Tue 17 Jul 2007
Black Donations Include Who’s Who of Ohio Republicans
Posted by Editor under Black , Republican[30] Comments
Modernesquire over @ Buckeye State Blog has been going over Ohio 2nd Democratic candidate Stephen Black‘s campaign donations and has turned up such Ohio Republican heavy hitters as Mary Taylor (06), Greg Hartmann (06), Jim Petro (01, 03 & 04), Bob Taft (01), Ken Blackwell (01), Betty Montgomery (01), and Joe Deters (01).
Given how hard Paul Hackett was hit for once switching sides and picking a Republican ballot in a primary, I’m sure that this will stir up a few people. Still, he did donate to Vic Wulsin in 06 
I’m certain that some will see this as a plus for someone running in the once safe Republican 2nd. Still, it’s not going to help things in the primary.
It’s certain that the Black campaign saw this line coming, so it will be interesting to see how they play it.
OK… I can forgive an Indian Hill lawyer the occasional old Taft or Blackwell donation… but come on… JOE DETERS??!!! That’s where I draw the line.
Aw hell….nevermind.
Hartmann? You’ve got to be kidding. I’m a lawyer in Hamilton County, and I don’t know one Dem who is a lawyer who donated to Hartmann. Yep, Mr. Black has some ‘splainin’ to do for sure. A donation to Wulsin against Schmidt doesn’t make me feel much better. There are lots of extremely conservative right wingers in Hamilton County who absolutely abhor Schmidt and will do almost anything to get her out.
Is anyone here aware that Steve Black is a professional lawyer, and if you would like to win your case in an Ohio court, your lawyer had better have made a campaign contribution to the judge? I’m sorry, but that is simply a fact of life in Ohio’s cesspool of a judicial system, which, as everyone knows, is dominated by Republicans. Ask yourself this: who would pay if Steve Black did not donate to Republican candidates for the bench? Let me provide the answer: his clients, that’s who. So what was he supposed to do? Not donate to Republican judges and see his clients lose? Did anyone here read the New York Times article about the Republican-dominated Ohio Supreme Court, in which the justices ruled over 70% of the time in favor of their campaign contributors, and one justice did so 91% of the time? The message of that for lawyers is crystal clear, and I can guarantee you that if Vic were a lawyer, and she didn’t make contributions to Republicans, she wouldn’t have been a lawyer for long because no one would hire her.
So I really hate to burst people’s bubble who think that Ohio is a democracy but campaign contributions made by lawyers to Republicans in this one-party state are not voluntary — they are a professional necessity.
And the saame holds true for other fields. It is well known that it can be very damaging for your career in Cincinnati to be associated with Democrats. There have been people who have wanted to come to fundraising events for Steve’s campaign but professionally could not take the risk, and others who said, “I’ll come, but only if my name is not mentioned and there’s no picture of me in the newspapar, because I’ll pay for it at work.”
So when you look at these donations, don’t think Steve Black made them because he wanted to. If you are a lawyer in Ohio, either you do that or your career is toast — and your clients are screwed.
I’m just amazed at the naivete of people who think campaign contributions made by lawyers to Republicans in Ohio are voluntary and reflect their political leanings. I mean, wake up.
From ohioimpact.org:
A recent analysis of Ohio Supreme Court case decisions “found that its justices routinely sat on cases after receiving campaign contributions from the parties involved or from groups that filed supporting briefs. On average, they voted in favor of contributors 70 percent of the time. [One justice] voted for his contributors 91 percent of the time, the highest rate of any justice on the court.” Adam Liptak and Janet Roberts. “Campaign Cash Mirrors a High Court’s Rulings.” New York Times (page 1); October 1, 2006.
Ohio’s system of judicial elections is broken and in need of reform. A 2002 Capital University Law Review article argued that “although there may be no good method of selecting and retaining judges, there is a worst method, and Ohio is among the states to have found it. That worst method is one in which judges qualify for their jobs by raising very large sums of money from lawyers, litigants, and special interest groups, and retain their offices only by continuing to raise such funds. Paul D. Carrington and Adam R. Long (2002). Capital University Law Review
Has Stephen Black ever even argued a case before the Ohio Supreme Court? Because my understanding of his career is that he never has.
Stephen Black has an ethical obligation as an attorney to come to the defense of the judiciary and deny these incredible defense as this line of defense is incredibly wrong.
As a Democratic attorney in the heart of Ohio Republicanism (Butler and Warren County), I can tell you that I’ve never seen campaign donations affect the outcome of a case. And despite being known as a Democrat, I’ve beat several prominent Republican attorneys.
If Stephen Black thinks he had to make these donations to win his cases (in a court in which he never appeared), it is a testament to his lack of skill as a litigator.
My practice is just fine and I’ve never made a donation to a Republican. And the countless other Democratic attorneys, haven’t felt the need either.
Paul Hackett never made a campaign donation to a Republican. Ever.
Mrs. Editor-
Care to elaborate?
Ahem, is any one surprised by this donor list? This is about who contributed to Steve’s campaign, not who Steve donated to in the past although that may be an indication of his political outlook.
Conscientious, one can go along to get along or one can be guided by personally held principles. The voters will choose which type of person they want in office. Unfortunately, we’ve seen how bad government can get with the pay to play crowd. I would like to know did the Black campaign solicit these donations or did these uber republicans cough up money on their own.
Well, Domestic Goddess, I think it’s relevant to point out that after himself, the biggest receipiant of campaign funding assistance from Stephene Black has been Republicans.
I know his supporters have talked about his conversion, but did it literally occur since last year’s primary? And how poorly can he talk about his primary opponent and how “grossly out of touch” she is if he wrote her a $1,000 weeks before the election?
Modernesquire – If Steve wants to walk toward the light that’s great. I don’t think running for such a high office is going to work for a recent convert. Steve’s supports can say whatever they want but I know what I heard from union members. It would make much more political sense for Steve to run for a state seat and earn their trust. No one said he wasn’t a nice guy. but that doesn’t get him elected. As I said before, after he taps out the local republican support for money, does he go to national republican support? I believe Wulsin has national Democratic support. Anyone can disagree with me but since she came within 1/2% point her first time, it’s proof to the national Democratic groups that she’s a winner. Steve’s supporters may see her as a loser, but that is not how the DCCC, Emily’s List and other Democratic support groups see her. This money from republicans will not sit well with the Democratic base. It’s about perception.
Wow Editor…how self serving of you as a “Wulsinite Minion” (What flavor is that kool-aid this time?)to start this entry and then you fail to mention all of the dems he’s given too as well. For the past three years that number far outweighs the number sent to Republicans. Again, whats so wrong with someone who has an actual backbone who wants to represent us? You would rather continue to support the trend of blindly towing the party line, instead of doing what’s right by your own conscience. It’s Dems like you who continue to hold us back. It’s Dems like you who continue to make it easy for the Republican party to spin their webs while we stand in the shadows and have someone like Jean FREAKIN’ Schmidt be our representative to Congress. ARE YOU KIDDING ME??
Of course ALL of this has WHAT exactly, to do with Black’s ability to get things done for the people of this district? With THREE of the top 15 highest counties in Ohio in unemployment rates ALL WITHIN THIS DISTRICT (Pike is #1 at 9.8%); with more than 22% of families in Adams, 20% in Scioto, 15% in Brown, and 13% in Hamilton, Clermont, and Pike counties, ALL without healthcare. We want to argue THIS?? OR are willing to entrust an “Out of touch” candidate (Don’t we already have Schmidt?), with no plan and no vision (except for whatever soundbite sounds good at that time), who wants to “play Congress”, to represent us. Are you SERIOUS?? GOD, we SO get what we deserve in this District.
And modernsquire- Some litigator you are. What law school doesn’t teach you to acquire the facts before you argue? Your statement that the biggest recipient of his funding assistance has been Repubs is ridiculous, false, and without merit. Seriously, what practice do you work for? I want to know which firm to avoid in the future. Obviously you don’t know how to argue. Guess your ego and love for Paul Hackett got in your way. I always thought Paul had a secret fan club. Are you the President or something? Do they give you a decoder ring when you join, or something else? Just asking.
Damn ModernE…I thought they were gonna answer you. Ahh well.
“Wulsinite Minion”…how hysterical!!! Its a purple kool-aid day.
If the 1 or 3 Black supporters are any indication of the man they are trying to represent he is in a world of trouble.
Red2Blue-
Of course, it’s far easier for the Republicans “to spin their webs” with Black writing them checks.
How out of touch can Wulsin really be if your candidate just before the election donated $1,000 to elect her, really? I’m sorry, but that’s not a glib or rhetorical question. Prior to his $58k check to his own campaign, his biggest campaign donation was to his current primary opponent within weeks before the election. Did he not know?
And who taught you to read? My statement was that Republicans were the biggest receipiants (after Black himself since he wrote that $58k to inflate his fundraising numbers) is true. You want to go tit for tat on dollar amounts, I’d prefer to look at the constant behavior. And his overall behavior has been to favor Republicans as recently as last year’s primary.
Whomever taught you to argue never mentioned the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack apparently.
And if you knew anything about me, you’d know that I supported Sherrod Brown over Hackett during the Senate primary fight. So some Hackett fan club President I’d be. But why the hell did you feel the need to attack Paul? How was that a negative thing, except of course, he makes Black look worse because although Hackett was a former Republican, too, he didn’t have the history of financially supporting Republican candidates a year before his candidacy.
Besides, I thought Black had a gun to his head when he wrote these checks for fear of losing case after case, now it’s a sign of his “backbone”?
Your overreaction to what was a very simple story bodes poorly for Black. If this is how Black treats people who disagree with him, how is really any different from Bush?
What would happen if an Independent candidate with name recognition in all 7 counties in the Ohio 2nd entered the race?
Let’s talk about something else. All this focus on money is really disturbing. I believe in a different kind of America and am just about ready to do something about it…
Modernesquire-
You’re the one singing Hackett’s praises. The “attack” as you put it- was on you. Not Paul. But just wondering- what does Paul have to do with this situation anyway? Nothing. But then again- you felt the need to bring his name up, as though Paul Hackett is the benchmark of all that would be our salvation.
It’s really amazing how you so conveniently left out the “facts” regarding Blacks campaign contributions. During the past three years especially- he out contributed to Dems. Of course you conveniently left out that information. Why? Your lying attacks on Black justify a defense (They not teach you about that in law school either? What is this “My Cousin Vinnie”?)
I mean really, you attack him for contributing to ANY Republican, then attack him again for his contribution to Wulsin during the last election. Pray tell us O’ Wise One, what should he have done? Hmmmm. Maybe run for Congress.
Steve Black cares about this district, and it’s constituents. All of them. It’s about damn time we had a representative who did. He doesn’t want to “Play Congress.”
And, so now I’m a “Bushie?” That’s rich counselor- maybe you need a refresher course regarding fallacies.
Its funny how now you want to change the dynamics of the argument. What started out as your claim that Black has outsupported repubs over dems is false, so now you want to change the framing of the argument and instead make a comment of “You want to go tit for tat on dollar amounts, I’d prefer to look at the constant behavior”, when YOU’RE the one who wrote a damn blog piece about his “tit for tat” contributions in the first place. So which is it REALLY that you want to argue about ESQ.? Nice one Counselor, but that dog won’t hunt this time. Of course this is now officially the Wulsin For Congress Blog, so delusions and fantasies are what I can expect I guess.
Here’s a strong candidate (Steve Black) that is ready to defeat the republicans in this district, who can stand up to the scrutiny of the campaign, who can withstand the crap Rove and his cronies will most assuredly throw this districts way, and ALL you people can bitch about, is he USED to be a republican, and gave them money. Wow! No wonder we can’t ever get a ticket to the damn dance around here.
And Jim…..for the record….Steve Black believes in a different kind of America too.
Please don’t misunderstand my intent… My concern is that it is so easy for some people to raise so much money and run for Congress like it’s some kind of hobby or something. But even worse is the amount of money that our existing representatives in Washington continue to allow to be spent on political campaigns. No wonder we have a rich underqualified US Congress that can hardly accomplish anything no matter what party the individual representative or the majority represents.
My comment is not directed at Steve Black or any other candidate. As a matter of fact, to attest to his character, I’ll share something with you… I once stood on a road and passed out literature for hours and along came Steve Black, a Hamilton County Commissioner and the Chairman of the Hamilton County Democratic Party – one after the other… Two of those people (knowing that I am not running for office and that every nickel I send is out of my own pocket) took copies of my literature. The third, Steve Black, Democratic Candidate for US Congress in the Ohio 2nd District, stopped his car, said “Hello”, and then said “you don’t need to give one of those to me”. Now I am friends with Vic Wulsin and Jeff Sinnard but that one moment was an indication of Steve Black’s character. The problem we are facing is the amount of money that is allowed to be spent on campaigns in the first place. It would make an interesting ballot initiative in Ohio to let the voters decide if there should be a reasonable limit placed on the amount that candidates are allowed to spend on US Congressional races in Ohio. We need to take the money out of politics if we are truly going to start solving people’s problems.
As for now, I, like most people who live in our district, need to get to work.
Red2Blue-
Sigh. Let’s cover some basic reading comprehension skills, shall we? First, in my original post, I pointed out that Black donated to Democrats, including his primary opponent. I didn’t get into dollar amounts because frankly, I don’t think it say alot that Black just recently began to slightly give more to Democrats than Republicans (and that’s mostly due to his $1,000 to Wulsin alone.)
Then you go on another tirade about why I brought up Paul Hackett. Well, if you go to the top of THIS post, Editor compared it to when the Brown campaign was shopping a story that Paul Hackett was a registered Republican as recently as two years before his run. I was distinguishing Black’s situation from Hackett because Hackett, at worst, was accused of being a formerly registered Republican. Black, for the record, has a history of financially supporting numerous Republican candidates.
You apparently don’t think it’s that big of deal that over the years Black has more consistently made contributions to Republicans than Democrats, including in off election cycle years. That’s fine.
But don’t expect loyal Democratic primary voters not to agree. Many people think it’s a far greater commitment to a party when you’ve donated not only your vote, but your own money.
For the appearance of things, Black had no problem with the Republican Party until it started losing its appeal as a brand, and his interest and the support of the Democratic Party is rather conveniently timed. Sorry if your candidate can’t handle that some Democrats are going to wonder if he’s just being a fairweather fan of the Democratic Party, but he should expect it.
The facts are as I reported them. Black over the years given to more Republican candidates and with a greater frequency than Democratic candidates. The fact that Black may have recently in the past year wrote some bigger checks to Democrats to offset that history, doesn’t, in my opinion, change much.
And for the record, I didn’t support Wulsin in the last primary. So, I’m hardly a Wulsin partisan.
And don’t talk to me about how hard it is to get Democrats to the dance around here. I can’t help but notice your presence here only began to be a hatchet man for Black. I’ve worked on getting Democratics elected in this area my entire adult life. And after the successes in 2006, we CAN get Democrats elected in this area.
I’ve tried to have a civil conversation about this, but you keep on insisting in engaged in a discourse more suitable for the sandbox, not the public square. I never called you a “Bushie.” What I DID say is that your tendency to fly off the handle and engage in a missive of personal attacks of a person’s intelligence and integrity whenever they say anything that possibly suggests anything negative about Black is very similar to what we’ve seen from this Administration.
Sorry, if I’m not yet sold and ready to drink the Kool-Aid Black is selling. My only point was that information like this is going to make for a tough sell for him with Democratic primary voters. And absolutely nothing his campaign, or you, have said has changed my mind in the slightest. In fact, I believe the hyper over-reaction to it may have made things worse.
Good day, sir.
Hyper over reaction? Nice. How self serving. Like Black had a chance with you’re demagoguery. You and others here use half-truths, demonization, unrelated facts, and straw man tactics to characterize a man with the finest moral, and ethical principles, and likewise use those same tactics on his campaign manager, who has done more work for this party than ANY of you combined, because you hold to the party line of “lets support Vic because she ran before”, when she won’t stand a chance against the Republican machine this time around.
I’m not too worried about making things worse with you Counselor- no matter what he or his camp (and by the way- I’m not “in it”, I just see things for what they are) said or did- your political ignorance would keep you from seeing the light anyway. As for being anyones hatchet man thats a good shot too. I’ve been around a hell of a lot longer than you know, and am no ones hatchet man. I’m just sick and tired of ego stroking, pity parties, and having NO representation or candidates who want to “play Congress”.
Your false authority doesn’t fly with me either. Civil conversation. Yeah, okay counselor. You attack Black, and then now you’re the victim. That’s rich. My oh my, you took that play right out of Roves playbook didn’t you? What a fine student of his you appear to be. Surely you’re proud. Bet he is too.
Regardless, have your fun. Like I said- the ONLY thing you can piss and moan about is the fact that he used to be a republican. As this campaign moves forward- THAT will be the ONLY thing holding you back, and that will be a really sad realization for you then I’m sure.
And JIM. I agree with you 100% This will especially be important down the road when certain outside special interests enter the fray too. Very sad for all of us.
Domestic Goddess………..Looking back at one of your earlier posts- NONE of those “SPECIAL INTEREST” groups is on board with Vic yet. They don’t see her as being that strong of a candidate, and I’ve been told some actually want her out of the race altogether, because she’s so weak. But in regards to EMILY’S LIST- do we REALLY want this OUTSIDE SPECIAL INTEREST group dictating our representatives vote. I sure as hell don’t!
Thanks Modern for doing the research. I agree with you that this is not going to sit well with the base and I have said as much. Black supporters may not like that but it’s the Democratic base and some independents in the primary that vote. You don’t really need republicans to win the general either. You do need to get all the Dems out and the majority of the independents. Pandering to the republicans has been a colossal failure for Dems. Dems are getting much better about GOTV (I hope there is big improvement at the HCDP) and I think it will show in 08. It comes down to good GOTV work, connecting with voters personally.
Jim – I think we all agree that we need to get these huge amounts of money out of the races to even the playing field and free up the candidates. I think we would attract great candidates if they didn’t need to be chained to a phone for most of the campaign. They would rather be out talking to people. It just leads to problems with corruption and ethics. I cannot believe that Congress doesn’t do something to free themselves from the constant fundraising. But it starts with limiting campaign time, amount spent on campaigns and return of the fairness doctrine for media.
Emily’s List supports pro-choice female Democratic candidates and surprise, I want them as well as many other Democratic groups involved in the process. Women make up over 50% of the population in this country and we are woefully underrepresented in Congress. They provide a lot of training for new candidates and a lot of money for the chosen ones. I wish they would support more women candidates especially the local ones running in the last election, but I think they are working on giving more support to state candidates as well as national ones.
I am very old and and remember what happened to women before abortion was legal. I will never support an anti-choice candidate. I will work very hard to defeat an anti-choice candidate. I don’t want women dying from septic shock and hemorrhage in the massive numbers they did before Roe v. Wade. So yeah, bring on Emily’s List, Planned Parenthood, NARAL and all the progressive and liberal support groups.
Red2Blue-
Such anger. Yeah, it’s not like Steve Black’s campaign had a chance to respond to this, get ahead of the story. In case you missed it, they did respond. And they responded by saying how dare we Democrats even consider this an issue!
What the hell have I done to his campaign manager? Seriously, are you schizo or something? I’ve never attacked Mary.
It sounds more to me like Steve Black can’t take a punch. Who’s ego is needed to be stroked then?
I’ll say it again. I haven’t decided if I think Wulsin should get the nomination. If you go back and read my post, it was drafted because I was curious to learn more about Steve Black.
I “attacked” Black by pointed out his history of financing support more Republicans than Democrats and with a greater frequency. You then attacked me by continuous calling me a liar and insulting my intelligence. Black’s campaign even had the audicity to question whether this was even relevant. That’s where the civility of this discussion broke down by you and Black’s campaign publicly questioning the integrity of any Democrat who dares thinks this might be an issue.
Fact is that Black’s campaign never disputed that Black historically has been a financial supporter for several Republican candidates. Instead, they want you to look at the last year when after writing checks for Republicans in the primaries, he wrote a big check for Wulsin in the general. Maybe some primary voters think his recent bigger donations equal out what he’s done over the past ten years. Others won’t.
I expected to write the story, have the Black campaign respond, and that’d be that. But I’ve apparently hit a nerve that deserves more examination.
I was planning on moving on, but perhaps I should take a closer look at Black’s campaign instead.
Actually, I wasn’t pissing or moaning. I just wrote a story. But if I did, it wouldn’t be just because Black “used to be a Republican.” It’d be because Black “used to be a patron of Republicans throughout the nation.”
Like I said, some people make a distinction between just being a formerly registered Republican voter and actually cutting checks to them. I happen to be one such primary voter. So his conversion must have been sometime after March of 2006 since that’s when he wrote his last Republican check. That’s fine. He says he’s a convert.
We accepted Hackett. We could accept Black, but not so long as Black insists on telling Democrats it shouldn’t be an issue. It is. That’s a losing proposition for him.
Are we really interested in taking the money out of politics?
How many signatues does it take to get an issue on the ballot statewide in November. How about a $20,000 limit on US Congressional campaigns in the primary? The lobbyists would hate this idea. They would fight it like there is no tomorrow. How many signatures? How many counties do they have to come from? And by what date? Somebody look into those questions and I’ll take care of the rest…
Esquire-
My issue wasn’t ONLY with you, but others here as well who wish to demonize Huttinger for no reason other than she happens to be working for the candidate she feels has the best chance to take back OH02. Then it appears yourself and others wish to do the same to candidate Black, again for no reason. If what you say is true- that you only wish to learn more about Black- then say so. Don’t sensationalize, or overdramatize the facts. And no- you are incorrect- Black didn’t JUST support only Wulsin last year in the general. Black has supported other Dem candidates as well. As for the die hard loyalists here- no matter who ran- they would still support Vic. I think this is wrong. This failed tactic has been tried and tried again. It hasn’t worked for this district.
And Goddess………….. I can appreciate your desire to keep abortion a womans right, however your view that ONLY a woman is capable of ensuring that is waaaaaay off in my opinion. I don’t care what the issue is- I CAN NOT and WILL NOT support an outside, radical, anti-male group, who has used suspect tactics in ther past to hold this district hostage. Schmidt does this already with Bush. We don’t need an outside pac dictating our future. No matter what the issue is. Voting for a candidate simply because of gender is WRONG!
And now, Mr. Red2Blue, just what outside, anti-male, radical group are you referring to? Methinks you are not making friends for Mr. Black. Does he know you are doing these things? Does he feel the same way?
This entire issue would have been interesting and something to think about had you not sensationalized it to the point of extreme scrutiny.
Muffet-
Is it not true that Emilys List (which Goddess brought up) does not EVER support men regardless of political ideology? If the focus IS truly on a womans right to choose, then why do they not also support men who share this same belief was all I was asking. Maybe you think thats okay- but these tactics are wrong, and outside pacs who have NO interest in this district and couldn’t really care less about us are wrong. And no, I think for myself. These are my opinions. Not Mr. Blacks or anyone elses. I have no idea what he or his camp feel. I would feel as strongly about this if it were an organization which promoted only men. It is wrong. But Goddess brought up Emily’s List, and we all SHOULD know the agenda behind the agenda was all I was referencing.
I suppose we can guess your position on affirmative action, huh?
Pass the popcorn Mrs. E.
R2B-now really, the definition of a special interest group is that they represent a group, a segment of the population. They are not all things to all people. There are other groups that support pro choice candidates regardless of gender or party. Emily’s List is just one of many political support groups. They were formed by a group of women specifically to support women pro choice candidates because there was very little if any support for women in politics back then. There still are very few women in Congress considering that women are more than half the population. I believe Congress must be more diverse and I support groups that have the same view. This country is not made up of 90% white male lawyers. Not that there is anything wrong with being a white male lawyer, but they are rather overrepresented in Congress.
Do you believe Steve not going to take money and support from people and special groups outside the 2nd district?
I haven’t been to the OH-02 blog in awhile, so thought I would peak my head in to say “hello”.
Hello.
Uh, I must say…the current discussion is quite animated. Healthy banter, I hope.
Hi Debra
Long time no see. I hope all is well.
Healthy banter might be reaching abit.
But here……have some popcorn….things are sure getting interesting.