hi, this is the sore loser who lacks integrity and has an inflated sense of self importance, Ben Konop. Your critique was interesting, but it really misses the point. I'm saying that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of the same things as a result of gerrymandering and campaign finance. Coingate is what happens, regardless of which party is in control, in our current political structure. My editorial was non-partisan in its thesis. If you don't agree with the basic ideas, that is fine. You have the right to "project yourself on to others." For example, I agree there are free speech issues inherent in the issue of campaign contributions. But your attack on my partisanship is misguided in my humble opinion.

Best regards, Ben

Ben, I don't think it matters that both parties do it. There is no reason to infringe upon our freedom of speech and that is exactly what campaign finance "reform" does. What we need are a set of ethics laws governing the conduct in order to prevent future CoinGates, would you not agree?

As for my attack on your partisanship, I admit that I may have assumed too much. I still fail to understand your point of view when it comes to establishing a link between CoinGate and gerrymandering and/or campaign finance reform...these things are not related. There has to be a reason why you connect themm; I assumed partisanship, but apparently your mileage has varied...

Thanks for reading...