Talk:Ken Blackwell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ohio Portal

Ken Blackwell is part of WikiProject Ohio, which collaborates on Ohio-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to current discussions.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

[edit] Old talk

What about the suit for his illegal campaigning in churches? The man is evil and has no right being Govenor.

Is it true he was cochair of ... I can't even type his name ... the "reelection" campaign in Ohio? Kwantus 22:20, 2004 Nov 4 (UTC)

The article from the October 24, 2004 edition of the Plain Dealer linked here describes him as "honorary co-chairman", whatever the heck that means. PedanticallySpeaking 22:32, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

(lawsuit pdf), also see [1]. Kevin Baas | talk 20:11, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

[2] - letter asking for illegal campaign contributions Kevin Baas^talk 21:37, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)

[3] use of seal on said letter is illegal.

Title 18 of the U.S. Code, as revised in January 1971, prohibits use of the likeness of the Great Seal or any facsimile in “any advertisement, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production” for the purpose of conveying a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the U.S. Government under threat of a fine of not more than $250 or imprisonment of not more than 6 months, or both.

Kevin Baas^talk 19:00, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC)

I don't think the illegality is clear-cut, but it would be consistent with NPOV for us to point out that, during the Reagan administration, the federal government warned a Democratic committee to stop using the same or a similar seal, which is what the Blue Lemur story alleges. JamesMLane 19:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That sounds good. The article should not draw conclusions. Be my guest at writting it up. Kevin Baas^talk 02:29, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)

[edit] Article poorly sourced, strong partisan POV

This article is, on the whole, extremely unbalanced.

1) It repeats numerous charges made against Blackwell by Democratic advocacy groups and party members, but provides very few links to where those charges are laid out, providing no way for readers to check for themselves on the nature of the claims and reliability of the sources.

the claims are laid out in the 2004 election irregularities article and the relevant litigation documents, both of which are clearly linked to from this article, in the relevant section. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

2) In several instances the partisan source of these charges are NOT acknowledged. We are told that "many" have made a complaint/accusation. This may be factually correct, but in context it misleads, suggesting that people of various political stripes agree on the criticism, when in fact, all the accusers are strongly partisan. (Note: the partisan nature of the sources neither proves nor disproves their validity. But it is only fair to let the reader KNOW the political commitments of these folks.)

the allegations are not of a partisian nature, nor are the motives partisan, and the sources are multi-partisan, and often non-partisan. (such as non-partisan organizations) Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

3) The charges alone are listed. Very little is said about the arguments Blackwell and others have made for his position and actions.

that's because they have not made arguments for their positions and actions. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Major case in point: the October 21 district court decision against Blackwell was cited (together with a gratuitous partisan remark from the judge that shed NO light on the arguments or merits of either side in the case). But there was no mention, much less a link to the appeals court's reversal of that decision.

well put it in the article, then. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Again, the

4)It treats strongly partisan web sites from one side as reliable news sources, And, once again, there is not even a mention of sources that dispute the claims.

many of those "strongly partisan" web sites you refer to are registered "non-partisan" websites. And so long as the news actually is reliable, what does it matter how some people characterize the source? - it doesn't affect the veracity of the information.

i'm not aware of any sources that dispute the claims, they are empirically verifiable. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

Just because one person says those sites are non-partisan, doesn't mean they are. I look at references from Democracy Now and other sites like it, and see no non-partisanship. If Mr. Bass would be interested in at least looking at facts instead of putting conjecture forth, that would be quite helpful. If he is not, then it would be prudent to have him removed and banned from editing this article.

5) The language is repeatedly slanted to characterize(or rather caricature) Blackwell, when the basic facts could be laid out very simply, leaving the reader to judge.

i've tried to lay out the basic facts very simply. if you think you can lay them out more simply, be my guest, instead of just complaining. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your own POV on Blackwell. And you are welcome to publish it on DU forums, dKospedia and numerous blogs. But the point of THIS web site on a subject where there is a political dispute OUGHT to be to lay out the essential facts and the points made by BOTH sides, and to point people to the original sources that can help them arrive at their own judgment.

everyone is entitled to their own pov, but not their own facts. the point of this website is to present the facts. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

A challenge (for starters):

a) clearly state WHO has made particular charges. Try using ACTIVE voice and including clearly identified SUBJECTS "[Democrats/PN/...]charge", rather than "came under fire" (from WHOM?) and "Many have charged..."

b) clearly SOURCE the claims -- provide LINKS

c)attempt to find and include the responses Blackwell and his supporters have made to the charges and provide links to these as well (and "from their own mouths", not citations in DailyKos, et.al.)

Go ahead and search, but keep it in proportion, that is, try to avoid selection bias. And don't try to balance a fact with an opinion. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 22:15, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

--BruceJohnson 16:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

With politicians, I usually don't bother to say "Democrats charged..." or "Republicans charged..." The U.S. political culture is so polarized that you can count on sniping between the parties. I tend to mention party affiliation only when it's surprising -- when McCain criticizes Bush or the like. JamesMLane 17:15, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, Bruce, I'm throwing your challenge back atcha. I looked at a few of the reports of the "barnyard animals" slur. I didn't find one that supported calling it an "offhand remark". I didn't want to spend all afternoon looking, though, so having made a reasonable effort, I removed the unsupported statement. If you want to reinsert it, then I'll respectfully direct you to your own advice above: "clearly SOURCE the claims -- provide LINKS". Note that, even if it was originally an offhand remark, Blackwell's put it on his website, so it's not like something that just slipped out to his regret. JamesMLane 19:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 66.192.197.20

66.192.197.20 made a series of very valuable edits. In the process, the editor may have deleted other valuable edits. 66.192.197.20 was criticized for editing as an Anon, but Wiki policy gives them the same rights as anyone else as long as they are not vandalizing. Given the extent of the edits and valuable contribution, the best approach is use this as a basis and continue editing, including using any old text that is appropriate. --Noitall July 2, 2005 14:19 (UTC)

[edit] new article

Great article, with many citations:

http://www.harpers.org/index.html

highly POV, but a lot to add to an NPOV article. Dsol 01:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Harper's is not an non-partisan source. Until such time as it is determined as such, it shall be left out of the loop.

The foregoing unsigned comment is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. JamesMLane 10:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CoinGate and Noe Scandal

A gentleman from Ohio just brought up an important point: This article is lacking any discussion of the Coingate or Noe scandals. I haven't heard of the "Noe" scandal, but Coingate is pretty well known in politically educated circles outside of Ohio. If someone is fairly knowledgable on coingate and how K.B. (and the Ohio republican party - in the broader picture) is involved in it, i believe that would be a great contribution to the article, and interesting and important for readers like the gentleman who came here to find info on that topic. Kevin baas 18:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Coingate and Noe

Of all of the Republican politicians in state-wide office, Blackwell is the only one NOT connected to the Coingate/Noe scandal. Noe is the gentlemen who perpetrated the Coingate scandal. But since I can't prove a negative, I'll leave it at that. (unsigned)

I've heard Blackwell's name associated with the scandal, and he was a major player in bush's election campaign, which some of the money was used for, so there's a plausible link. However, I can't recall ever reading any material claim that he was in some way involved in coingate, though then again I haven't read much on the topic. Kevin Baas^talk 18:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too little info. on Blackwell

This article has too little actual info. about Mr. Blackwell, most of it is about the election "scandal", this by itself may be POV as the disputes about Ohio in 2004 were certainly not on par with Florida in 2000 as this article would imply, only the fringe left floats conspiracy theories on this matter, it isn't taken seriously by mainstream politicos of either U.S. party...

If you think that the article would benefit from more "actual info." about Blackwell, feel free to add it. In general, we don't try to achieve a spurious balance in an article by deleting information. JamesMLane t c 17:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This issue is taken very seriously by mainstream politicians from both parties. Kevin Baas^talk 18:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For some references on the Blackwell involvement in election 2004

Feel free to read any of my articles on the subject. I interviewed a lot of the folks on the ground, probably more than any other reporter, including Carlo LoParo, Blackwell's spokesperson, and two of the County Election Chairs as well as an expert on Ohio's election law, the attorney for the Kerry campaign and the person in charge of mobilizing the greens efforts to observe the recount. One of my articles is already listed in Wikipedia under the general election 2004 controversies page for general interest. In the interests of full disclosure, I am a Democrat and currently do most of my writing on the editorial side and they tend to be quite partisan and pointed. At the time of election 2004, however, I was on the news side of things and determined to get the story right whatever my personal feelings. In fact, after interviewing LoParo, I began to think that there was no "There" there regarding the controversies. Problem was that he referred me to county election chairs, several of whom were Democrats and then specified two in particular that I should interview to remove any doubts about the election in Ohio from my mind. Well, when I interviewed those two, they completely contradicted what LoParo and Blackwell had been saying, had numerous complaints, and gave examples of several items that could definitely have added up to significant swings of votes. Then the recount was improperly conducted by a huge amount of the counties and I began to wonder what are these people hiding? I mean, if you want to kill a controversy like this dead, wouldnt you conduct a thorough recount exactly like the law requires? Ohio had a very impressive recount law that I noted would have cleared up any conspiracy theories either way if conducted according to the law, but at least 17 counties completely ignored the law. Anyway, here are the relevant articles I wrote on the subject in chronological order (At least I think I included all of them):

12-12-04 http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2004/Dec/EEN41bcaddeb20b7.html

12-13-04 http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2004/Dec/EEN41bdf9f1ad056.html

12-14-04 http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2004/Dec/EEN41bf5ef4d50b2.html

12-20-04 http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2004/Dec/EEN41c754d14d6d9.html

1-4-04 http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2005/Jan/EEN41daafcecb050.html

1-7-05 http://www.elitestv.com/pub/2005/Jan/EEN41defee5accf6.html

Please feel free to email me at sleser001@yahoo.com for more information/discussion.

[edit] List of legal suits

Why is there a "List of legal suits"? It doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose to simply list lawsuits against a politician in his official capacity. Also, many of the links are no longer valid. --Ajdz 06:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Those suits are all related to the 2004 election irregularities, and are all pretty significant - and it's significnat that there are so many (so closely clustered together in time). Politicians, esp. state don't usually have so many legal suits against them at the same time. They usually have one at a time, if there ever is one, and it usually makes the news and gets them out of office. Think of it as like the discussion on lewis libby's page about the one lawsuit he's involved in, or the like. Though obviously there's no space to go into any knid of depths of these suits here. Kevin Baas^talk 18:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The number doesn't seem all that significant for a disputed election where probably any voter could start a separate lawsuit. Including a list here seem more like using wikipedia to make a point, rather than trying to provide useful information. Here, the cases should be listed in an article on the election, not Blackwell's biography. I believe you are wrong about the rarity suits against politicians. Any election-related suit (and probably others) in Ohio probably involves Blackwell by virtue of his office. --Ajdz 18:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

you are suggested that these lawsuits are started by voters. i think there may be a civil case or two in there, but no, that clearly does not explain the number. at all. including the list instead of describing each suit is a matter of keeping the article in proportion. Granted, most ppl who know of KB probably know about him through the 2004 irregularites, this section can't become to large in proportion to the ones above it. It is a list because a list is smaller (more compressed) then a brief discussion of each suit. But if you want to discuss that, then discuss it. you state that you believe i am wrong about the rarity of suits against politicians without providing any supporting evidence. election-related suits in ohio involve blackwell by virtue of his conduct in office. they involve him because the problems were direct results of his actions. he is not accused of being "guilty by association", but guilty by cause. So i don't see why that's a problem. the suits are proportional to the causes, as well they should be. Kevin Baas^talk 18:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of a single comprehensive source that explains the process of suing secretaries of state, but here is one example - a suit against Blackwell because he refused to accept nominating petitions after a statutory filing deadline. The case, of course, is not at all notable and not worth mentioning in Blackwell's bio. I expect the same from much of the current list. As the person responsible for conducting elections, probably all election-related suits would involved Blackwell in order to compel him or his office to take some action or another. --Ajdz 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't neccessarily follow, election workers at all levels are subject to being sued, so is everyone in the DOE at both state and county levels. Also, this unsound argument's implied logic that the suits are therefore meritless is logically invalid. Does that also mean that he therefore can do no wrong? Because if so, Ohio's got a great system that we should all use as a model! Kevin Baas^talk 20:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making an argument, I'm explaining a rather basic point of election law. I have NEVER said the suits are meritless, just that they don't belong in Ken Blackwell's biography. Relax. --Ajdz 22:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

When people talk about 'ol kenny, this is what they talk about, in the same way and to the same degree that when people talk about 'ol scooter, this is what they talk about. So far the sake of consistency, if what you say is true then there's a lot of revising to do to the lewis libby article. Kevin Baas^talk 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Of the two cases that have valid links, only one is useful (has an article) at this time. The other is an improperly-filed suit against putting a state constitutional amendment on the ballot and disputes the conduct of petition-gatherers, not Blackwell. --Ajdz 19:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, true true. Regarding the links:

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Kevin Baas^talk 20:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else have a comment here? --Ajdz 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but we Ohioans are too busy talking to each other to bother editing here!

I'm sure you've reviewed the above history. Every so often, someone has come along asking for a less biased article. I asked for a neutral article back last winter. (I didn't know what a Talk page was then. I editted into the article: This is biased. Much of it could/should be in an "OH Secretary of State" article or something, not Mr Blackwell; especially any lawsuits against the Office of SOS. The topical coverage is out of proportion: the election allegations over-covered versus other relevant biographical content. Et cetera. In closing, I voted in Ohio and thought we Ohioans did just fine, so I can't be neutral. Please fix, whoever you Wiki people are.) Well, as you can see, little was done.

I check back occasionally, here and a few other articles, to see if Wikipedia is getting any better. Wiki and political person's pages are perhaps the best example of why the lack of author accountability is a serious flaw in the Wikipedia business model. (BTW, I read that Wiki is a tax-deductible charity. I'm using 'business model' here in the generic sense of how an organization or process operates.)

Time to go read some useful Ohio local blogs.

Yes, other views? Is there anybody out there? Kevin Baas^talk 22:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

As Ohio Secretary of State, Blackwell has been a party to many election-related lawsuits. As Ohio Attorney General, Petro has/had the responsibility to defend the suits. Some of the suits were/will be decided by Ohio appointed judges and Ohio's elected Supreme Court. (In summary, what's the point of this list of legal suits here, in a person's individual page, rather than in an Ohio elections page?)

[edit] why must the picture be correct?

he looks better arab. besides, why should truth be more noble than falsehood, or upholding the wikipedia guidelines somehow more preferable than ignoring them? --Froth

[edit] controversial

what is the objection to the word controversial? i realize that nearly any issue can be classified as "controversial" if even a single person objects to it. however, in the case of blackwell's support of the ammendment to strictly outline the definition of marriage the word "controversial" clearly applies. to adjz who deleted it...did you live in ohio in 2004? did you somehow miss the protests, news stories, newspaper articles and widespread tv commercials for either side? i believe that by removing the modifier "controversial" you are reducing the significance of mr. blackwell's support. i would like to change the article back to the way it was, though i felt it would be better to discuss this in public rather than start a flame war.

additionally, i have added back the piece on blackwell's failure to disclose the names of those who donated more than $100. i incorrectly interpreted the article, but i find it discouraging that the approach was to delete the entire bit rather than make the few minor corrections needed. the purpose of wikipedia is not to cherry pick facts that are consistent with a certain POV. the piece i added was not an attack on blackwell, it was factual and implicated blackwell and all of his competition in committing the same offense. Car phone 19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Other editors previously commented out the entire statement for its lack of a source. A source would still be helpful.

As for the financial disclosure article, your interpretation was still wrong. Disclosure laws like that routinely cause problems because donors don't provide every single tiny little detail that the state wants. It's not like they're laundering money here, it's little stuff like donations without names of employers, loose checks, etc, etc, etc. The fact that his competition has identical problems supports my point. It's an offense in the eyes of a very specific interest group, and pretty much no one else. --Ajdz 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

ajdz why did you delete wholesale the portion of the article dealing with possible illegal campaigning done for blackwell by the two churches? this DIRECTLY relates to blackwell's campaign. it is not as if these people decided to do this on their own and blackwell had nothing to do with it. a member of HIS CAMPAIGN wrote the email which was circulated. information about an ongoing IRS investigation into the potential influence of blackwell's campaign over non-profit organization IS important. this is not a page FOR blackwell, it is a page ABOUT him 68.76.46.32 00:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That dispute is over conduct by persons other than Blackwell and primarily outside of his campaign. It's the kind of thing you might put in an article about the campaign like Ohio gubernatorial election, 2006, but not in Mr. Blackwell's biography. I think it is far too trivial to show up anywhere except a bio of the likely non-notable preacher the article is actually about. Both the text in question and the source article support this. --Ajdz 01:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, but it was conduct done at the request of blackwell's campaign manager for the explicit purpose of promoting blackwell's campaign. you seem to miss the point here, so allow me to reiterate. blackwell's campaign manger wrote a message solely containing political material that he wanted the leader of a large, 501(c)(3) organization to distribute, despite the fact that it is against the law. oh, and the preacher is quite a notable person, he is the leader of the second largest religous organization in the state of ohio with the stated goals to register 400,000 new republicans by november. so again, this was started by blackwell's campaign for the explicit purpse of promoting blackwell as a candidate...tell me again how this is not relevant to THIS article. 68.76.46.32 05:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The article says you're wrong on the law. Even leaders of 501(c)(3)'s have rights and it should not suprise you that the Blackwell campaign has some interest in promoting... Blackwell. This story is centered on the preacher, tangential to the Ohio gubernatorial election, 2006, and trivial in Mr. Blackwell's biography. --Ajdz 05:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not wrong on the law, and i could care less what that article says. law is not set by what reporters choose to write about. for a reference source i suggest that you read [4] 501(c)(3)s DO have rights, but directly supporting a candidate or disseminating information for him or her is ILLEGAL. please note the line in the aforementioned article, "a charity may not circulate the candidate's statement to the media, the general public, or the charity's members until after the election." furthermore, "An organization that gives or lends its membership list to a candidate is in effect making an illegal campaign contribution." blackwell's campaign asked them to break the law. sure, blackwell didnt do it directly, but is was done on his behalf and at his request. this is extremely similar to the current situation bush is in. he may not have actually leaked any classified information himself, but he authorized someone else to do it so that it would get in the press.

blackwell's campaign has every right to promote themselves but there are laws in this country regarding what a nonprofit can do. if this church wants to distribute information from blackwell, the ONLY LEGAL way for them to do so is by publishing his reponses to a questionaire. however, the questionaire must cover a broad range of topics, be unbiased and be offered to EVERY candidate for the office. the role blackwell's campaign might possibly play in the IRS revoking tax ememption status for the second largest religous organization in ohio due to illegal campaigning is a big part of blackwell's campaign and you have no right to remove this information. 68.76.46.32 06:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are misapplying the law and the facts. While article remains trivial for Blackwell's biography, it also remains that the campaign acknowledged legal limitations and asked the preacher to contact his personal network, which would be distinct from an official church distribution. --Ajdz 15:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I find anon's argument convincing, and Ajdz's argument flimsy, at best. Kevin Baas^talk 16:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that special. --Ajdz 16:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is a little logic test to see if this belong in this article. Take the event: blackwell's campaign asks the leader of a non-profit organization to distribute material created by the campaign to "some of the leader's friends" which puts the non-profit organization in the possible position of violating the rules governing their tax-exempt status.

ajdz, you claim that this event is tangential to blackwell's campaign. take the statement above and remove the phrase "blackwell's campaign." do the remaining events still occur. no, they do not. the actions of blackwells campaign are neccesary for the remaining events to occur.

furthermore, this topic is relevant to blackwell's campaign because of his strong support by religious groups in ohio. blackwell has made no secret out of his support for policies consistent with the large religious groups, nor should his. those are his ideas and beliefs and make up a key part of who he is. however, the ohio and US constitution require a seperation of church and state which is reflected in the rules governing the 501(c)(3)s. no religious (or anti-religious for that matter) group may have excessive access to a politician. please remember, if blackwell is elected governer of ohio he is required to act in the interests of ALL ohio citizens, not just the religious conservative republicans (which, for reference is not even a majority group in ohio, this is quite a split state).

finally, this is a matter of abuse of tax-exemption laws. 501(c)(3)s are allowed to operate without paying taxes, which for the size of the two organizations involved is literally millions of dollars worth of tax breaks. there are 8 types of 501(c)(3)s: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, public safety, national and international sports, and prevention of cruelty to animals. support of ANY political candidate does not fall into ANY of those categories. these organizations are religious organizations and do not pay taxes because of that. however, blackwell is not a religious figure or scholar, nor is he running for any position within a religious organization. this is not partisan, believe me i would be all over a democrat who has PETA campaigning for him or her, it is LEGAL. unless you have a good argument, the section is going back, people have a right to know. 68.76.46.32 04:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The action in question is not by Blackwell, whose biography you want to include it in, or really by the campaign staff who requested something entirely legal (something like "please email your buddies"). The only real dispute here is as trivial as how the preacher filled in the "to" field in his email program ("buddies" vs. "official church membership list"). I explained 1,000 words ago, but without response, there are places that are thousands of times more appropriate:

It's the kind of thing you might put in an article about the campaign like Ohio gubernatorial election, 2006, but not in Mr. Blackwell's biography. I think it is far too trivial to show up anywhere except a bio of the likely non-notable preacher the article is actually about.

I suggest reading the original source which I do not believe appears on this page. Two paragraphs are helpful, to which perhaps you will give more thought to than you have my earlier remarks:

[T]he Rev. Russell Johnson said he complied with Internal Revenue Service rules since he only sent the missive to a group of friends, not to his church or the nonprofit Ohio Restoration Project network he heads.

And:

Two independent experts agreed, however, that the e-mail from the Blackwell campaign was worded to avoid getting Johnson’s church and the Ohio Restoration Project in trouble with the IRS for illegal political activity by tax-exempt organizations.

The rest of the article continues to repeat these points. There is one person complaining about the actions of Rev. Russell Johnson (not those of Ken Blackwell, not those of Ken Blackwell's campaign manager, not those of Ken Blackwell's campaign staff, not those of Ken Blackwell's dog), and many many others saying it's a non-issue raised by someone who either opposes Blackwell or likes to complain.

In addition, the 2006 Ohio Gubernatorial Campaign section already addresses the issue of the relationship between the Blackwell campaign and Ohio churches. It even mentions Rev. Eric Williams and his letter. It just doesn't talk about the independent activities discussed above. That particular paragraph could use some more NPOV language, but it at least is more relevant. You said the topic in general is relevant, that's not being disputed, it is still addressed in the article. --Ajdz 05:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the article from the Dispatch, makes it quite obvious that this entire situation was a carefully crafted move on the part of blackwell's campaign to "legally" can access to the church's email list. a direct quote from Rev. Johnson "I sent it to some of my friends, not as Pastor Johnson, not as an official of the Ohio Restoration Project, but as Citizen Russell Johnson." His church claims to have over 2,500 members. i wonder how many of those emailed really understand the difference between "private citizen johnson" and "rev johnson." in fact, how many of those people know him SOLELY in his capacity as a pastor. ultimately this whole topic upsets me as it destroys the legitimacy of religion in the mind of the non-religious. i have numerous friends who have a perception on religion based on the stuff done by jerry fallwell, jesse jackson, some of the stuff bush has said and now things like this. forcing religion is a really bad idea because you either wind up destroying the religion (as happened in england and france after centuries of domination by the catholic/anglican churches) or with a theocracy (a la saudi arabia). that blackwell's campaign is so readily willing to misuse religion, but all with a wink to keep it legal, it shows in a very big way what kind of governer he is planning on being.

Just to give you an idea of how off base your intepretation of the restrictions on officers of 501c3 organizations is, you might want to note the fact that Lee Fisher, who is the running mate of Strickland (Blackwell's opponent), is president of the Center for Families and Children C4FC which is a 501c3 tax exempt organization. By your interpretation he couldn't campaign for himself. It is not unusual for politicians themselves to be officers in such organizations. They however cannot use the resources of those organizations to campaign. However, sending emails to people they meet through those organizations is not against the rules, as long as they don't infer that those emails are sent in their capacity as an officer in that organization.

People do not lose their right to free speech by associating with a tax exempt organization. They are not expected to give up their rights and opinions outside of that organization. This is my first edit, so hopefully I didn't screw anything up. --Untrained skeptic 02:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greene County "lock-down"

This paragraph is very suspicious:

On December 11, 2004, Blackwell was accused by volunteer election researchers/observers Joan Quinn and Eve Robertson of interfering with the transparent election process by ordering the Greene County Board of Elections to "lock-down" all election records and remove them from the public domain, in violation of Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV Elections, Sec. 3503.26, which provides for all election records to be made available for public inspection. Sec. 3599.161 makes it a crime for any Board of Elections employee to interfere with the public inspection of such records, and Sec. 3599.42 states that a violation of these provisions of the ORC shall constitute a prima facie case of election fraud. [5] [6]

It claims to have a clear-cut case of election fraud, but a year and a half later there is no conclusion, no follow-up. Was there a lawsuit? Prosecutors that didn't think it was worth prosecuting? The absence of any follow-up seems to imply that the legal analysis is completely wrong, but that it could take an expert in Ohio electoral law to notice that. --Ajdz 05:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I dug up Ohio Revised Code Title XXXV Elections, Sec. 3503.26:

§ 3503.26. Custody of records and lists; inspection and copying.

(A) All registration forms and lists, when not in official use by the registrars or judges of elections, shall be in the possession of the board of elections. Names and addresses of electors may be copied from the registration lists only in the office of the board when it is open for business; but no such copying shall be permitted during the period of time commencing twenty-one days before an election and ending on the eleventh day after an election if such copying will, in the opinion of the board, interfere with the necessary work of the board. The board shall keep in convenient form and available for public inspection a correct set of the registration lists of all precincts in the county.

(B) Notwithstanding division (A) of this section the board of elections shall maintain and make available for public inspection and copying at a reasonable cost all records concerning the implementation of programs and activities conducted for the purpose of ensuring the accuracy and currency of voter registration lists, including the names and addresses of all registered electors sent confirmation notices and whether or not the elector responded to the confirmation notice. The board shall maintain all records described in this division for a period of two years.

The paragraph is ambiguous since it puts a date on the accusation, but not on when the act actually occurred. The law cited seems to be about one type of election records (registration lists), not all of them (like ballots, tabulations, etc), but this is not explained. There's also a pretty notable 33-day window when people can be kept away without a problem. The sources given are incredibly biased, but also too vague to know what is really going on. --Ajdz 06:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section in question after seven days without comment. --Ajdz 04:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Much improvment

Kudos to those who have worked on this article. It has improved quite a lot since I last looked at it. I'd be inclined to agree with some of those above that the material on the 2004 election ought to be elsewhere, say an article on the 2004 election in general or a special one about the allegations in Ohio. Keep up the good work. PedanticallySpeaking 17:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] proposal to remove "article with unsourced statements" tag

contrary to the modus operandi of some here, i would like to propose a deletion before i go ahead and do it. this article has been tagged as one which has "unsourced statements." i personally have added 26(!) sources to this article which leaves with with the feeling that this a largely undeserved tag. if anyone believes this tag still applies, please point out the offending passages and they will be corrected (deleted or sourced). otherwise i will remove this tag. 68.76.46.37 21:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The category? I didn't even notice it until now. I don't think the article as a whole lacks sources, but it looks like the category is added by use of the cite-needed tag and there's at least one statement that still needs a source. --Ajdz 00:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edits by adjz

i have been very civil with the harsh editing my submissions have been subjected to. there have been several complete deletions of LARGE blocs of text by the user adjz because they are not "notable" or "important" enough in his mind.

allow me to take a moment to refresh you all on wikipedia's policy of deletion. it should only occur if the information is a duplication (which it is not), patent nonsense (i write in complete sentences), copyright violations (again, not the case), inaccuracy (the material i write is based on accredited newspaper sources, generally several different ones).

the final issue is of irrelevancy. this one is more tricky to deal with. adjz seems to think that a lot of stuff (and interestingly, only the negative stuff) doesn't belong in this article. take for example my recent edit adding information about blackwells office releasing the social security numbers of millions of people twice in two months. this directly relates to blackwell, as it was his office that made the errors. it is a big deal, both from the privacy concerns standpoint and the fact that a federal lawsuit was filed and that blackwell may have to notify millions of people that his office let their private info out, a month after he promised that he would fix the problem. it is also relevant to his campaign. it is a major point being made by petro, the subject of dozens of newspaper articles and a big talking point in tv ads. this event is playing a role in blackwells campaign. furthermore, if he does have to send out the notification of accidental release letters, it will likely occur at a crucial point in his campaign (i am assuming he will win the primary). voters will certainly have a strong reaction when they receive a letter in the mail from one of the candidiates apoligizing for releasing their SSN number.

thus, that whole paragraph is relevant to the issue at hand. however, it was deleted COMPLETELY, within hours of it being posted. according to the wikipedia policies you should avoid at all costs deleting large portions of articles, particularly when it is done to make a point beyond the scope of wikipedia. adjz, i understand that you are a big fan of blackwell, however, you may not censor accurate, relevant, sourced information out of a biography.

furthermore, it is contrary to the whole concept of a "community" to delete things you dont like or agree with. if you truly have a problem, publicly address it and ask for the input of many people. blackwell is an american politician, thus transitively stands for democracy. it is ironic that you are taking the tactics of communists (ever hear of the "cultural revolution?) to remove the information that you dont think is relevant. there is nothing so special about you that you are the one who decides what belongs and what doesnt. i know i certainly am not, that is why i am appealing to the entire community for their input and discussion in this matter. 68.76.46.37 04:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It was moved with comment, not deleted. Please revisit the article before you continue to freak out. --Ajdz 04:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the material 68.76.46.37 refers to more properly belongs to the article on Ohio Secretary of State because it's not Ken Blackwell personally doing many of these things in the article, its done in his capacity as secretary of state. It would be like adding material to the article on Queen Elizabeth II because of something done in "Her Majesty's Government". PedanticallySpeaking 16:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ken Blackwell is notable because he is secretary of state - this article is about kenneth blackwell in his official capacity as secretary of state. the information belongs in the article on the person who is the ohio SOS, in their official capacity as such. Have you ever read a history book or biography on Queen Elizabeth II? maybe if someone else did it, or was responsibile, but the information is relevant precisely because kenneth blackwell in his official capacity as SOS was responsible. it's interesting, notable, relevant. and everyone in ohio either knows about it or will - leaving a gaping hole in this article if it's left out. Kevin Baas^talk 16:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Because Blackwell's involvement looks so limited, most of the content should be elsewhere, probably under Ohio Secretary of State as PedanticallySpeaking suggests. Blackwell's biography probably doesn't deserve more than a line or two on the issue. It's ridiculous that this gets more space than to his education. --Ajdz 18:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The "Early Life" section should definitely be expanded. That is a separate issue and certainly a significant one. I read "The list was intended to be used by political activism groups to contact voters with campaign information." That sounds like direct involvement to me. Also sounds like misuse of office. Pretty significant. Kevin Baas^talk 18:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the list itself is legal. ohio is required to provide a list of the names and addresses to any political action group which legally requests it, mostly for the purpose of loading you up with junk mail. the problem is that the list isnt supposed to have the SSNs.

i agree that his education section should be expanded, perhaps you should do that ajdz since you brought it up. however, it is incorrect to say that this doesnt belong in the article. these events occured while blackwell was the secretary of state and the lists were released by HIS office, not just some unnamed source. it is absurd to argue that it should go in the article on all secretaries of state. should the information on the emancipation proclaimation and the watergate scandal be only in the article on US presidents and not lincoln or nixon? it is a BIG deal if his office does this twice in two months. ID theft is a rampant problem that receives a lot of attention. this accidental release of information is disconcerting to MANY ohioians.

further indication of blackwell's direct involvement are his own statements that SSNs will not be used again (after the first accident) and that the disks will be recovered and that the situation is under control (after the second incident). if he isnt involved, why would he say something like that? he didnt say that some other office was handling it, it was HIS office.

finally, i stand corrected on the deletion of this issue. however, i believe it has been moved to the wrong section. it belongs in the 2006 campaign section as it is an issue being brought up by several candidates, it has the potential to be very damaging to blackwells campaign and is a factor which some may consider when deciding their vote. it is fairly obvious that it has been moved to the end of the article in the hope that those browsing the biography for insight into choosing their vote will not notice it. 68.76.46.37 19:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that education needs to be expanded, I was comparing the two. I also didn't say that the entire section should be deleted, but that it is excessive for something he played a relatively small role in. As I understand it, Blackwell will not be Ohio Secretary of State after 2006. At that point any remaining dispute would be dealt with by his successor. That's one reason to put the bulk of the text under Ohio Secretary of State which is an article on the office involved. It does not belong in the campaign section because it is related to official duties like the everything else under "Ohio Secretary of State." Anything in "Early years" could come up in the campaign, but that doesn't mean that you just cram everything into one giant campaign section. Should we move his picture to the campaign section just to make sure everyone knows he's black? If Ohio voters are that bad at reading, well you've got a bigger problem on your hands than what you've been ranting about. --Ajdz 20:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Adjz, you're getting a little carried away here. Perhaps we should just create an "Ohio Secretary of State" section on this article, put everything under it, and be done with it. I'm not going to involve myself about where the info goes in this article, other than agreeing that it's not campaign-specific enough to go in that section. That being said, I'm creating a new talk page section to discuss expansion of the "early years" section. Kevin Baas^talk 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I did, which was then labeled a "complete deletion" --Ajdz 20:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

fine, i retract my argument that it should be included in the campaign section. kevin, i believe it already is under the "secretary of state" section. however adjz, i reject your argument that blackwell played a small role. what exactly does he have to do for you to consider it a major role, does he have to address the envelopes himself? lick the stamps? any action performed officially by his office is HIS responsibility. it would be a different matter if this was an unnofficial activity, however it is not. blackwell takes the responsibilty in this matter. just because the matter may not be resolved while blackwell holds the position does not invalidate his role in it. does FDR deserve no mention of WWII in his biography because he did not live until its conclusion. unless someone can make a supported, sourced argument showing that this action was not done "officially" by blackwell's office, it remains a valid issue and the "disputed" tag will be removed. 68.76.46.37 20:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Life needs expansion

Anyone with knowledge of his early life or who wants to do some research, that section needs expansion, and your contributions will be welcomed and are encouraged. Kevin Baas^talk 20:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are two good sources of info:

Kevin Baas^talk 22:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] recent news (2006-06-29)

USA Today article - front page of politics section

Kevin Baas^talk 13:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

more

[9] 69.210.146.123 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spin Out "Tax and Expenditure Limitation (TEL) Amendment" to New Article?

Any objection to creating a new article to the discussion of the merits and alternatives to the "TEL" and abbreviating the discussion here? TheronJ 16:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it settled as law already, or is the amendment going to be on the ballot?Rkevins82 18:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The comment by Rkevins82 was surprising. The ballot Issue to amend the OH constitution was withdrawn a long time ago, back in May shortly after the primary. This is alluded to in the Legislative TEL discussion, but I was surprised to now notice it was not stated explicitly. This is a key simple fact, yet lacking in the article. TheronJ wants to discuss opinions -- merits and alternatives -- about Ohio's TEL (or perhaps the TEL concept overall, since it is not unique to Ohio), yet the current Wikipedia content shows you aren't getting the basic facts correct. Wikipedia really needs to quit looking for opportunities to include opinions -- merits and alternatives -- and instead stick to encyclopedic facts. With its current practices, Wikipedia does not deserve to promote political opinions as a 501c(3); it should switch to the political donations category.

Perhaps you might actually get the TEL content correct if you shorten it. Certainly do NOT add to it until it is shortened and verified. Errors include the following: - It's debatable what to even call it. Suggestion is OH TEL 2006 Issue. It was proposed not by Blackwell but by a group of people, with support from Buckeye Institute and thousands of petition signers. While Blackwell did promote it extensively, it is NOT his TEL anymore than the Legislative version is his. The legislative version is sometimes known as Legis-TEL. I expect new OH TEL's will be forthcoming, so the legal year of each will need to be kept with the name, as the TEL concept evolves here in Ohio. - The "rationale" mentions only the limitation on state spending. (TABOR only limited state spending.) The major problem with OH-TEL-06 was that it also wanted to limit Local government spending. This is not mentioned in the rationale, a serious omission. I think there was also a fixed number amount, but would have to look it up, in addition to inflation+population option. - The "criticisms" doesn't mention a key complaint by Republicans, once they saw the actual text. There was a debate about "electors" and what it meant for how spending is approved by vote of electors, the representatives of the people or direct democracy vote, or direct vote AND must be more than 50% of not just voter electors but of all registered voter-electors. - The criticisms quote many folks who didn't like it, yet the rationale doesn't quote a similar number of supporters; e.g. how many signatures were submitted on the petitions and quotes from the group members or their leaders who gathered the signatures. - Alternatives: Petro called his plan the CAP. You never mention it. - The legislation replacement section reads like a newspaper article from the days when those events were occuring (and, in fact, the content dates to that time frame). There is no reason for an encyclopedia to continue to have this amount of length on one piece of legislation that Blackwell could not even vote for. This section should be only a few sentences, not paragraphs. - "It still remains unclear as to whether the amendment proposal can be legally removed from the Ohio ballot" -> It's apparently been removed from the ballot. This illustrates Wikipedia's inability to have reliable periodic updates; rather stuff gets added when an issue is hot and topical, but then gets left in a partial state. See if the news articles on Legis-Tel are still at www.onnews.com, then search on TEL. - You mention an analysis by some Cleveland Center, but never mention the Buckeye Institute analysis. - Last TEL section says "they approved the bill only because it’s replacing the TEL amendment," yet the first TEL paragraph still leaves the reader, e.g. Rkevins82, to think the issue will still be on the ballot. This illustrates a problem with simple additions, the article allows getting longer, instead of a holistic view of an article's content. - A key problem with the Legis-TEL is that it only limits "appropriations", the planned budget, not actual spending. This is a loophole, but this tidbit may not belong in Blackwell's article.

Summary: I object to a Wikipedia opinion ("discusson") article about pros and cons ("merits and alternatives") of the TEL concept and/or of Ohio's 2006 Ballot TEL and Legislative TEL. Wikipedia should stick to facts, not be a place for publicly funded Op-Eds. Lots and lots of Wikipedia content should be on privately owned blog pages and newspapers, not here in a so-called "encyclopedia".

I don't know why my comment was surprising. I merely noted that a legislative version had passed and had heard that the amendment itself was withdrawn. Maybe the previous poster could edit an article instead of scold others.Rkevins82 18:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My version of an Edit Summary for TheronJ, per 21 Sep history: Shortening the article and improving the NPOV.

Thank you to TheronJ for shortening the Ohio TEL discussion. I was reluctant to do so myself, as I have a bias (conflict of interest?) of being for TABOR (state only limits) yet against OH's 2006 TEL (I oppose state-imposed limits on us locals, and the loong text -- how the local limits would be computed and applied -- was poor, especially for our Constitution). I voted for Blackwell in the primary somewhat as a positive referendum on the TEL concept, and also my perception of him as the anti-establishment' candidate and fiscal conservative. FWIW, I don't know who I'll be voting for in the primary.

My edit summary, to TheronJ or other editors: - I corrected some ballot issue facts: added "and local". Yikes, this is an important element, but the politicians and news accounts are often missing it or glossing over it. I added the fixed 3.5%; yikes, this is also important, since it is part of the formula. (I am extremely disheartened at the poor quality of the OH TEL coverage, here and elsewhere, that the OH version of the TEL formula is reported wrong. I expect the poor coverage will continue for the ME and NE and other states that are considering their own versions of TABOR, now known as TEL.) - TheronJ's version kept the Strickland reaction comments, but that begs for adding the reactions of the two other opponents: Peirce and Fitrakis. It could also beg for adding the reactions of pro-Blackwell primary voters (yet anti-TEL local) and pro-Petro voters (yet pro-TEL). My impression is that TEL and Legis-TEL are taking an increasing lesser role in the general campaign, so it's better to simply leave out long quotes about Legis-TEL reaction. Put reaction quotes and comments on the opponent's pages, if an opponent is attempting to make Legis-TEL the top issue; e.g. Strickland is campaigning on multiple Blackwell alleged flip-flops, not just TEL. My perception is that Legis-TEL is a footnote fact, for now. The major campaigns are debating the macro issue of taxation as well as their policies for government regulations, education, and health care. 66.213.90.2 17:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

66, thanks for contributing your TEL expertise. I've rewritten the section a little to try to bring the focus back to Blackwell. IMHO, if you would like a discussion of whether Blackwell's win shows public support for the TEL, maybe we should include it in a page on spending reform. (I'd be happy to help with that). I've also re-included the Strickland "flip-flopping" charge, which I think is relevant because it relates to how the TEL is affecting Blackwell's gubnatorial run. Thanks, TheronJ 17:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title - why I've moved it back

This article has long been at Ken Blackwell, but was recently moved to John Kenneth Blackwell. Wikipedia policy on this subject is found in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names): We are to use the most common unambiguous name of a person, such as Bill Clinton. In this case, Blackwell's campaign website calls him "Ken Blackwell". That also seems to be the form most common in the media. The issue of finding the article is addressed by putting redirects at other forms of the name, so John Kenneth Blackwell is properly a redirect here. JamesMLane t c 14:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I think your move is obviously correct.--Inonit 16:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Concur. PedanticallySpeaking 20:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep. -MrFizyx 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)