Philosophy, Law and Politics

Clarity and Equality in the Ohio Sales Tax Statute?

The following Comment Letter was submitted today to the Ohio General Assembly Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review for consideration during its review of a proposed amendment of an Ohio Sales Tax regulation regarding interstate commerce.

May 10, 2018

Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review

The Ohio General Assembly

Vern Riffe Center

77 South High Street

Concourse Level

Columbus, Ohio 43215

Sent Via Email to: jcarr1@jcarr.state.oh.us

Re: Department of Taxation Proposed Amendment of Rule Number 5703-9-39 (Interstate commerce)

Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review,

I write with interest in the proposed amendment of Rule Number 5703-9-39 of the Ohio Administrative Code by the Department of Taxation regarding the imposition of a tax upon retail sale transactions between Ohio residents and out-of-state vendors. The Rule Summary and Fiscal Analysis submitted by the Department of Taxation to accompany this proposed amendment states that the Department seeks merely to make grammatical corrections in the Rule and not adopt any substantive changes.

The proposed amendment does not adequately revise the text of the Rule to correct certain wording that is confusing to citizens and residents of the various States who would engage in commerce, as well as those engaging in commerce abroad. For, it does not clearly indicate that purchases are exempt from taxation if delivered via an interstate carrier to either the buyer or the agent of the buyer and, instead, gives the sense that the exemption applies only to interstate carrier deliveries made to an agent.

Similarly, the proposed amendment retains reference to “an agent of his” in acknowledgement that Ohio purchasers of goods from foreign vendors may avail themselves of an agent to receive the goods purchased. Legal drafters in the 21^st century style to no longer use personal pronouns reflective of gender when the concept of gender is not materially relevant to the import and substance of the law.

Finally, the Rule would also lessen confusion if it did not refer to the sales tax as a “retail sales tax” unless such is done consistently throughout Ohio Revised Code Chapter 5703: Sales Tax and Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 5703-9: Sales and Use Tax. For, the sales tax is more often referred to as an “excise tax,” and O.R.C. §5739.02, in implementing the sales tax, expressly states that “an excise tax is hereby levied on each retail sale made in this State.”

In respect of the foregoing, I offer the following modification of the amendment, with proposed changes italicized:

5703-9-39 Interstate commerce.

When tangible personal property is sold within the State and the vendor is obligated to deliver it to a point outside of the State, or to deliver it to a carrier or to the mails for transportation to a point outside of the State, the Ohio Sales sales Tax tax does not apply. However, where tangible personal property pursuant to a sale is delivered in this State to either the buyer or to an its agent, of his other than an interstate carrier the retail Sales Tax sales tax applies, unless the delivery is made by means of an interstate carrier, notwithstanding that the buyer may subsequently transport the property out of the State.

The grant of a sales tax exemption for purchases made by Ohioans from out-of-state vendors whom, themselves, have no physical presence within Ohio or nexus with Ohio, is a great encouragement to the advance of commerce. It provides economic efficiency to domestic purchasers and encourages reciprocity in the tax policy of other States.

I thank you greatly for considering my comments on this Rule. And, I may certainly be contacted as indicated above.

Sincerely,

Lori G. Nuckolls

Philosophy, Law and Politics

Promoting Reasonable and Consistent State Agency Regulation in Ohio

Proposed new regulations of Ohio Executive Agencies are reviewed for adequacy by the Ohio Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review, composed of members of the Ohio Senate and House. In the current proposed revision of Ohio law governing the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review (SB 221, amending Ohio Revised Code 106.021), perhaps it should be made mandatory that JCARR undertake review of whether a proposed regulation is contrary to law and similarly be required to request an invalidation of a proposed rule by the Ohio General Assembly upon making a finding that a proposed regulation is contrary to law. Under current law, both are left to JCARR’s discretion.

Mandatory review and invalidation is necessary because JCARR should be precluded from permitting unreasonable proposed rules and regulations to become effective. A regulation must be reasonable to be lawful. Agencies should adequately justify their decision making with sufficient analysis and explanation. It is the duty of JCARR to ensure as a balance and check on government that the agencies make wise and reasoned policy choices. JCARR does not supplant its policy choices for that of the agency, rather it only looks to the due and proper procedure and basis upon which the agency relies for the rule its seeks to promulgate. Such a requirement of reasonableness would result in regulation that is consistent with and does not conflict with governing law, without first relying upon a court for judicial review after the harm has been done. No committee of a state legislature should have within its discretion non-action upon arbitrary and capricious proposed agency regulation.

A review of the possible “adverse impact” of a proposed regulation is a preexisting requirement as to Ohio Revised Code 106.021(F). Usually neither an analysis nor finding of a possible adverse impact is reported for consideration as to the validity of a proposed regulation. Review of potential adverse impact usually merely addresses fiscal, business considerations, and not the substantive analysis required in legal drafting.

SB 221, Line 103, amending Ohio Revised Code 101.352, proposes to permit JCARR to seek an agency’s appearance to explain whether current rules reflect the principles and policies of the agency, or rather whether the agency should propose new rules that establish its present basis for regulation. Yet, this duty is permissive and subject to JCARR’s discretion and is not mandatory, even if JCARR is on notice that an agency’s regulations are not up to date? Would a mandatory provision place too great an administrative burden upon JCARR?

SB 221, Line 134, amending Ohio Revised Code 101.352, similarly permits that upon initiating review of an agency’s regulations and receiving an agency’s testimony at a hearing, JCARR “may” but is not required to vote upon whether to recommend that the agency review its regulations. Would making the vote mandatory create a violation of the separation of powers among the legislative, judicial and executive branches? Or, would it no more enhance the power and authority currently permitted JCARR than the creation of its power to review proposed executive agency regulations in the first instance?

SB221, Lines 1541-1619, amending Ohio Revised Code 121.931, permits a person to petition an agency to request a review of whether the agency has not properly revised or restated its regulations. If the agency denies the petition, the petitioner may appear at an agency hearing. In such a proceeding, how is the agency’s standard of review – that the petitioner has shown that the agency’s action in not revising its regulation is “erroneous” – to be defined? Is the burden of proof borne by the petitioner – that the agency’s previously stated “intention to deny the petition [for revision] is erroneous” — the same as a required showing of erroneousness by the petitioner as to the agency’s rationale for not granting the petition and undertaking a revision or restatement of the rule? Does an inquiry as to whether the agency’s action is erroneous go only to questions of fact or also to whether the agency may have committed an error of law? Is a finding of erroneousness too high a standard for the petitioner to bear? Given that a petitioner may not appeal a denial of a petition within the agency, is an agency denial of a petition a final agency action permitting judicial review?

Our Duties as Ohio Citizens to Cultivate a Life of Learning

We should encourage self-sustaining government that develops our young people within the State of Ohio to participate nationally. Ohio cannot rely upon benevolent carpetbaggers to serve in office so that Ohio can compete nationally. Our own citizens and residents may seek a national education in noteworthy academic institutions across the nation and return to Ohio.

With the advent of Universal Pre-K education throughout Ohio, we can guarantee that our young people benefit from modern America and the great advances in learning and ability our young people now possess. Pre-K program and curriculum should enable the great diversity discernible among our children to be encouraged. Current educational scholarship and learning allows humane “tracking” among the very young by interest, inclination and ability. Achievements should be cultivated from advanced classical curriculum to that mitigating and correcting learning disadvantages whether societal or physiological.

In “Keeping-up-with-the Joneses,” Ohio schools and businesses must also look to self-sustainability in promoting development in energy resources. For, without energy resources modern society cannot exist. Our universities might not invent our energy patents in use, but we must provide a didactic rubric for competitive development of alternative energy sources within our State. Ohio government must look to academics and scientists within the State of Ohio to aid in drafting and revising statutes and administrative regulations that provide an overarching framework for bringing energy technology into Ohio. Interstate collaboration will permit a long viable modernization of the energy industry in Ohio. Our laws and regulations must be competitive.

Perhaps Former Speaker John Boehner and his soon to be The Boehner Institute at Xavier University in Cincinnati might begin policy formulation and regulation drafting on the topics of education, energy, management of government bureaucracies, as well as many others.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Is a Failure to Prosecute Utterances of “Hate Speech” and “Fighting Words” a Violation of Due Process by Ohio County Prosecutors in Not Protecting the Victim’s Constitutional Rights of Liberty, Privacy and Personhood?

Under Ohio law, Ohio Revised Code § 2917.11 regulates “hate speech” or “fighting words.” This statute expressly prescribes “offensively coarse utterance [and] gesture[,]” and “insulting [or] taunting [conduct] … likely to provoke a violent response.” § 2917.11(A)(2), (3). This law lies within criminal provisions of the Ohio Revised Code denominated “Disorderly Conduct,” as one of many “Offenses Against the Public Peace” of Chapter 2917. Has any duly elected Ohio County Prosecutor recently invoked this provision?

How does the community resident evaluate whether the absence of arrest and prosecution in his or her Ohio County is a proper exercise of prosecutorial discretion in regulating conduct under Ohio law? In what other ways are the constitutionally protected, basic and fundamental rights of Ohio citizens and residents to privacy and personhood, as incumbent within our essential rights of liberty and freedom, protected from independent, idiosyncratic, and isolated acts of speech contrary to personal integrity?

Ohio Revised Code § 2917.11 should be used by Ohio County Prosecutors to guide popular conduct, as a didactic tool. Section 2917.11 deters visceral, unkind speech directed, especially, to a person the potential perpetrator does not even know. And, importantly, this law looks to proscribe harmful words spoken when no logical rationale exists for devolving into such conduct when long historically permitted forms of expression and advocacy exist.

If traditional forms of expression, speech and participatory politics are possible, conduct subject to prosecution under Ohio Revised Code § 2917.17 only evokes either fear harmful to one’s sense of personhood or, more difficultly, fear expressed in the form of a harmful or violent response from the victim of the unkind speech. Do we instead prosecute the victim for engaging in an improper response to unprovoked hate speech and let the utterer of fighting words go free? Why is the fearful, dependent spouse convicted of homicide for shooting a long abusive, domineering spouse while asleep and unlikely to rise up in confrontation? When is self-defense illegal?

Is an Ohio County Prosecutor’s failure to prosecute hate speech and fighting words an unconstitutional disregard for the right of every individual to liberty, privacy and personal integrity, all long respected by the U.S. Supreme Court? Should the Ohio County Prosecutor, as a state actor, be subject to civil action, under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code, for such a failure to prosecute? The right to Due Process includes one’s liberty interests, and the duty of the Ohio County Prosecutor to protect the liberty interests of Ohio citizens and residents subject to personally intrusive fighting words and hate speech by prosecuting those engaging in hateful speech. Does Section 1983 include a substantive due process right to challenge in Federal Court an Ohio County Prosecutor for the absence of prosecution of fighting words perpetrators under Ohio law?

The consequences arising from an Ohio County Prosecutor’s decision to not prosecute acts criminal under Ohio Revised Code § 2917.11 are self-defining and derive inherently from the Anglo-American Common Law giving rise to the U.S. Constitution. A want of review, regulation and criminalization results in a perpetuation and acculturation of illegal intent and conduct within our country. American criminal law has many purposes, including, deterrence, rehabilitation, restitution and retribution. Laws exist on the “statute books” for a reason. These are the reasons for Ohio Revised Code § 2917.11 .

How do we begin? How does the first individual abused as to self and personhood come forward in Federal Court and ask why his or her Ohio County Prosecutor did not seek redress on his or her behalf under expressly worded Ohio Law? Should such prosecution on the individual’s behalf be so permissive, and not a mandatory obligation of the duly ethical Ohio County Prosecutor under the professional rules and judicial decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court?

Life in our American Republic requires free speech and a sense of participation without fear and without improper inhibition. Justice and fairness in our democracy require that Ohio County Prosecutors act zealously, with best efforts and with a sense of being conservative to the utmost. Non action and a failure to prosecute potential perpetrators under enacted legislation is not conservative, it is the opposite. Prosecutorial discretion is both permissive and mandatory. Where do our State and Federal Courts draw the line?

In a democracy, free speech is a property right. It is not to only be accorded governmental protection as a permissive privilege. In America, a citizen or resident should not feel as if he or she must ask permission of an equal to speak or live, for fear of becoming a victim of hostile words. He or she should freely speak. If the equal is inhibiting in a manner contrary to § 2917.11, the Ohio County Prosecutor should act.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

America Relies Upon a Learned and Informed Public

In the United States, as a country of a majority population that is not indigenous to its North American soil, how do we reconcile nationalism and democracy? As a community of diverse ethnic origins and heritages, diverse faiths, and diverse periods of time resident within the county, can an existence of a nation-state community ever be achieved? Does the theory of the “melting pot” of an immigrant nation undo properly existing cultural lines of identity that are distinct, have merit and are centuries old?

We should encourage a community diverse in cultural identity that lives under the governing principles of American democracy: equality, freedom, and justice. In America, its people have freely chosen to reside under America’s governing principles. Citizenship and the rights of noncitizen residents transcend the diverse cultural identities of national origin. America’s governing principles, constitutions and laws create an equal right to personhood and identity that transcends governmental decision making based upon stereotypes and, especially pejorative, presumptions. The rule of law does not look to one’s culture, ethnicity or religion.

The governing principles of America are created, respected and maintained by an academically learned intelligentsia that exercises a just governance of the majority. An educated public and deference to individual merit and ability are the foundations of a democracy. A state cannot survive without an educated public, whether possessing one or many national identities.

In our world, only representative democracies are viable forms of government. Direct democracies defy the economy of scale required for complex decision making and regulation in the modern age and are not even attempted. Dictatorships, with the veil of legislative and military decision-making especially during the post-colonial period the 1900’s, can neither demand nor evoke a legally compliant population of self-governing individuals.

Without a public that understands the principles of America as a country from a young age of early education between grades 4 to 6, with reaffirmation in between both grades 7 to 9 and grades 10 to 12, our public will not be able to participate as citizens and residents as they engage in specialized careers of science, business and nonpublic policy fields. Thus, all college students should have a required course in the fundamentals of American government.

All in America bear the responsibility of treating all among us as free and equal, with rights and privileges of fairness and justice. Our world is complex, and all Americans must be sufficiently learned to debate and understand America and their own place in the world.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls, Esq.

Popular Participation and Involvement is Truly Feasible and Obligatory, Even as to the Most Complex Subject Matters of State Action (Comments submited to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.)

I submitted the Comments below in response to a Notice of formal Rulemaking by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls, Esq.

January 22, 2018

Secretary

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street NE

Washington, DC 20549-1090

Sent via Email to: rule-comments@sec.gov

Re: File Number S7-09-17

Dear Secretary,

I write with interest in the proposed amendment of 17 C.F.R. Part 200, and the promulgation of regulations, to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §§ 200.80-200.80(g), by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC” or, alternatively, the “Commission”) regarding agency compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (the “FOIA”), 5 U.S.C §522, as amended by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 (the “Improvement Act”), Public Law 114-185, 130 Stat. 538. Please consider this letter submission of comments upon this proposed rule in response to the Commission’s notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments, as published in the Federal Register, on January 3, 2018, 83 Fed. Reg. 291-302. I support this new rule and I believe it achieves the Commission’s primary objectives as stated in the notice: to make revisions required by the Improvement Act, as well as to amend beyond the scope of the Improvement Act and utilize the necessary amendment to also “clarify, update, and streamline” current SEC regulation. 83 Fed. Reg. 292 (2018).

The supplementary information in the notice of this proposed rule states that the new rule essentially “codifies several existing practices” of the SEC, such as electronic responses to information requests and determination of the fees charged therefor. 83 Fed. Reg. 293 (2018). The SEC is longstanding, truly, in its fair reliance upon the incentives inherent within the American economy, and its principles of capitalism, to utilize advances in science and technology, primarily of the profit based commercial sector and marketplace, to the benefit of not only securities investors but also to the benefit of the nation.

In summary, the proposed rule permits reliance by major corporations upon information technologies currently in use, yet ensures individual requesters that their requests will be neither costly nor burdensome, with codification of a permissive outline of fees to be charged. 83 Fed. Reg. 299 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. § 200.80(g)(3)(i)). The proposed rule revises SEC FOIA request and response procedures to require the SEC to make disclosures of information available to the public in both the existing, traditional paper form as well as in various newly available electronic forms. 83 Fed. Reg. 295 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. § 200.80(a)). The new rule also provides all with assurances as to issues of privacy and financial records and data. 83 Fed. Reg. 295-296 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(b), (c)).

As in this instance, the SEC periodically refines and revises its own internal standards and procedures. It relies upon these informal decisions to transform intra-agency custom unto newly promulgated governing regulation. This proposed new rule is such an example. This rule provides user friendly information in which all participants, or, as denominated by the SEC “stakeholders,” in the global economy may share through due compliance, from the small individual investor, to the small, medium and large domestic or multinational business entity.

The new rule expressly acknowledges the various uses made of government information by diverse international market participants. For, it categorizes and defines anticipated requesters of information, from the individual investor, the commercial entity, the publicly interested academic or scientific organization, to the journalist of the fourth estate. 82 Fed. Reg. 298-301 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(g)).

The SEC further achieves great clarity for the benefit of the public, as well as for the other branches of government, in that this new rule proposes to also define and explain the services the SEC offers and relies upon in responding to requests for information. 82 Fed. Reg. 298-302 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(g)). The rule states that a “search” for information maintained by agencies of the Federal government is agency action to determine whether information is relevant to a specific request, contra distinct from a “review” of records maintained by agencies of the Federal government, which is agency action to determine whether specific information requested is exempt from disclosure as required by law. 82 Fed. Reg. 299 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(g)(2)(vii), (viii)). And, the SEC charges fees for these defined services which vary according to the category of a specific information requester. 82 Fed. Reg. 299-300 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(g)(3), (4)).

The new rule places the burden of compliance with SEC FOIA request procedures, not upon the requester of information but, rather, upon the SEC itself. In that, the new rule requires that SEC staff members provide individual guidance to requesters, both before the requester initiates a request, and after the SEC acknowledges having received a request. 82 Fed. Reg. 296 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(b)(3)). The new rule, though cautioning requesters that the SEC Office of FOIA Services is primarily responsible for evaluating information requests, expressly provides guidance for requests “misdirected” to a division or office of the SEC other than the Office of FOIA Services. The rule also indicates that the SEC will collaborate, both intra-agency within the SEC and among the other Federal agencies, if necessary in order to respond to a request for information. 82 Fed. Reg. 296 (2018) (to be codified at 17 C.F.R. §200.80(c)(2), (3)).

In drafting and promulgating regulation over a practitioner’s continuum, the SEC achieves equilibrium in the burden of regulatory compliance to be borne itself, as the governing agency, and as to that to be borne by the public. It, thus, internally evaluates regulatory alternatives prior to offering a new rule for public review. The SEC both protects and encourages investment and maintains market efficiency, and thereby produces national prosperity and capital growth. It gleans, from public participation, research that provides diversity in thought in policy making, examination and enforcement, and so provides both information and guidance to private investors.

I thank you greatly for considering my comments on this rule. And, I may certainly be contacted as indicated above.

Sincerely,

Lori G. Nuckolls

In Pursuit of Both Common Good and Public Interest, Governmental Entities Should be Required to Promote Self-Governance (Written testimony before the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review of the Ohio General Assembly.)

The text below is of a letter submitted yesterday, Christmas Day, in comment testimony before the Ohio General Assembly Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review. It concerns proposed rule making by the Attorney General for the State of Ohio in implementation of federal funding to provide support services to victims of sexual abuse. It is to be considered during the Committee’s next regularly scheduled meeting, tentatively scheduled for January 8, 2018.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls, Esq.

December 25, 2017

Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review
The Ohio General Assembly
Vern Riffe Center
77 South High Street
Concourse Level
Columbus, Ohio 43215

Sent Via Email to: jcarr1@jcarr.state.oh.us

Re: Attorney General Proposed Rules 109:7-1-05 (disbursements) and 109:7-1-06 (definitions)

Dear Members of the Joint Committee on Agency Rule Review,

I write with interest in the proposed addition to the Ohio Administrative Code of new rules 109:7-1-05 and 109:7-1-06 by the Attorney General regarding the implementation of funding provisions for rape crisis programs under the auspices of the federal centers for disease prevention and control and denominated in the Ohio Revised Code as the “Rape crisis program trust fund.” Ohio Revised Code § 109.921. This program, as enacted, envisions comprehensive services for victims of sexual trauma.

The Ohio Revised Code mandates the Attorney General to provide funding to a “Rape crisis program,” which, as most broadly defined by statute, includes a “nonprofit [nongovernmental] entity that provides a full continuum of services to victims of sexual assault, including hotlines, victim advocacy, and support services from the onset of the need for services through the completion of healing ….” § 109.921(A)(1)(c) (emphasis added). And, the Ohio Revised Code states that “[a] rape crisis program that receives funding … shall use the money received … for the following purposes [among others]:” “(2) … hotlines, victim advocacy, or support services.” O.R.C. § 109.921(D) (emphasis added). However, in contradiction to the foregoing express grant of statutory authority for the funding of “victim advocacy,” the new rule 109-7-05 proposed by the Attorney General expressly prohibits the use of funds for “Lobbying activities.” Proposed Rule 109-7-05(F)(1).

It does not seem that the Attorney General has included a definition of “Lobbying” in the proposed new rules. See, Proposed Rule 109:7-1-06 (definitions governing the trust fund). Nor does a definition of either “advocacy” or “lobbying” seem to appear in any other source of authority that would be applicable to this funding provision, apart and distinct from those generally previously existing under Ohio law. See, O.A.C. § 109:7-01-03 (definitions governing trust fund) and O.A.C. § 109:7-1-04 (procedures for submitting funding requests). See also, O.R.C. §101.70(E) (to “Actively advocate” deemed “Legislative lobbying.”); O.R.C. § 121.60(I) (“[C]ontacts made to promote, oppose, or otherwise influence … an executive agency decision” deemed “lobbying activity.”); and O.R.C. § 3517.20(A)(1), (2), & (3) (defining “Political communications” as those statements “for or against” or “advertising”).

The funding by the Attorney General should encourage productive informal discussions on diverse topics. The proposed funding would, and is needed to, do so. However, the prohibition on lobbying efforts in the proposed rule should be clarified for those entities to be funded. Discussion by program participants should relate to important, current issues in the community, especially as to those seeking support for transitions in difficult times. Activities financed under this trust fund would be an act of the governmental or nonprofit entity, and would not constitute a use of the funds by individual persons in behest of personal expression on various topics. Thus, some revision is indicated for the avoidance of express contradiction of the proposed rules with the authorizing legislation, and even as to contradiction within the very proposed rules, as to the use by the Attorney General of both “advocacy” and “lobbying.”

I offer that the Attorney General should modify the proposed rules to not expressly reach issues of “lobbying,” which under Ohio law includes advocacy. Rather, the Attorney General should only expect funding recipients to remain in compliance with the general laws governing lobbying and political influence. Consequently, funded centers could guide program participants on an individual basis as to personal issues and only be reviewed if they as fund recipients assert interested positions. This would prohibit persuasive statements or presentations by the funded entities which would constitute lobbying under Ohio law, yet still permit funds to support conversation among participants. And, the written informational material and oral presentations of advocacy organizations unaffiliated with the fund recipients could be made available in the ordinary course to permit informed decision making by program participants.

I thank you greatly for considering my comments on this rule. And, I may certainly be contacted as indicated above.

Sincerely,

Lori G. Nuckolls

Are Our Politics Determined by Money or Self-Reflection?

As someone with a theoretical, rather than a practical understanding of our political system, I ask how we reconcile the popular view that money is ever present in the Republican party with the popular view that money dominates both the Democratic and Republican political parties? Some believe that only with the overturning of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and the enactment of new Federal campaign contribution limits on individuals and corporate entities, will American government be accountable to the electorate. The influence of the wealthy does dominate and determine our elections. Yet, there are large donors on both sides who are benevolent and offer a view of the common good in which they sincerely believe. And, some on both sides are less sincere and more self-interested.

Journalists covering campaigns do bring controversies to the public regarding those who are influential by virtue of political power derived from financial assets and not a given expertise or experience. So, the public is aware that the views of the majority do not determine elections, and that voters defer to those with known views who they feel have a better vantage point from which to decide what is best for the country. Even in the American history of not long ago, the public conceded to the Railroad Tycoons and the FDRs with an appreciative deference, though a resentment resulting from socio-economic status. Since that time, the majority has sought to cast off the yoke of paternalism. Our society possesses a more equal sense of opportunity, as well as of access to information and knowledge.

In America today, there is a greater sense of adequate materialism and a secure safety net. Yet, are the American working and middle classes of today more familiar with the profound blessings and power of the highly educated who have an understanding and role in society which they will never achieve themselves? They do not truly have economic want and they possess opportunities for their children of which they could not dream. Is their resentment, though existing without want, producing a disrespect for hierarchies and authorities generally?

Do those of the working and middle classes now resent the very academic institutions which produced their individual freedoms and the ability to exercise them? Are they not voting because they feel truly unable to duly consider the issues of government for want of formal education in the very complex and specialized subject matters citizens consider when evaluating candidates and reaching decisions on issues of referendum? As they do not participate, they cease to have a vested interest in the growth and development of their communities, commerce suffers, new residents are sparse and the communities decline.

In “off-year” elections, when voters are not moved by the issues of a Presidential campaign, few vote. In 2014, 40% of those eligible to vote in Ohio voted. This is local government by an interested few. Would more have a sense of personal interest in government if we brought before them the ideals and lessons on the manner in which they can affect government and their communities? With a sense of personal efficacy, would they then appreciate what they have amassed, can amass and what their children can amass.?

Even if new campaign contribution regulations are elusive in the anticipated future, I think that perhaps a sense of the efficacy of individual participation in politics might be achieved if we look to the basics of the American philosophy of government and encourage people to ask those offering ideas and public policies to explain how their suggestions are premised upon and strive to achieve our fundamental principles. To do this, we must frequently discuss the ideology of American representative democracy and ensure that all citizens and residents of our country, regardless of age, may look within and develop a sense of self-governance that believes in America. This November, and in the interim days, will you vote and or express your views and opinions?

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

We Should Share Our Political Faith

This November, we determine our choices for government. And, we should look to the momentous advances in American society over the past few decades to guide the decisions we make as to our State, County, City, Town, and Village governments. In the minds of many, the great English philosopher John Locke expressed the concern that, without the ownership of property, a member of society does not live with justice and fairness. One would imagine that this would include both the due and proper definition of property, and its enforcement. Thus, justice and freedom require that one first have a government upon which one may rely in order to possess and own property.

Americans live in the hypothetical, as to our right, power, and privilege of self-governance. Our personal decisions and life choices are individual, yet based upon a common understanding about the world in which we live. We each possess a theme, an abstract view of ourselves, our family and our community. This theme guides our particular opinions, both negative and positive. It constitutes our political faith.

So, how do we achieve political faith? Our individual tenets of political faith are derived from our social customs, and our understanding of how we relate to society and our community. All of our governmental leaders: national, state and local, are empowered to invoke the authority of government. And, in doing so, they should look, collectively, to our individual tenets of political faith. Thereby, they enact the federal laws and regulations, state statutes, and local ordinances that create and enforce our rights of property. This might constitute a Lockean sense of justice, for our political beliefs and opinions create and provide the property we bequeath to our children, and how we participate generationally in our country.

In evaluating candidates and referenda this election season, we should ask certain questions. First, how do I view the relationship between the candidates offered for my political subdivision and our American governing officials? Second, in what manner do the offered candidates express a view on the ownership and development of my property rights? Third, do the offered candidates look to our nation’s reliance upon principles of capitalism and the marketplace to enhance and secure my property and prosperity, and that of my political subdivision? Fourth, which of the offered candidates for my political subdivision may best collaborate with the officials of our State and Federal governments to so revise and enforce definitions of property?

In asking these questions, so that we may participate and comment upon society and government, we must each individually have a sense of our own property. We could look to a sense of the traditional Anglo-American common law definition of property as derived from John Locke, namely, that individual property rights are created from our individual investment of labor in the act of property creation. In this sense, how is our labor to be defined and described, and what is the property it creates? Our property rights as individuals determine our political and social power.

We must each provide a description of our property, both to share amongst ourselves in the course of ordinary conversation, and in offering our comments to candidates and elected officials. Our definition of our property is determined by what we know and how we know. As Locke might say, these rights are based upon each individual’s perfect control and dominion in right of ownership of property. As to property, this would be a tenet of political faith.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls