Friday, January 01, 2010

Gittin' the Runs

As 2009 ran out its string and 2010 crawled out of its crevice, Joonyah and I shot the breeze, lamenting the trampling of the Constitution by the current Congress. We again tossed around the question of who might represent OH-13; that is, who might be in the running to raise the moral and intellectual quality of the occupant of that seat.

We did a little exploratory work. Visiting the sites of all four Boards of Elections in OH-13 (Cuyahoga, Lorain, Medina, and Summit) revealed that no candidates had filed for 2010 yet. That is OK; the deadline for filing for the May 4, 2010 party primaries is February 18, 2010. For independent candidates, the filing deadline is May 3, 2010 (because independents don't have a primary).

Looking at the FEC requirements, an individual is not considered a candidate (even if he has filed the petition and is on the primary ballot) until he (or [a] person[s] authorized by the individual) has[ve] raised of spent more than $5000 for the campaign. There is a provision for voluntary registration with the FEC even if the $5000 threshold has not been attained, but the possibility exists (although highly unlikely) that a candidate could be elected to a Federal office without tripping the requirements. Posting the information we have uncovered on this blog, because no formal efforts have been made toward candidacy to date, is a sort of grey area that may or may not fall under 11 CFR 100.94 & 100.155.

The Ohio Administrative Code, (111-1) states, "The rules set forth in Chapters 111-1 to 111-6 of the Administrative Code shall apply to the nomination or election of candidates or support for or opposition to ballot issues in state and local elections. Nothing in these rules shall be construed as limiting or regulating federal elections, and those committees, parties, candidates, or funds when they participate in such federal elections." I would assume from that statement that only FEC requirements would apply (and as with any such assumption, I could be wrong).

If I were to run, would it be as a party candidate? Yes, for two reasons. Firstly, I have been republican in my leanings my entire life. A republican form of government was to be guaranteed to all the States under the Constitution, and a respect for the Rule of Law is essential to the maintenance of individual liberty. While other forms of government may extend individual rights, no other form of government protects individual rights.

Secondly, the regulations for access to US Representative candidacy in Ohio state that a major party candidate needs 50 signatures to have access to the ballot, a minor party candidate needs 25 signatures, but a non-party candidate needs signatures totaling 1% of the number of votes cast in the district in the last general election for governor. Looking at the stats for the 13th District, there were 297,680 votes cast for Representative, and assuming that about the same number voted for governor, the minimum number of signatures required for an Independent candidate to access the ballot in OH-13 would be about 3,000. In Norton 1-B there are just over 100 registered Republican voters; it would be possible to access the ballot as a Republican for the 13th District, covering parts of 4 counties, without even leaving my own precinct to gather petition signatures.

Of course, there is always the tantalizing challenge of running an illegal campaign (WhatifI) under the guise of Libertarianism.

"See, here is deep water, what doeth let me to jump in?" [calm down, that is a paraphrase]. When I last ran for Congress in the 13th District (2000), the situation was quite similar. Just before Thanksgiving of 1999, Mickey Axlebender Thirdson and I were bemoaning the fact that no Republican candidate had yet appeared to challenge the Democrat incumbent. He said that if I ran, he would manage my campaign. I stopped at the BOE, picked up a petition packet, and off we went. In about two weeks time, we had our signatures. With a total expenditure of about $300 (never even made it onto the FEC's radar screen), and with the Summit GOP endorsing my party primary opponent, I picked up 42% of the primary vote. In fact, a part of Stark County was in the District back then, and the SOS's stats show that I actually won -- quite handily -- in the Stark County portion of the District. [But, mind you, Stark County is vastly more conservative in its politics than Summit!!]. Thus, I have no doubt that my governmental views would resonate with a substantial portion of the electorate in the 2010 climate.

However, the run in 2000 did cause some discomfort for my Better Half, who was concerned over family privacy issues and the exposition created by a political campaign. Thus, my first concern is her consent. She has said that I can do whatever I want, and such a statement has dangerous undertones. I would prefer to have her support, indeed, I need her support. She willingly complied and followed me thousands of miles in previous attempts to joust at windmills, but in those days we were both a lot younger and more resilient.

Another concern is the support of my church. In 2000, I had the support and encouragement of most of the Elders I talked with, but my responsibilities at that time were quite different. I don't doubt that I would have the encouragement of the congregation, but the bigger question is whether or not it would be to their benefit.

Finally, there are the career considerations. I am on my way toward General Certification and new levels of accomplishment in my profession. Despite my age, I could be productive for another decade or more before senility rotted my cognitive functions. Becoming a US Representative would likely be a terminal career move.

Stay tuned, this is only the first day of 2010.

2 comments:

  1. ok. so being that you are concerned about what your wife & church think, and aren't blindly throwing your career away (yet), are you determinedly seeking God's direction? I am just remembering our memory verse, Mr. Hrubik. "Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain that build it. Except the Lord keeps the city, the watchmen labor but in vain." Psalm 127:1 The part about speaking with your enemies in the gates comes after the Lord builds the house. Just trying to figure out who the builder is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So call me dense, but I didn't follow that as smoothly as I should have.

    I'm not about to claim that I hear the Voice of God telling me what to do. I have a very firm belief that God grants to His people the desires of their hearts, and He doesn't always withhold things that will turn out to cause some hardship over the course of time. Examples come to mind :

    Balaam (a great starting point). Was approached with an idea, thought it was a fine plan, was told he couldn't go, and begged to go anyway. God let him go, and His people were blessed. Balaam, however, went over to the Dark Side and ended up as shish-ke-bob, despite having formerly been a Prophet of God, a Blesser of God's People, and having travelled with the approval (albeit due to stubbornness) of the Almighty.

    Barak (the GOOD Barak). Was approached with an idea, thought it was a fine plan, but that it was too risky. Had to be shamed into going, and a foreign woman got all the credit for his work.

    Abram (no comment). Was approached with an idea, thought it was a fine plan, especially because it had his wife's backing, and his descendants have been fighting ever since.

    Jonah. Was approached with an idea, thought it was a terrible plan, and ended up in a fish's belly. Then he had to do it anyway.

    King Joash. Was approached with an idea, quit after three tries, and was told that because he was such a loser, his enemies would not be totally defeated.

    The end result of all of the above was that God's will was done. I am confident that no matter what I do, God's will is going to be accomplished (otherwise, He is not the Almighty God). I received a reminder for Christmas (Micah 6:8, thanks again for the plaque, Tom & Lillie) of what I am supposed to do; my problem is where, when, and how to do it. The why doesn't even fog the negative.

    I suppose I could do nothing under the theory that if God wants it to happen, it will happen whether I take action or not. Using that approach, I don't even need to get out of bed in the morning, but that could show me that God's will is that I should end up cold and hungry as a lesson to others. I can think of more pleasant ways to serve Him.

    I just don't want to be sitting in my straitjacket a decade from now wishing I had done something different. Which door -- the lady, or the tiger?

    ReplyDelete