On September 1, 2009, the 1851 Center filed an amicus brief defending the First Amendment rights of SpeechNow.org in its legal battle with the Federal Elections Commission. The FEC viewed the non-profit much like a political action committee or PAC. The 1851 Center’s brief argued SpeechNow.org is not a political committee that makes contributions to candidates, and its subjection to harsh campaign finance laws are an unconstitutional violation of the freedoms of political speech and association. It emphasized that political speech made by citizens in a grassroots organization is protected by the First Amendment.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the 1851 Center’s position and provided SpeechNow.org with a significant and precedent-setting victory. The court’s ruling effectively blocks government-set caps on contributions to independent political groups. The decision is being hailed as a major victory for free speech and a significant bolstering of First Amendment rights. Further, the decision was the first major court decision on campaign finance issues since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Citizens United ruling.

September 1, 2009: 1851 Center’s Amicus Brief

March 26, 2010: Federal Court’s Decision

Ohio’s Healthcare Freedom Amendment – Historical Overview     

Twenty-six state legislatures have introduced bills to propose constitutional amendments to block the individual mandates contained in the new federal regulations, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.  Ohio’s filing by the Ohio Liberty Council is the nation’s first citizen-initiated action. 

The Ohio Liberty Council is a statewide coalition of non-partisan grass roots groups in Ohio including Central Ohio 9/12 Project, Cincinnati Tea Party, Young Americans for Liberty, Dayton Tea Party, Ohio Freedom Alliance and many more grass roots organizations. By working together, the member groups of the Ohio Liberty Council seek to achieve real results to protect and promote liberty in Ohio.       

Below is an historical overview of the major actions, spanning from March of 2010 to passage of the amendment in November of 2011.  In addition, media links and court documents are provided.

March 3, 2010: Ohio Liberty Council decides to Force Statewide Vote on Health Care Mandate        

The Ohio Liberty Council, a statewide coalition of over 25 grassroots groups, submitted a proposed state constitutional amendment that will “preserve the freedom of Ohioans to choose their health care and health care coverage.” The group filed constitutional amendment summary language and nearly 3,000 signatures from registered voters in 48 counties with the Ohio Secretary of State and Attorney General.        

“The Ohio Liberty Council seeks to preserve the freedom of Ohioans,” said Ohio Liberty Council President Chris Littleton. “This constitutional amendment will do what our leaders in the Statehouse and Congress have failed to do.”       

“The health care reform bill’s requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage essentially asserts that if you are alive, you must buy health insurance that is acceptable to the federal government. However, the mere act of being alive is not commerce that can be regulated by the federal government,” said 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson. “Accordingly, the legislation is constitutionally tenuous, and will take a backseat to our constitutional amendment, which upon enactment, will be a fundamental right amongst all Ohioans.”       

The amendment provides that:       

  • In Ohio, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system;
  • In Ohio, no law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance; and
  • In Ohio, no law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance.

 The amendment does not:        

  • Affect laws or rules in effect as of March 19, 2010;
  • Affect which services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide;
  • Affect terms and conditions of government employment; and
  • Affect any laws calculated to deter fraud or punish wrongdoing in the health care industry.

Member groups of the Ohio Liberty Council gathered thousands of signatures in just 48 hours. Over 25 groups covering a majority of Ohio counties participated in the signature gathering effort and will now prepare for the next phase of the project.       

April 9, 2010: Ohio Ballot Board Nixes Citizen’s Initiative
Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and the Ohio Ballot Board ruled the proposed constitutional amendment aimed at protecting Ohioans from forthcoming health care regulations should be split into two parts. As a result, the board rejected the proposed amendment and told its sponsor, the Ohio Liberty Council, to start over. 
April 14, 2010: 1851 Center Files Ohio Supreme Court Complaint Against Ballot Board        

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law filed a complaint with the Ohio Supreme Court seeking a remedy for improper actions taken by the Ohio Ballot Board. On Friday, the Ballot Board, chaired by Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, rejected a proposed health care freedom constitutional amendment. It ruled the Ohio Liberty Council, the amendment’s sponsor, must resubmit the measure as two separate amendments. The ruling requires the group to rewrite its constitutional amendment, and gather two sets of 402,276 signatures for two separate amendments by June 30.   

In the writ of mandamus filed with the Ohio Supreme Court, the 1851 Center asserts the Ballot Board’s actions are arbitrary and run counter to the board’s own past precedent. The complaint contends the Ohio Liberty Council’s proposed Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment addresses only one subject and should move forward as one constitutional amendment. Further, the Ballot Board’s ruling “effectively eviscerates the Ohio Liberty Council’s objective, and threatens to eviscerate access to the November, 2010 ballot,” the 1851 Center wrote in the complaint.

“We ask the court to review and correct the Ohio Ballot Board’s improper decision,” said Maurice Thompson, executive director of the 1851 Center. “Our complaint rightfully attacks the constitutional authority of this unelected body to use its duty power to perform purely administrative tasks to destroy proposed constitutional amendments with which it disagrees. It does not have the constitutional authority to interfere with the Initiative rights articulated in Section 1, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.”       

February 13, 2011: Ohio Supreme Court Orders Ballot Board to Certify Amendment Language 

The Ohio Supreme Court today unanimously ruled Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and the Ohio Ballot Board abused their discretion and violated Ohio law in rejecting ballot language for the proposed Ohio Health Care Freedom Constitutional Amendment. The ruling is a significant victory for constitutional initiative rights, Ohio’s grass-roots liberty movement, and health care freedom in Ohio. The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law argued the case on behalf of amendment sponsors the Ohio Liberty Council.       

The court ordered Brunner and the Ohio Ballot Board to immediately certify the language and allow the petitioners to begin collecting signatures to qualify the issue for the November ballot.       

“Today’s Supreme Court decision upheld the constitutionally-granted rights of citizens to petition their government even when the arbitrary and self-serving decisions of Secretary Brunner and the ballot board attempt to block them,” said 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson, who also drafted the amendment. “Secretary Brunner and the ballot board tried to use their purely administrative powers to destroy a citizen-initiated amendment with which they disagreed. Thankfully, the court checked this abuse, and Ohioans will have the opportunity to put the preservation of their health care freedom to a vote.”   

In the decision, the justices wrote, “the ballot board abused its discretion and clearly disregarded R.C. 3505.62.” Further, the court upheld the special protections contained in the Ohio Constitution granting citizens the right to petition government.       

Further, the court wrote, “the ballot board has a clear legal duty to liberally construe the right of initiative, and as long as the citizen-initiated proposed amendment bears some reasonable relationship to a single general object or purpose, the board must certify its approval of the amendment as written without dividing it into multiple petitions.”  

July 6, 2011: Signatures Submitted to Place Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment on November Ballot     

Supporters delivered more than 546,000 signatures to the Ohio Secretary of State to place the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment on the November ballot.   The amendment would add a 21st Section to Ohio’s Bill of Rights “to preserve the freedom of Ohioans to choose their health care and health care coverage.”       

For the amendment to move forward, approximately 386,000 signatures must be declared valid.  Internal due diligence indicates that over 440,000 of the collected signatures (over 85 percent) are valid.  This is believed to be the most signatures collected by a volunteer-only organization in Ohio history for a constitutional amendment.  

August 3, 2011: Ballot Board Approves Ballot Language for Issue 3 

The following language was approved for Issue 3 on the November 2011 ballot:       

Issue 3: Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Preserve the Freedom of Ohioans to Choose Their Health Care and Health Care Coverage

Proposed by Initiative PetitionTo adopt Section 21 of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio.

 A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass.The proposed amendment would provide that:

  1. In Ohio, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system;
  2. In Ohio, no law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance; and
  3. In Ohio, no law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance.

The proposed amendment would not:

  1. Affect laws or rules in effect as of March 19, 2010;
  2. Affect which services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide;
  3. Affect terms and conditions of government employment; and
  4. Affect any laws calculated to deter fraud or punish wrongdoing in the health care industry.

If approved, the amendment will be effective thirty days after election.

Watch the entire recording of the Ballot Board meeting here

Download the ballot language here

August 12, 2011: Supreme Court Denies Effort to Take Issue 3 Off Ballot        

The Ohio Supreme Court this morning rejected a challenge to remove Issue 3, the Health Care Freedom Amendment, from the November ballot. The challenge was brought by ProgressOhio, a left-leaning think tank, who moved to invalidate thousands of signatures collected by petition circulators.       

The Court found, as Amendment’s proponents, through the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law had argued, that the challenger’s “legal claim lacks merit,” and “even if his challenge had substantive validity, Rothenberg’s evidence is insufficient to establish that the part-petitions do not have enough signatures.”       

Volunteer backers of the Health Care Freedom Amendment submitted over 546,000 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office last month. 426,998 signatures were verified, and of those, Progress Ohio attempted to challenge the validity of 62,000.       

The court unanimously ruled the challenge lacked merit and that ProgressOhio’s case did not show the signatures fell short of the 385,245 valid signatures that were required.       

“The Court’s decision is simply another repudiation of Ohio’s advocates of unlimited government, as well as their ongoing effort to use the courts to accomplish that which they fear they cannot accomplish in the light of day, through a free and open election,” said Maurice Thompson, Director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, which defended the proponents.  “Opponents of liberty, no doubt recognizing the importance of squashing a growing grass-roots revival in favor of limited government, decided to bring a case before they knew whether they had a case.  Ultimately, this frivolous politicized approach permeated their legal arguments and evidence.”       

See the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision on this issue here.

November 8, 2011: Election Day Victory for Issue 3  

March 26, 2012: The 1851 Center Analyzes the Amendment’s effect on implementation of Obamacare in Ohio

Does Ohio’s Health Care Freedom Amendment Prohibit It from Enacting an Obamacare Exchange? explains how the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment, Section 21 of Ohio’s Bill of Rights, forbids Ohio officials from imposing Obamacare health care exchanges on Ohioans. The document also explores reasons that such exchanges are an unwise policy choice

April 14, 2011: Glenn Beck Show Here

July 5, 2011: Dayton Business Journal: Ohio Group to Challenge Healthcare Reform Law

July 6, 2011: Cleveland Plain Dealer: Ohio Tea Party Groups Seek Ballot Measure

July 6, 2011: WYTV: Ohioans to Have Say on Healthcare Law

July 6, 2011: Toledo Blade: Obama Health Care Opponents File Petition

July 6, 2011: TIME: In Ohio, the Tea Party Rallies Around Opposition to Healthcare Mandate

July 6, 2011: San Diego Union-Tribune: Ohio Healthcare Law Opponents to File Petitions

July 7, 2011: Newark Advocate: Locals Join List of Names Filed to Fight Healthcare Law

July 7, 2011: Dayton Daily News: Ohio at the Center of Debate

July 7, 2011: Columbus Dispatch: Foes of Federal Insurance Mandate File Petition

July 8, 2011: National Journal: Ohio Tea Party Group Pushes for Amendment

July 8, 2011: The Daily Caller: Ohioans Fighting to Kill Obamacare With State Constitution

August 7, 2011: Cuyahoga Falls News: Ballot Board OK’s Ballot Issues

November 8, 2011: Cleveland Plain Dealer: Issue 3 Passes

 April 13, 2010: Application for Writ of Mandamus. Asking the Ohio Supreme Court to compel Sec. Brunner and the Ohio Ballot Board to include the amendment on the next election ballot as written.

April 20, 2010: Merit Brief. Laying out the argument for why the amendment should be included on the next election ballot.

April 22, 2010: Motion in Opposition of Extension. Opposing an application by the state for an extension.

April 29, 2010:  Writ of Mandamus from the Ohio Supreme Court, directing Sec. Brunner and the Ohio Ballot Board to certify the amendment.

August 11, 2011: Rejection of Challenge. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected Progress Ohio’s challenge to petition signatures.

In October 2008, the 1851 Center sued ACORN regarding its activities in Ohio. The action alleged ACORN engaged in a pattern of corrupt activity that amounted to organized crime due to its perpetual submission of fraudulent voter registrations in Ohio. The Center sought the dissolution of ACORN as a legal entity, the revocation of any licenses in Ohio, and an injunction against fraudulent voter registration and other illegal activities.

March 11, 2010 – ACORN Settles with 1851 Center, Folds Ohio Operation

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law achieved victory in its state RICO action against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN has agreed to settle the case and will cease all Ohio activity as a result. In its settlement with the 1851 Center, ACORN agreed to surrender all of its Ohio business licenses by June 1, 2010. Further, the organization cannot support or enable any individual or organization that seeks to engage in the same type of activity.

March 11, 2010, Associated Press: ACORN Gives Up Ohio Business License

October 27, 2008: Original Complaint

Ohio Townships do not have the power to levy taxes.  That’s why they call them “fees.” This case argues that “fees” on new homeowners and developers are really taxes and are unconstitutional.


February 14, 2011 – 1851 Center Files Amicus Brief at Ohio Supreme Court

On February 14, 2011, the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law filed an amicus brief with the Ohio Supreme Court, on its own behalf and on behalf of the Tax Foundation. The brief argues that Ohio townships, which do not have the power to levy taxes, cannot levy back-door taxes on new homeowners and developers merely by labeling those taxes as “impact fees.”

December 15, 2010 – The Ohio Supreme Court Accepts the Case on Appeal

February 1, 2010 –  1851 Center Files Amicus Brief at Appellate Court

The 1851 Center filed an amicus brief with the Twelfth District Court Appeals, arguing that Ohio townships, which do not have the power to levy taxes, cannot levy back-door taxes on new homeowners and developers merely by labeling those taxes as “impact fees.”


March 3, 2011 – Listen to Maurice Thompson on the Tax Policy Podcast here.


February 14, 2011: 1851 Center’s Amicus Brief (Ohio Supreme Court)

February 1, 2010: 1851 Center’s Amicus Brief (Appellate Court)

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law drafted petition language aimed a fighting pending national health care regulations. Read the amendment news release and watch the news conference here. Download the petition here.  Visit the Ohio Liberty Council for more information on this effort here.

The proposed federal health care bills are problematic from a utilitarian, moral, and constitutional perspective. On the following videos, Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center explains how Ohio can fight unconstitutional health care mandates using the Ohio constitution.

Read the Health Care Freedom Amendment FAQs here.

In July 2009, the 1851 Center advised the Village of Fairfax, an enclave in the city of Cincinnati, that it had violated the constitutional rights of Moto Verde. Moto Verde is a motor scooter shop, but the village had classified it as an automobile dealership, refused it the right to operate, and denied it a hearing.  Fairfax reconsidered and today Moto Verde is open for business.


June 29, 2009: 1851 Center’s Letter to City of Fairfax

In March 2009, the 1851 Center submitted written and oral testimony to the Ohio General Assembly on House Bill 3, a bill that would allow Ohio’s trial judges to rewrite the terms of mortgage contracts.  The Center’s testimony made it clear that HB 3 was an unconstitutional abridgment of written contracts, and that, if passed in its then-current form, the 1851 Center would immediately pursue legal action. After the 1851 Center’s testimony and threat of litigation, the Housing Subcommittee removed the provision.

House Bill 3 Testimony

A victory came on October 19, 2009 for Ohio bars and restaurants facing fines for breaking the state smoking ban. Up to that point, enforcement methods essentially required small businesses to enforce the smoking ban for the government. The 1851 Center points out that it’s the government’s law and that the state should be required to enforce its own laws.  That’s what the statute said and that’s what the court has said.

“I think we’ve been cited about 12 times and it’s up to about $33,000,” Dick Allen said; he owns Zenos Bar in the Harrison West neighborhood of Columbus.

The state’s 10th District Court of Appeals ruled that the way the ban is enforced is unfair, 10TV’s Kurt Ludlow reported. It all came down to two words “permit smoking.” The court ruled that if a business posts signs prohibiting smoking, and notifies customers that smoking is not allowed, then the business should not be charged with permitting smoking just because a patron is caught doing so.

A Toledo bar challenged a $500 fine it received after a Lucas County health department worker caught a patron smoking inside the bar. In the lawsuit, the Pour House of Toledo argued that they were improperly cited because they had posted signs and told patrons to refrain from lighting up. It’s notable that no one smoking in a bar has been fined as an individual. Now the state is going to have to start investigating whether the patron is smoking without the permission of the owner, or whether the owner gave permission to the patron.

Allen said he would help the state enforce the law if they paid him.  “If the state wants me to be their police officer, they should be paying me $30,000 and then I’d be happy to do it,” Allen said. Zenos Bar has not paid any of the fine money.


August 20, 2009 – ONN: Smoking Ban Lawsuit Goes Before an Appeals Court


October 15, 2009: Appellate Court’s Decision

On the morning of December 1, 2008, law enforcement officers forcefully entered the Stowers’ residence, without first announcing they were police or stating the purpose of the visit. With guns drawn, officers swiftly and immediately moved to the upstairs of the home, finding eight children in the middle of a home-schooling lesson. Officers then moved the mother, Jacqueline Stowers, and her children to their living room where they were held for more than six hours. Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) and Lorain County Health Department agents forcefully raided the home and unlawfully seized the family’s personal food supply, cell phones and personal computers.

What was the crime alleged against Mr. and Mrs. Stowers that required such use of force?  The state alleged that the couple was operating a retail food establishment without a license.

In fact, the Stowers operate a private-membership organic food cooperative called Manna Storehouse.  There has never been a complaint filed against Manna Storehouse or the Stowers related to the quality or healthfulness of the food distributed through the co-op.

The Center argues the right to buy food directly from local farmers; distribute locally-grown food to neighbors; and pool resources to purchase food in bulk are rights that do not require a license. In addition, the right of peaceful citizens to be free from paramilitary police raids, searches and seizures is guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 14, Article 1 of the Ohio Constitution.

“The Stowers’ constitutional rights were violated over grass-fed cattle, pastured chickens and pesticide-free produce,” 1851 Center of Constitutional Law Director Maurice Thompson said. “Ohioans do not need a government permission slip to run a family farm and co-op, and should not be subjected to raids when they do not have one. This legal action will ensure the ODA understands and respects Ohioans’ rights.”

Such raids are beyond the scope of the purely administrative authority delegated to ODA and county health departments. In enforcing licensure laws, these agencies are only permitted to contract for routine enforcement services. Forceful raids and sweeping searches and seizures are not routine, and exceed the authority granted to ODA and county health departments. The 1851 Center seeks to ensure that such raids do not occur in the future.

Case Timeline

December 19, 2008: Center Files Complaint in Common Pleas Court

On December 19, 2008, The  1851 Center for Constitutional Law took legal action against the Ohio Department of Agriculture (ODA) and the Lorain County Health Department for violating the constitutional rights of John and Jacqueline Stowers of LaGrange, Ohio. The complaint was filed in Lorain County Court of Common Pleas.

The 1851 Center sought an injunction against similar future raids, and a declaration that such licensure laws are unconstitutional as applied the Stowers and individuals like them. The Center also committed to defend the Stowers from any criminal charges related to the raid.

October 10, 2009: Center Appeals Trial Judge’s Ruling

The Center successfully obtained a court order for the return of over $10,000 in food seized by authorities, and appealed the trial judge’s ruling that deems it constitutional to destroy, through regulation, a private-membership organic food cooperative.

June 6, 2011: Court of Appeals Rules Against the Stowers Family

The court applied the rational basis test, deferring to the legislature. The Court of Appeals explained that the government’s “explanation for the statute need not be supported by evidence; rather, we will be satisfied with the government’s ‘rational speculation’ linking the regulation to a legitimate purpose, even ‘unsupported by evidence or empirical data.’”

July 21, 2011: Center Appeals to Ohio Supreme Court 

On July 21, Manna Storehouse and the Stowers family moved the Ohio Supreme Court to protect their rights.

The Stowers argued that the state’s imposition on their property rights and right to earn a living requires the utmost scrutiny and must be protected.  They further argued that requiring government permission and licensure to operate their safe and private cooperative converts state government to one of unlimited powers, transgressing the limits of state power, while violating their rights.

November 2, 2011: Ohio Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Case

The Ohio Supreme Court stated that there was no substantial question for review.

December 3, 2008: Morning Journal: Local Food Cooperative Searched by State

December 3, 2008: The Bovine: ODA “Swats” Manna Storehouse Co-op

December 4, 2008: WorldView: Swat Team Like Raid on a Farm House in Lagrange

December 9, 2008: Reason Magazine: Pantry Raid

December 17, 2008: World Net Daily:Armed Officers Raid Home, Hold Mom, Kids for 6 Hours

December 18, 2008: Cleveland Plain Dealer: Manna Asks Court to Rule Search Illegal

March 3, 2009: Filed in Federal Court: Combined Motion to Amend and Remand asking to remand the case back to the State of Ohio Common Pleas Court.

March 3, 2009: Filed in Federal Court: Amended Complaint motioning for a Preliminary Injunction & Writ of Replevin.

December 17, 2009: Filed in Ohio Common Pleas Court: Motion for Summary Judgment

July 6, 2010: Appellant’s Brief to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, Lorain County appealing the Common Pleas Court ruling.

July 21, 2011: Motion for Jurisdiction in Ohio Supreme Court

The legislature has passed a state budget that includes the repeal of Ohio’s Estate Tax.  Special thanks to the team at http://www.endohioestatetax.com/ for their leadership in accomplishing a feat that no liberty group before them had accomplished:  the elimination of a statewide tax.  In drafting the initiative and representing the effort, the 1851 Center was simply the professional scaffolding around this inspiring all-volunteer effort.

Despite openly hostile opposition (see below) from city and township government bureaucrats, who used public funds to oppose the repeal, and behind-closed-doors dismissal from elected and even conservative policy organizations, Ohio’s worst-in-the-nation Estate Tax, kicking in at just $338,000, will no longer be tearing Ohio families apart, destroying family farms, and driving business from the state.

April 4, 2011 – Use of Public Funds to Oppose Estate Tax Repeal is Unconstitutional

The 1851 Center for Constitutional Law today notified the cities of Loveland, and Oakwood, Ohio that their use of public funds applied to the Council/Coalition to Protect Ohio’s Communities (CPOC) is unlawful and, if continued, will result in legal action on behalf of each city’s taxpayers.

CPOC, comprised of local governments seeking to maintain the Ohio Estate Tax, formed in response to the introduction of House Bill 3, legislation that will end the tax.

Ohio’s Estate Tax is rated the worst in the nation, and kicks in at the lowest threshold, taxing all assets above $338,000. Although it is opposed by many Ohioans, local governments formed CPOC to lobby and propagandize against estate tax repeal. Loveland and Oakwood used local taxpayer dollars to fund their participation in CPOC.

Using public funds to support CPOC’s efforts:

  • Abuses “Home Rule” authority, which only lends municipalities authority to exercise powers of local self-government
  • Abuses “Police Power” authority by supplying public funds to that are biased, unreasonable, and arbitrary
  • Violates competitive bidding requirements due to no-bid contracts; and
  • Violates the First Amendment rights of citizens by forcing taxpayers to speak in a manner with which they disagree

In letters sent to Loveland and Oakwood, 1851 Center Executive Director Maurice Thompson highlights the lack of regard for taxpayers in the cities’ actions:

“You have dedicated revenue derived from all of your residents towards taking a side in a hot-button political debate on which the two sides fervently disagree. Indeed, many of your own taxpayers, whose dollars you use to fund CPOC, have worked tirelessly to ensure the introduction of House Bill 3 into the Ohio General Assembly, and other Ohio cities and townships oppose your efforts.”

The 1851 Center requested that the cities of Loveland and Oakwood recover any public funds that have been directed to CPOC, abstain from transmitting further public funds to the group, and withdraw from the council entirely. Otherwise, the Center will bring legal action against each municipality on behalf of local taxpayers.

August, 2009 – Ballot Language Drafted

The 1851 Center drafted ballot language that was adopted by Citizens United to Eliminate Ohio’s Estate Tax for an Initiated Statute effort. If successful, the measure will eliminate the Ohio Estate Tax as of 2012. The Ohio Attorney General has approved the language and the group is now collecting the needed signatures to place the issue before the general assembly.

April 4, 20111851 Center’s Letter to City of Loveland

April 4, 20111851 Center’s Letter to City of Oakwood 

April 5, 2011 – Dayton Daily News: Estate Tax Lobbying Called Illegal; Cities Disagree

700 WLW: Doc Thompson http://6b8.11f.myftpupload.com/radio/110411_3_DOC_EstateTax.mp3