As a former Ohio resident who now has the further embarrassment of living in another state (Florida) in which incompetency abounds for similar reasons as you describe, I appreciate your explanation of the mess in Ohio.

Expand full comment

Thank you for laying this convoluted and confusing Ohio GOP tactic out so, at least, it can be better understood. Looking forward to updates on this.

Expand full comment

Clearly, green card holders are not “foreign nationals” as defined by law. But the argument for to deny green card holders the ability to make political contributions is flawed for another reason.

Aren’t corporations allowed to make contributions? I heard it said that green card holders should not make political contributions because they cannot vote. If that’s their position, then how do they justify corporate contributions?

Expand full comment


Expand full comment


Expand full comment

David can you post a link to donate to the end gerrymandering campaign ? Thanks for keeping us informed on the GOP shenanigans.

Expand full comment

You write that Stewart chose to “throw in another group of people as well—legal permanent residents of the United States. ‘Green card’ holders. And by extension, any groups they give to or with which their funds co-migle, any Americans with whom they share bank accounts, and so on.”

This suggests that the spouses of green card holders would therefore also be ineligible to donate. That would have affected me for most of my adult life even though I’m a natural born American citizen! Eventually my husband became a citizen, and further down the line we got divorced. But many dual-nationality couples remain in that status indefinitely, because not every country permits dual citizenship, and so the foreign born spouse may find it best to remain a green card holder even while living and working here in the US, paying taxes, and generally contributing to the common good.

We are governed by a troupe of bozos.

Expand full comment

Republicans can't win unless they cheat.

Expand full comment

Authoritarian government is bad for business. Here are some take-aways from this summary describing the dangers of populist authoritarian governments.

1. Economists have found that countries with populist leaders, whether on the right or left, see a 10 percent decline in GDP per capita over the first 15 years. I contend that states are also affected by authoritarian leadership.

2. Businesses that use government data may find data less reliable if accurate data is perceived as damaging to the party in power. For example, COVID-19 data was misrepresented by Florida Governor DeSantis.

3. Control of public discourse is a key strategy for political leaders seeking to increase their power, and so would-be autocrats typically seek to dominate businesses in the media, entertainment, and communications sectors, including both the producers of media content and the owners of media channels and systems. Ex: fake news!

What kinds of businesses are most negatively affected by authoritarian governments?

Businesses with high exposure to government decisions: Businesses that rely on government contracting or licensure, or that are exposed to audits or regulatory control, are particularly easy targets for would-be autocrats.

Businesses reliant on public investments or public services: Businesses that use government data may find data less reliable if accurate data is perceived as damaging to the party in power.

Businesses investing on a longer time horizon: Because of the policy instability that often accompanies democratic erosion, businesses that need to make long-term investments—for example, businesses that make difficult-to-move capital investments—are at particular risk.

Businesses reliant on a highly educated labor force: Brain drain is already an issue in many states. Younger workers with high levels of human capital tend to gravitate to places with strong public goods provision and take political environment into account in their job searches.

Businesses in media, entertainment, and communications: Control of public discourse is a key strategy for political leaders seeking to increase their power,

Businesses in science, medicine, and education: Facts can endanger an autocratic regime, either by revealing government failures or by undermining the regime’s self-justifying mythos.

In-person businesses and businesses in tourism. Businesses that rely on customers showing up in person may see profit declines if an area experiences political or ethnic violence.

Many of us remember examples of at least one of these anti-democratic practices, whether done by dems or repubs. Attacks on higher ed, librarians, election workers, government agencies, the NYT and WSJ, BLM, antifa, vaccines, infrastructure investments. Are there other examples?


Expand full comment

Excellent essay!

Expand full comment

Well Dave, they're about to lose another one. I'm sick and tired of these hacks ruining the state that we love. Fortunately, their arrogance will be their undoing.

Expand full comment

Thank you so much for this explanation!!! Wow, when the R's decide to ignore one of their slickest and most practiced members, Rep. Seitz, they are really acting on emotions, not strategy. Didn't Seitz vote for Jason Stephens for Speaker? Is that the grievance?

Expand full comment

Jersey Boys, of course. Bud from Asbury Park. Lou from Paterson. Greatness is in the water we drink (except for Alito)

Expand full comment

I live in the backwater state of Ohio. I was active in all 3 campaigns last year and collected signatures this year for the anti gerrymandering ballot initiative.

Those lying, hypocritical republicans should be worried. Their reign of terror is coming to an end.

Enough already.

Vote out every republican.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this explanation!

Expand full comment