Third Party Pro-Strickland Ads Coming

Swing State Project reports:

A group backed by the DGA and the American Federation of Teachers called "Building a Stronger Ohio" is going up with a $300K ad buy on behalf of Ted Strickland . . . Nathan Gonzales reports that this new group has $1.7 million in funding (so far), so more and bigger buys are probably on the way.

Rothenberg has more, with a rehash of the ad story so far: Strickland's first negative ad on Kasich and the RGA response.

Given the involvement of AFT and the money involved, it will be interesting if we see any White Hat talk in future ads.

Frankly, I Think Constituent Communications Are a Good Thing

So apparently there is a Gannett report lurking somewhere behind a paywall about the use of franking by members of Congress, and as a result, we've a spate of stories about the constituent communications of local members. The Dispatch goes pretty hard after Mary Jo Kilroy for placing seventh among all Representatives and first in the Ohio delegation in money spent. Other stories look at the delegation more generally.

And all these stories lead with the amount of money spent. I think we all agree that we want to know what our representatives are doing and we all think representatives listening to their constituents is a good thing. But *gasp* it all costs money.

And that's the tone of these stories. The lede and opening grafs are all about "They're spending your money! They're spending your money!" and framing the discussion like of course these are nothing but extended campaign ads. Of course none of this is substantive or useful or good. Then they get quotes from the various members who have been set up to sound like this guy:

Here's a thought. We should encourage our representatives to communicate more with their constituents, not less. And if challengers don't like the inequity of members having the franking privilege, I'm right there with them too.

It's yet another argument for public campaign financing.

Policy Matters Ohio Report on Another Charter School Management Company

John Higgens at the ABJ digs into a timely Policy Matters Ohio report on Imagine Schools, a Virginia-based education management organization (EMO) that has set up an run charter schools in Ohio, including one in Akron near the old Rolling Acres Mall. Complaints from the operating boards of the schools sound very much like those of the White Hat schools currently suing their EMO.

From the executive summary of the report:

Imagine Schools, Inc., is privately owned by Dennis Bakke, a high-profile and outspoken supporter of education vouchers and charters. In 2004, Bakke bought an existing management company, renamed it Imagine and set out to expand. Bakke is former chairman of AES Corporation, a global energy generation and distribution company and author of the popular business book Joy at Work. He made news in 2009 when an internal memo he wrote was published in news reports; in it, Bakke told Imagine managers and school leaders that Imagine-managed schools are “our schools” because the taxpayer money flowing to the schools is “our money.” He also encouraged his employees to disregard and minimize the power of appointed school boards.

In Ohio, Imagine school board members have resigned in frustration over what they describe as corporate disregard for the governance role, mandated by law, that charter school boards are to exercise over their schools. “We finally concluded that what was desired from the administration [of the school] was for the board to be a rubber stamp rather than a governing body,” said one former board member interviewed for this study. [emphasis added.]

Higgens piece relates the report about Imagine to the situation with White Hat:

The striking similarity between the Imagine report and the White Hat lawsuit is the power that both for-profit corporations hold over the nonprofit school boards that are their employers — at least on paper.

''One huge issue is how hard it is for these school boards, these governing boards, to break away from Imagine or White Hat,'' said the report's author, Piet van Lier.

Best of all is White Hat's response:'''This is not the place to argue about the politics of charter schools,' according to White Hat's statement. 'That is properly left to the legislature.' Probably true that a legislative solution would be best, but if one is proposed you can bet on a phalanx of White Hat lobbyists working to kill it.

Personally I don't think everyone involved with charter schools is out to make a buck. Some good people work for charters and occasionally good people even start them. But it's increasingly clear that the current model in many states including Ohio is allowing some EMO operators to bilk the schools and by extension the taxpayers.

Charters Sue White Hat

Another story I'm working on is the lawsuit launched by ten White Hat charters against the company. John Higgins at the ABJ does an excellent job of laying out the issues.

This arises from a law that mysteriously passed during the '06 lame duck session that essentially gives contract protection to education management organizations (EMOs) the for-profit corporations that are contracted to run many charter schools, and in some cases (such as White Hat) appear for all practical purposes to be one and the same as the charter school.

For example the White Hat website doesn't portray the company as a management company, but gives the impression that the company owns Hope Academies and Life Skills. On the website, those schools are called "ventures" of White Hat, as opposed to, say, clients.

As Plunderbund points out, White Hat founder David Brennan has been a leading contributor to Republican candidates, including the current top of the slate. The press release accompanying the lawsuit accuses White Hat of leveraging that political capital to get the sweetheart protection law.

This is actually the second time charters have sued to have the law overturned. So one thing I'm digging into is what happened the first time.

The EMO protection law is terrible for everyone involved -- for taxpayers, for students in charter schools, charter school advocates. Hopefully this lawsuit will finally shame the legislature into getting rid of it.

Signature Gathering Beginning for Sovereignty Amendment

Word comes that supporters of a "Sovereignty Amendment" to the Ohio Constitution is beginning.

The Ohio Sovereignty Amendment is part of a broader national state sovereignty movement which seeks to introduce bills, resolutions and constitutional amendments purporting to assert state rights against the Federal government.

As of now, the Ohio effort looks doomed. From the looks of the website of the sponsor, the People's Constitution Coalition of Ohio (PCCOH) it does not look like they have the financial backing necessary to pay for signature gatherers which is indispensable. Someone will roll in here and say that they have committed grassroots support and they can gather the signatures with an all volunteer effort. They can't. As they say, the target is around 700,000 to get the 400 some odd valid signatures needed. Many have tried to do that all volunteer. And have failed.

The PCCOH promises to continue work even if they don't get the amendment on the ballot this go round. If they are able to maintain the grassroots energy they, and their arguments, will be around for some time.

We will explore the Amendment and the arguments underlying it in coming posts. Here's the overview. First, most of the amendment would be unconstitutional. The amendment seeks to have Ohio dictate to the Federal government the limits on the latter's power. It will shock you to learn that states can't actually do that.

The Sovereignits (that will do until something thinks of something shorter) would reply that the only reason people would think their amendment is unconstitutional is that the Federal government has so overstepped its historical limits as to make it look unconstitutional.

Which gets us to the second major point: nearly everything they say is wrong. Not just wrong because I disagree, but demonstrably, objectively wrong. And not merely a little off, but in most cases what they say is the perfect opposite of the truth. They deal in countertruth, in antitruth, in things true only in Bizzaro.

So why bother writing a few posts about a fringe of a fringe organization with delusional ideas and no chance of success? A couple of reasons. First off, it will be fun.

Second, while it is easy to write off the Soveriegnites as ignorant rubes, they actually have developed a fairly detailed theory of governance and that theory gets at some of the most basic debates about government and power. Taking on the sovereignty amendment means taking on basic assumptions made by the likes of the Tea Parties and other anti-government activists. Which isn't a bad thing to spend time doing.

Finally, while their ideas are wrong, it would be dangerous to let them gain currency. It's not too much of an exaggeration to say that the last time ideas like these were broadly accepted, Ft. Sumter was attacked. Not to say that's where we are headed, but let's also not just sit back and let folks like this run the debate.

What's Good for GM Is Bad for Jim Renacci

For Jim Renacci's rant against the GM bailout to make sense, he needs the bailout to fail. If the bailout, and the subsequent bankruptcy, restructuring, layoffs, elimination of models, and yes, terminating dealer franchises works, then it sounds like he's just whining about his personal ox getting gored.

What's more, he's running on his experience as a businessman. He says experience creating jobs with the businesses he has run and can translate that experience into better economic policies. Apply that to the presser about the closing and the argument seems to be -- indeed must be -- that if he had been in Congress GM would neither need to go bankrupt nor would it need to close dealerships. And for the second to work, he needs to show that closing dealerships has prevented GM from bouncing back.

He could arguably say that the point of the bailout shouldn't only be GM's survival, but the health of the economy as a whole, including all the franchisees. That would be an interesting argument, but also a progressive Democratic one. It's essentially an argument that a company should think about the social costs of it's downsizing strategy, much like when progressives point to studies showing that mass layoffs can hurt a company's long term health.

Such an argument is not consistent with the free market, laissez faire, CEO knows best philosophy of governance that undergirds all of his campaign rhetoric. He can make that argument, but he would have to switch parties first.

Meanwhile, if his fit over losing his dealership is only about him losing a dealership, his whole argument about austerity and personal responsibility. If he can't personally take the medicine he prescribes for the economy, surely he can't provide the leadership we need in trying times.

So, if the bailout succeeds, he was wrong about GMs restructuring. And if he's wrong about GMs restructuring it undermines the entire argument for his candidacy. Got it? Great. Now check this out:

General Motors' promise was this: by cutting its North American brands in half and shedding employees, dealers and creditors, it could break even with 18-percent share of a 10-million unit annual U.S. light vehicle market. In its second full quarter as post-bankruptcy New GM, (having even fired the man who made that promise as CEO, Fritz Henderson) has turned a profit.


* * *

What does all this mean? It means the bankruptcy did what was intended. It shrunk GM to a manageable size and made it an automaker more likely to survive in a market crowded with keen Asian, European and domestic competitors. GM needed to shed brands, models, dealerships, white- and blue-collar employees, production capacity and debt to be viable and help save U.S.-based manufacturing. Liddell expects GM to remain profitable, although it's too early to predict an overall profit for 2010. If GM can pull that off, an IPO that "buys out" a portion of the government's "investment" (large enough to reduce our ownership to a minority position, I hope) should happen by early next year.

Would you buy a used free market ideology from this man?

Jim Renacci Loses Dealership; Incoherently Politicizes It

Republican Congressional Candidate Jim Renacci has announced that his GM dealership in Wadsworth will close. OK, not so much "announced" as "turned into a bizarre, internally contradictory campaign talking point." His press release, reproduced here on ANN, asserts the following:

The GOP candidate for the 16th Congressional District is closing the doors to his Wadsworth car business -- a casualty, he says in a news release, of GM's deal with Uncle Sam.

Today, Jim Renacci announced that his Wadsworth Chevrolet dealership, which was targeted for closure following the government takeover of General Motors in 2009, will close its doors next month. Renacci was first notified in May of 2009 that the dealership was one of over a thousand nationwide that would be terminated.


* * *

Renacci stepped in and acquired it in an effort to save local jobs and shortly thereafter he successfully stabilized the once troubled business. Nevertheless, Renacci's franchise was ultimately dismantled as a result of the government takeover of GM.

"When the Obama administration first made clear its intention to take over General Motors and to dictate to small business owners whether or not they could continue to operate privately owned businesses"”which in some cases had been their family's livelihood for over 50 years, I feared we were witnessing one of the darkest days in American capitalism. And today, as I was forced to face my employees and tell them that we lost the fight and they've lost their jobs"”it was clear that my fears were not misplaced. Despite my best efforts, I was unable to overcome the government's "˜restructuring plan' from the outside"”but I am now left even more committed to restructuring our government's plans from the inside," Renacci said.

Wow. We have so much wrongness here it's like on of those "How many mistakes can you find in this picture" puzzles.

Take just the opening graf in which he claims the dealership is a casualty of GM's deal with the government. I think he's overstating the extent to which the government dictated dealer closures as a condition of the bailout. It's more like the bailout enabled closures that the company wanted to make. When the closures were announced, it was GM brass insisting that they needed to trim their overextended dealer network to cut costs and right size the company. It's car companies that are now fighting state efforts to pass dealer protection laws.

But more fundamentally than that, if GM hadn't made the "deal with Uncle Sam" Renacci would have lost his franchise anyway because there wouldn't be a GM any more. The choice wasn't between a bailout and running the company a different way, it was between a bailout and no more GM. Most of the time when Republicans criticize the bailout they are at least honest enough to acknowledge that GM would have gone bust, they just dispute the administration's assessment that it would have wrecked the economy.

The coherent criticisms of the bailouts have either maintained that free market principles are so important that the risk of big firms folding is worth it, or argued that the bailouts were too kind to the companies -- that they didn't put austerity conditions on the bailed out firms. Renacci seems to have found a third way -- the government should cut spending everywhere except that it should provide unconditional bailouts where they would benefit him personally.

Finally Renacci's little snit goes against his whole campaign theme. In his latest KNR ads he avers that when times are tough, you have to tighten your belt. Well, if GM is going to tighten its belt, it needs to shed some tonnage. Belt tightening isn't as much fun to talk about when you are the fat that gets trimmed, eh Jim?

Credit where it's due, at least he didn't revive the debunked conspiracy theory about only Republican dealerships getting axed.

In case you thought Milo Minderbinder in Catch-22 was too broad brush, no. He's alive and well and running for Congress in the Ohio 16th.