43
Vindicator’s ‘temper tantrum’ over defeat of state Issue 2 was ghastly
By Dale butland
COLUMBUS
Like state Issue 2 itself, The Vindicator’s pre-election editorial urging a “yes” vote was predicated more on anger and grievance than on facts or reason. So when just under 80 percent of Ohioans ignored the news- paper’s endorsement and voted “no” on Election Day – including 78.5 percent, 81 percent, and 84 percent of the electorate in Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana counties – The Vindicator’s pique was probably predictable.
What wasn’t predictable was the paper’s depressingly mean-spirited post-election temper tantrum (“Big PhRMA frightens Ohioans into voting against self-interest”, Nov. 11) – which not only impugned the integrity of everyone associated with the no campaign, but gratuitously insulted the intelligence of its own readers in the bargain.
Political consultants like me – derisively dismissed by The Vindicator as greedy “bandits” who “laughed all the way to the bank” – know that being a human punching bag comes with the territory.
ugly and Inappropriate
But sliming the character and motives of nationally respected Ohio experts who genuinely believed Issue 2 was bad public policy – including a former state budget director and three former state Medicaid directors who served under both Democratic and Republican governors – along with the many dedicated doctors, nurses, and military veterans who volunteered to appear in “No” campaign television ads – was ugly and inappropriate.
For the record, no one received a penny for appearing in a “No” campaign TV ad.
The policy experts who analyzed Issue 2 were paid only for their time – and none was told what to say.
As the campaign’s day-to-day communications director, I was paid – just as those who worked full-time for the “Yes” campaign were paid. Unlike them, however, I’ve been deeply involved in the fight for affordable prescription drugs throughout my working life, including in the campaign sponsored by the Ohio AFL-CIO 15 years ago that created “Ohio’s Best Rx” discount program, which is still in effect and still helping thousands of Ohioans with no insurance afford their medicines.
And just like our doctors, nurses, military veterans and policy experts, I joined the “No” campaign because I believed it would hurt rather than help the state I love.
For voters, though, Issue 2 wasn’t about the consultants or who was being paid for doing what. For them, the only question that mattered was whether the ballot issue would do what it promised: save taxpayer money and reduce their families’ drug costs. When they concluded that Issue 2 would do neither and was likely to backfire, they rejected it overwhelmingly.
Most Ohioans left out
Voters understood – even if The Vindicator still doesn’t – that because Issue 2 only applied to drugs purchased by the state government, two-thirds of our population was left out, including everyone with private insurance, veterans, seniors on Medicare, and those with no insurance at all. Passing Issue 2 would not have reduced their costs by a single penny.
Nor would Issue 2 have saved money for taxpayers, or cut costs even for those who receive their prescriptions through state-government programs. All of which was pointed out – The Vindicator’s claim to the contrary notwithstanding – by the state’s Office of Budget Management in an “independent analysis” that was released several weeks before the election as required by law.
According to the state’s current budget director, Ohio is already receiving discounts as good as or better than the 24 percent VA discount for the vast majority of drugs we buy, thanks to the 23.1 percent Medicaid discount mandated by federal law and the additional, voluntary discounts negotiated by the state.
Voters also understood – and overwhelmingly rejected – the unprecedented provision in Issue 2 that would have forced taxpayers to pay unlimited attorney fees for ballot issue sponsors and their lawyers. That provision was prominently highlighted in ballot language agreed to by both campaigns and which Ohioans were able to read for themselves before casting their votes.
Insulting
For all these reasons and more, it is both condescending and insulting for The Vindicator to airily suggest that its own readers were “frightened into voting against their own self-interest.” While voters may not have understood every aspect of this very complicated issue, they were smart enough to conclude – as they have so many times before with ill-conceived ballot proposals – that Issue 2 was not in their best interest.
When 80 percent of the electorate rejects a ballot initiative, voters aren’t “confused” or merely saying “no.” They’re saying Hell No – and the message they’re sending could not be any clearer.
Dale Butland spent 20 years working for the late U.S. Sen. John Glenn in a variety of capacities, including press secretary and Ohio chief of staff. He currently lives in Columbus where he operates his own consulting firm.