To: Dayton Daily News Editorial Board and staff                                                              8/14/08

Mike Joseph, Kevin Riley, Martin Gottlieb, Ellen Belcher, Vicki Harris

Endorsements in Congressional races should consider issues of public policy and proposed solutions to our national problems. I participated in the Dayton Daily News endorsement interview for the general election to Congress from the Ohio 7th District in 2006 and Democratic primary of 2008. In both cases, the DDN refused to consider these issues and proposed solutions.

The DDN consistently rates the seriousness of campaigns solely on the amount of campaign funds raised no matter how scurrilous the sources. The most unqualified candidate will be deemed serious if he or she is able to raise a large amount of money. The most serious of candidates with the best solutions to our public problems and the most dedication to our country's best interests will be dismissed by the DDN if he does not raise a large amount of money. This position is not unique to the DDN and has been sold by repetition to the general public. A candidate who does not have money, has no connections to special interests, and will not sell out to interests counter to the public good, cannot raise large amounts of money. That is not to say that a candidate could not win an election with a small amount of money. But, it is very difficult to do so while also fighting all of the elements who don't believe it can be done. In addition to newspaper editors, and pundits, these elements include state and national parties. If the contest were left to the candidates and the voters, a grass roots campaign proposing effective solutions to our national problems could win. Certainly, if newspapers supported candidates based on the public interest rather than the money totals, special interest control of elections would be lessened.

In the 2006 general election, DDN editors praised Congressman Hobson for fund raising and pork barrel prowess. They did not discuss his sellouts to special interests against the public interest such as taking large contributions from the drug companies and voting for the Medicare D bill. It did not discuss his well known lavish boondoggles at government and corporation expense.

In the 2008 Democratic primary for the Ohio 7th Congressional District, the differences between Neuhardt and me were stark. My web site, as in 2006, had extensive, in depth proposals on a wide range of issues. These proposals had been publicly posted for two years and had not been successfully challenged. On the other hand, Neuhardt presented no discussion of issues on her web site. As the endorsement interview was held a few weeks before the election, the "Issues" section of her web site had only a "Coming soon ..." notice. A week or so later, she posted short pages on each of 4 issues saying simply that they were problems - no solutions. Indeed, her web site remains unchanged in that area to the present. At the interview, she said that she had supported and voted for Hobson in 2006 and lauded him as an exemplary Congressman. She said that she had raised more than $75,000, virtually all from Republicans. FEC filings confirm that she did raise her money from corporate attorneys and business interests - mostly health insurers. She had a $10,000 (twice the legal limit) donation on 1/17/08 from the Thompson Hine PAC which had supported George W. Bush with $5,000 in 2004 and generally supports Republicans. By any reasonable judgment, Neuhardt is a Republican heavily indebted to, if not controlled by, the health insurance industry.

In the DDN endorsement editorial, Neuhardt was praised for her support of Hobson and her willingness to raise money from Republican sources. The editorial went beyond the subject at hand to launch a very personal attack on me. I was described as very ill tempered when, in fact, I was very cordial and friendly throughout the interview.

The endorsement was printed on a Friday. The DDN deadline for readers letters on the subject was the following Wednesday. At least two letters from my supporters were emailed to the DDN on the Monday preceding the deadline. Two letters supporting the Neuhardt endorsement were printed. None supporting me or any of the other candidates in the race was printed. I called Vicki Harris of the DDN about this. First she said that the letters supporting me were not received before the deadline. Then she called back to say that they had been received before the deadline but "the pages had already been made up". Richard Wyderski told me that several letters supporting him had been sent in before the deadline and were not printed.

Neuhardt sent out a mailing to Democrats citing the headline of her DDN endorsement. She presented the endorsement of the Springfield Sun as a separate endorsement decision when, of course, it wasn't. That mailing was decisive in a close election.

Even if it were fair and in the public interest, the DDN endorsement process is flawed. As stated on the editorial page, the editorial board shields its members from any individual responsibility for the endorsement decision. As it is with readers letters, anonymous opinions should not be printed. The Columbus dispatch employs a similar procedure. Editor Ben Marrison of the Dispatch described their endorsement decision process in a byline article. He said that the editors research the candidates and interview them. Then the publisher decides. Likely, the procedure is the same for the DDN.

I have now been invited to an interview for the DDN endorsement for the Ohio House 70th District. The above cited history does not offer me any prospect of fair treatment. I am still proposing solutions to critical issues and still will not sell out to special interests.

My web site, ConnerForOH.com is available for your review. I will mail a supporting endorsement letter. I will not appear before your board in closed session. I will place this as an open letter on my web site along with any response you may send. Different from your editorial page, I treat all others in an open, honest and fair manner on my web site.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

The DDN endorsed my opponent whom they described as lackluster in record , with no agenda and no expectation of accomplishment in the legislature.  They said that my agenda was "liberal" and that I was unqualified because I was "quick to anger". Since the facts weren't on their side they went with innuendo and unfounded slurs against my disposition.  See their endorsement editorial.