“Why would we change our constitution to allow a monopoly when there are plenty of investors who would open up around Ohio. If you are going to change the law (especially the constitution) for one, then change it for all.
“The worst number of casinos to have in Ohio is ONE. Either keep it at zero or make it fair for more than one.”
The above quote reflects a portion of Stipe’s view against Issue 6. I’ve already written six blog entries against Issue 6 before now, so it’s only natural that I would choose a quote from Stipe that references opposition to Issue 6.
If you visit Word of Mouth, you will find that Stipe presents the pros and cons of all the state ballot issues before he weighs in with his own commentary, so if you’re scratching your head because you haven’t researched the issues yet, I recommend reading Stipe’s posts. Here are the links:
- Issue 1: Moving the deadline up on submitting petitions for ballot issues
- Issue 2: Issuing $400 million in bonds, incurring more state debt, for brownfield revitalization and green space preservation
- Issue 3: Setting forth the rights of property owners in relation to water on or below their land
- Issue 4: This issue was withdrawn from the ballot
- Issue 5: New regulations for payday lenders
- Issue 6: Allowing one solitary casino to begin operation in Southwest Ohio
Kalin Stipe is voting no on 1, no on 2, yes on 3, no on 5, and no on 6.
I am voting yes on 1, no on 2, yes on 3, yes on 5, and no on 6.
Feel free to weigh in with how you’ll vote on the state’s ballot issues.
October 20, 2008 at 8:08 pm
I dont know how I am going to vote on most. There are just too many of them. Isnt that what one of them is about?
October 21, 2008 at 1:24 am
You should vote no on 5. Enough with government regulations. I believe Ohioans should have access to the credit if they choose, especially in this economic environment.
October 21, 2008 at 10:07 am
On Issue 5: It should be noted that only portions of the legislation would be repealed by defeat of Issue 5. So, even if you vote against Issue 5, things will not revert back to the way things were before the payday reform legislation was passed by the General Assembly.
With our pay-to-play General Assembly, payday lenders popped up almost overnight in Ohio once legislation allowed them to operate profitably here. The PAC’s representing the payday lenders rewarded the General Assembly with campaign contributions.
When it became apparent that Ohio’s economy was being skewed in an unfavorable direction by these payday lenders, calls for greater regulation mounted. The payday lending PAC’s were still a source of campaign contributions. The General Assembly continued to resist new regulations.
Finally, this year, the Democrats in the General Assembly took a stand for more regulation because of the outcry. The Republicans rejected the Democrat proposal and passed their own, which was much more stifling to payday lending than what the Democrats proposed.
What happened that led to that sudden reversal?
The Republicans found new campaign donors with deeper pockets to back the new reform: the banks.
The banks wanted to be able to compete with payday lenders, and the new legislation is intended to give the banks the edge they coveted in order to do so.
The portions of the new legislation that payday lenders want to repeal, like caps on interest and limits on duration of the repayment period, would give payday lenders an overwhelming edge over the banks.
Voting NO won’t level the playing field between banks and payday lenders. Voting YES won’t level the playing field between banks and payday lenders. Our pay-to-play General Assembly does not create level playing fields, and Ohio’s economy suffers because of it. They don’t create level playing fields because no special interest will donate to a campaign for a level playing field. Special interests only donate to campaigns when they can gain an advantage. State legislators prioritize campaign contributions and re-election over a free marketplace and a strong economy.
So, voting YES is a vote to strengthen the hand of the banks in head-to-head competition with the payday lenders, and voting NO is a vote to let payday lenders play in a league of their own without competition from banks.
Either you favor one industry or the other. There is no neutral vote that creates a level playing field.
I’m voting YES on Issue 5.
October 21, 2008 at 10:15 am
Ben, head over to those links. Both the pros and cons are there for all the state issues.
October 27, 2008 at 2:04 am
Your own quote:
“The portions of the new legislation that payday lenders want to repeal, like caps on interest and limits on duration of the repayment period, would give payday lenders an overwhelming edge over the banks.”
The banks are more than welcome to offer the same services, but they don’t. The only edge is that a yes vote will limit credit options that should be regulated only by the free market.
October 27, 2008 at 8:13 am
The banks do have interest caps as regulated by Congress, and banks don’t have repayment periods of less than 30 days.
October 31, 2008 at 11:12 am
[…] my blog entry titled “Kalin Stipe at Word of Mouth presents the state ballot issues,” I included this quote from Kalin Stipe, who contributes to Word of Mouth blog: “Why would […]
November 4, 2008 at 10:49 am
[…] ballot issues: I’m in favor of issues 1, 3, and 5, but I’m against issues 2 and 6. I wrote an additional post about Issue 5, coupled with Issue 6. I’ve also written […]