Lack of disclosure takes away from real issues

As most of you who are regular readers know, I've come down pretty hard on Learn and Earn for the name and the manner in which they are trying to collect enough signatures for a constitutional amendment that will allow slot machine gambling. For me this is a matter of full and clear disclosure rather than taking an anti-gambling stance. It clouds everything, and when I heard my first Learn and Earn radio ad yesterday, I was even more disturbed than I felt viewing the future television ad. How can we have an intelligent and informed debate on the merits when it's not being promoted honestly?

Then today, I read this article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer about one of the organizations involved in collecting signatures for the proposed constitutional amendment to raise the Ohio Minimum Wage. The accusation being made is that ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) did not fully support paying it's own workers minimum wage. This Washington Times piece goes even farther and repeats the minimum wage issue but also brings up that a past attempt for ACORN offices to unionize was fought.

Some of these claims have been disputed, yet it appears there is some credibility to some of the accusations leveled against ACORN. Yet that's not my issue with this. My issue is here again we face a situation where the main focus of a proposed constitutional amendment will not be on the merits of the actual amendment but on side issues.

If there was full disclosure should they have selected ACORN to be a part of this? If the focus is going to be on this actual amendment why create the opportunity to have a side issue? It's the same as the Learn and Earn situation, both groups create discussion that will probably color public opinion in a negative fashion because of the manner selected to promote this.

We have already come to expect that politicans will not always be honest with us when they are campaigning, some will make promises they know at the time they are stating because it's what we as voters want to hear. Yet, if that happens we do have an easier recourse - we just select someone different. A constitutional amendment is a bit harder to change. Granted it's possible but, in my way of thinking even more care should be taken and an even higher level of honesty and full disclosure expected. The main focus should be on the actual merits of an amendment, that serves us all whether we end up being for one or against one.

(This post is for the Carnival of Ohio Politics, brought to you by Paul Miller of Northwest Ohio Net, stop by and visit him tomorrow morning to see what some of Ohio's best bloggers are writing about)