thumbnail of Ohio Journal; No. 511; The Ohio Lottery; Foreign Ownership of Ohio Farmland; The Ohio Lottery; Foreign Ownership of Ohio Farmland
Transcript
Hide -
<v Speaker>This week, Ohio Journal takes a look at the Ohio lottery and reports on a proposal <v Speaker>that would prohibit citizens or corporations of foreign countries from buying Ohio <v Speaker>farm land. Bill Cohen and Peggy Garvie report. <v Bill Cohen>In 1973, Ohio voters went to the polls and in effect told state <v Bill Cohen>lawmakers, we give you the authority to set up a state lottery. <v Bill Cohen>Sixty four percent of the voters okayed the idea and the legislators liked it, too. <v Bill Cohen>That same year, the House voted 60 to 33 to create the lottery and <v Bill Cohen>the Senate agreed 30 to one. <v Bill Cohen>Now, though, it's six years later and some of the enthusiasm has worn off. <v Bill Cohen>It is true that thousands of people have bought a 50 cent ticket and taken home one <v Bill Cohen>hundred five thousand or even a million dollars in winnings. <v Bill Cohen>But others are learning that despite what the TV commercials say, all that glitters
<v Bill Cohen>is not gold. <v Speaker>Hey, you want to have some fun, play the number, if your hunch is right, you <v Speaker>win tonight. <v Speaker>The number, Ohio Lottery's new daily number game. <v Bill Cohen>During its brief lifetime. The lottery has been the frequent target of charges of <v Bill Cohen>mismanagement. It's had eight different directors. <v Bill Cohen>And it seems someone is always proposing the lottery headquarters be moved from Cleveland <v Bill Cohen>to Columbus. So state officials can keep a closer eye on it. <v Bill Cohen>Original backers of the lottery sold the idea by saying it could mean 100 <v Bill Cohen>million dollars more a year in the state treasury, something that could help ease Ohio's <v Bill Cohen>school funding problems. <v Bill Cohen>But the money has never materialized. <v Bill Cohen>The most the lottery has ever brought in was in fiscal 1977, when profits <v Bill Cohen>totaled fifty nine million dollars. <v Bill Cohen>Since then, they dwindled to 40 million in 78. <v Bill Cohen>Only 20 million dollars last year. <v Bill Cohen>The low profits are one reason for state. <v Bill Cohen>Representatives are now proposing the lottery end in mid 1981,
<v Bill Cohen>unless the legislature find some positive reasons to keep it going. <v Rep. Paul Leonard>I voted for the lottery based on the premise that I thought it would add money to the <v Rep. Paul Leonard>state treasury and assist in the school funding crisis. <v Rep. Paul Leonard>And I believe that it did do that for a limited number of years. <v Rep. Paul Leonard>Now, I think that it has outlived its usefulness and if it can't justify <v Rep. Paul Leonard>itself, I feel that it should come to a natural end. <v Bill Cohen>The lottery's newest director, Ed Taylor, still doesn't agree his agency should <v Bill Cohen>die. He's predicting rising profits with a new numbers game. <v Bill Cohen>And he says last year's low profit is explainable. <v Bill Cohen>There just weren't any new games to get people excited. <v Ed Taylor>Any type of games that we were operating with last year were ticket type games or weekly <v Ed Taylor>games and instant games. These were games that were on the market too long, but <v Ed Taylor>people had become disenchanted with them. <v Ed Taylor>We likewise did not have sufficient revenue. <v Ed Taylor>When sales go down, our revenues for advertising is based on a
<v Ed Taylor>one point five sales. We didn't have sufficient revenue to put on a good <v Ed Taylor>advertising campaign. So it was a we were in a catch 22 situation. <v Ed Taylor>We couldn't get respond with a different type of new game and we couldn't advertise. <v Bill Cohen>So now with the new number game, you predict that profits are going to go up from 20. <v Ed Taylor>Yes, yes, definitely. <v Bill Cohen>Once you get everything going well, instead of 20 million dollar profits a year, <v Bill Cohen>you have any idea? [Ed Taylor: Well it should go] to 40 or 50. <v Ed Taylor>Yes, it should go 40 to 50 million dollars a year, easily, conservatively. <v Ed Taylor>We expect it. I'd be disappointed. It isn't over that. <v Speaker>Come on, You wanna make a bet. <v Speaker>?inaudible?. <v Bill Cohen>But the lottery isn't on the defensive just because of dwindling profits. <v Bill Cohen>Critics are also renewing a charge that was made years ago, and that is <v Bill Cohen>that working class and low income Ohioans are playing the lottery as much <v Bill Cohen>or more than upper income people who can afford to lose money in a long shot.
<v Rep. Paul Leonard>I think that has been verified more and more as the years have gone by. <v Rep. Paul Leonard>When the lottery began, many people bought tickets to see if they would be <v Rep. Paul Leonard>a winner. I think I bought a ticket the first two weeks of the lottery and have not <v Rep. Paul Leonard>purchased a ticket since that time, basically because I was not a winner. <v Rep. Paul Leonard>But it seems the studies are showing that those who reside in core cities, for example, <v Rep. Paul Leonard>the people who can least afford lottery tickets, are still playing the game, <v Rep. Paul Leonard>more so than those who live in suburbs or rural areas. <v Bill Cohen>A look at the Columbus area backs up Leonard's point. <v Bill Cohen>There are 37 places in Franklin County where you can buy tickets for the new number game <v Bill Cohen>in rich suburbs. Upper Arlington, Dublin, Worthington. <v Bill Cohen>You don't find any outlets, but you find a lot in the inner city. <v Bill Cohen>The near north and east sides of town where many of the poor live is where most <v Bill Cohen>the new lottery outlets are. <v Bill Cohen>At one, toonies drive through. <v Bill Cohen>The owner isn't very happy about that. <v Wilford Tuney>Went out when they first come to me and talk to me about having a lottery game.
<v Wilford Tuney>They claim that was only gonna be a very few machines, maybe two to three at most on <v Wilford Tuney>Mount Vernon. Now there's seven on Mount Vernon and, oh, maybe four blocks away, there's <v Wilford Tuney>four or five more. And it makes it hard for all the merchants out east <v Wilford Tuney>to make any money off the lottery game because we have so many machines and so many place <v Wilford Tuney>for people to go. And it really has hurt our sales. <v Speaker>Why do you think there are so many lottery places here on the Near East side? <v Speaker>Well, I think mainly because most black people play a lot of numbers to try to take a <v Speaker>chance to better their conditions. <v Speaker>And in the other neighborhoods where they don't need to do that. <v Speaker>And I think that's the real problem. The reason they have set up so many machines out <v Speaker>east here and it really taken a lot of money out of our community because people <v Speaker>were able to go to maybe fifteen or twenty places and play these numbers. <v Speaker>One of toonies, regular lottery customers, is Johnny Ellis. <v Speaker>Everyday they play. I'm I'm right there. <v Speaker>How much would you say you spend every week on this? <v Speaker>I spend about twenty dollars a week. <v Speaker>And have you need money or have you lost money?
<v Speaker>I have made it. But I don't want to lose too much either. <v Speaker>I'm will get it back. You're gonna get it back. <v Speaker>Yeah. Just keep on playing. Cee, you play. <v Speaker>You got a chance. See where you don't have I don't play you. <v Speaker>You have no chance. So you've got to keep on playing. <v Speaker>I hit a million dollar, you know. <v Speaker>I need to do. Yeah. <v Speaker>You need the money. Oh, I need the money. Yeah. <v Speaker>Yeah, I need the money back. <v Speaker>The fact that many Ohioans who don't have a lot of money still play the lottery concerns <v Speaker>lottery director Taylor. But he says if the state wasn't in the lottery business, <v Speaker>Ohioans would still lose money gambling the rich at the horse races and an <v Speaker>illegal football pools and the poor in the illegal numbers game out on the streets. <v Speaker>The number game is going to be was played <v Speaker>and is being played by those people who, if they didn't have this legitimate state <v Speaker>agency to bet with, would bet with the illegal operation whether and they would
<v Speaker>continue to bet with the illegal operation if the state <v Speaker>were not providing this service for them. <v Speaker>So you're saying these people are going to play the lottery one way or the other? <v Speaker>They'll play the lottery. They'll play this game. <v Speaker>Put it that way. They only play it with the state or they'll play with the illegal. <v Speaker>That's the point. So low income people are going to be losing their money either way. <v Speaker>Either way. <v Speaker>What does Governor Rhoades have to say about the lottery? <v Speaker>Well, not much. He's pushing for administrative changes, more power for the director, <v Speaker>less for the five member lottery commission. <v Speaker>But when it comes to questions about ending the lottery, the governor is ducking it. <v Speaker>I didn't invent the lottery. <v Speaker>I'm just I inherited it. And I'm trying to administer the law and learn <v Speaker>to love honor. <v Speaker>I'm going to minister not to have a moderate. <v Speaker>The ownership of land has always had a somewhat sacred or about it.
<v Speaker>Last year, driven by fears of land grabs by oil rich Arabs <v Speaker>and an honest desire to measure the scope of the situation, the Ohio legislature <v Speaker>passed a law that requires foreign land owners to register with the state <v Speaker>if their property is more than three acres in size or one hundred thousand dollars <v Speaker>in market value. The data isn't in yet, but already there is a <v Speaker>move in the House to ban foreign ownership of farmland altogether. <v Speaker>America is the world's breadbasket. <v Speaker>The Arabs have oil and we have food. <v Speaker>There are only seven major exporters of food in the world, and the United States exports <v Speaker>twice as much as the other six combined. <v Speaker>We control food like the Arabs control oil. <v Speaker>It is argued that the politics of food could become a critical international issue in the <v Speaker>future and then encouraged by the declining dollar. <v Speaker>Foreign investors could gobble up vast acres of prime American farmland <v Speaker>and eventually take control of the nation's food supply.
<v Speaker>But until recently, the system has been incapable of even estimating the extent of the <v Speaker>problem, much less dealing with it. <v Speaker>That acute lack of information has left plenty of room for rhetoric. <v Speaker>Now a few facts about the situation. <v Speaker>Approximately fifty four out of every thousand acres of American farm land offered <v Speaker>for sale last year was bought up by foreign investors. <v Speaker>Only three percent of America's farms change hands each year, and farmer <v Speaker>to farmer sales account for 80 percent of all transactions. <v Speaker>September seventy nine survey of Ohio by the U.S. <v Speaker>Agriculture Department showed that foreigners own a mere eight thousand one <v Speaker>hundred forty nine acres of the nearly 17 million acres of farmland <v Speaker>here. Nationwide, estimates show that 67 percent <v Speaker>of direct foreign investment is of European, not Middle Eastern origin. <v Speaker>The Dutch, the British, the Canadians and the Germans top the list.
<v Speaker>American farmland is an incredible bargain on the world market, averaging <v Speaker>about 1000 dollars an acre, while in Europe, farmland sells for four <v Speaker>thousand dollars an acre. <v Speaker>Congressional investigations estimate that American investment abroad outstrips <v Speaker>whatever foreigners may spend in this country. <v Speaker>Five to one. Secretary of State Tony Celebrezze says <v Speaker>it'll be March of next year before he knows the total amount of Ohio land <v Speaker>owned by foreign interests and the total value of real estate <v Speaker>that's been registered has been about fifty four million dollars and represents about <v Speaker>10000 acres of Ohio land. <v Speaker>Is this more than you thought it would be? Or less? <v Speaker>So far, the registrations have been at a lower level than we anticipated, <v Speaker>although any purchase that was made prior to last March 19th. <v Speaker>The purchaser has a year to register. <v Speaker>So we really don't have a a total and complete picture at this point <v Speaker>of what the registrations will ultimately be like.
<v Speaker>But Representative Gene Brand, still a farmer from Utica, says he doesn't <v Speaker>think it's too early to make the decision to outlaw foreign ownership of farms. <v Speaker>He explains why he introduced the bill. <v Speaker>Well, in my district to one of the largest farms in Licking County was sold <v Speaker>to a nonresident alien foreign investor. <v Speaker>And many people in my district raised the concern as to the <v Speaker>ripple effect. You know, an increase in foreign investment would have, for instance, <v Speaker>land rents increased in that community. <v Speaker>The cost of land increased. <v Speaker>And I reflected the concern to people in that area had, as <v Speaker>well as my own personal views on the the disadvantages and <v Speaker>the foreign investment in our agricultural land has. <v Speaker>Despite opposition from the Ohio Realtors Association, Brand Stool's <v Speaker>bill was passed by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and should
<v Speaker>come up for a vote in the full House by late January. <v Speaker>Meanwhile, it has stirred up debate between the state's two largest farm organizations, <v Speaker>the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union. <v Speaker>The Farm Bureau, a prime mover for ?seller Breezy's? <v Speaker>Land registration bill, is reserving judgment until all the data is <v Speaker>in. <v Dean Simeral>It's difficult to suggest that there's a problem with foreign ownership of Farm First <v Dean Simeral>when membership is a very infinitesimal part of the total land holdings <v Dean Simeral>somewhere in the neighborhood of a half percent estimate. <v Dean Simeral>We don't know precisely. <v Dean Simeral>And further, no serious thought should be given to place in the band until we know <v Dean Simeral>precisely how significant is the foreign investment in land. <v Speaker>On the other side, the smaller Ohio Farmers Union strongly supports <v Speaker>the bill. <v Charlie Nash>We've got one half of all of our states within the United States that have legislation <v Charlie Nash>that does suppress in one form or another in an ownership farmland.
<v Charlie Nash>We've had land inflated within the state of Ohio farmland that some 20 percent <v Charlie Nash>for the past year. <v Charlie Nash>We maintain when I say we, the farmers union organization maintains that this is <v Charlie Nash>a contributing factor, has been investment from foreign land. <v Charlie Nash>The national average is 14 percent. <v Charlie Nash>And we're six percent above that. <v Speaker>What the Farm Bureau's Dean Simeral disagrees. <v Dean Simeral>When you're talking about investments of less than half percent of the total or <v Dean Simeral>whatever, then it can't be identified as having much of an impact <v Dean Simeral>on price. <v Speaker>The farmers unions major concern is the preservation of the family farm <v Speaker>through helping young farmers. <v Speaker>And we feel that right now, anything to prohibit young farmers from <v Speaker>investing in farmland. Anything that's going to hinder him is a detriment to this nation <v Speaker>because the average age of our farmers, something like 62 years of age. <v Speaker>But to blame the problems the young farmer has getting started on foreign
<v Speaker>investment is misguided, according to Simeral. <v Dean Simeral>The fact that land is extremely expensive and the fact that it takes <v Dean Simeral>a lot of capital to get started in agriculture is the reason it is difficult for someone <v Dean Simeral>without that capital to get started. <v Dean Simeral>But there's no reason to believe that the foreign investment is the one that has <v Dean Simeral>led to that increase in price or that increase in the cost of <v Dean Simeral>getting started. We're as concerned about the maintaining the family <v Dean Simeral>farm, as anyone could be. <v Dean Simeral>But we don't see that the. <v Dean Simeral>Prohibiting the foreign investment is in and of itself going to <v Dean Simeral>have any impact on the question. <v Dean Simeral>Will the family farms survive? <v Speaker>This is just a sample of the debate that tends to obscure some of the larger implications <v Speaker>involved in outlawing foreign ownership of farms. <v Speaker>Representative Brands still believes the Farm Bureau is most interested in preserving <v Speaker>the agro business type of farming operation.
<v Speaker>In that regard, and I, incidentally, am a member of both farm organizations and I am a <v Speaker>farmer. But I know that farmers union, they are concerned for the family farmer. <v Speaker>Not not that Farm Bureau is not. <v Speaker>But I think Farm Farmers Union is concerned only about the, <v Speaker>the effect that it will have on farmers- farming, not the effect it may have on the agri <v Speaker>business community. <v Speaker>Current Lauseker from West Germany works for one of those foreign investors. <v Speaker>He is general manager of the Daily Egg Farm in Union County de <v Speaker>Lay in Bavaria. Farms, also owned by West Germans, own more than 2000 <v Speaker>acres near Marysville. <v Speaker>Lausecker gives his view of the proposed ban. <v Kurt Lausecker>I think this would be unfair compared with a <v Kurt Lausecker>high amount of acreage since American companies own in Europe, <v Kurt Lausecker>mainly in Germany. Oh. <v Kurt Lausecker>General Motors or IBM or almost every
<v Kurt Lausecker>big company sets American company has <v Kurt Lausecker>ownership in Germany. <v Speaker>Simeral of the Farm Bureau echoes this view. <v Dean Simeral>I think we have to keep in mind that there are plus factors in foreign investment. <v Dean Simeral>It has a positive impact on our balance of payments. <v Dean Simeral>It has a positive impact on returning some of those dollars to this country, <v Dean Simeral>that eventually need to be returned to this country because our foreign banks <v Dean Simeral>are full of American dollars. <v Kurt Lausecker>I think it has just positive affects. <v Kurt Lausecker>We employ almost 75 people <v Kurt Lausecker>right now and another half a year. <v Kurt Lausecker>I guess it's almost time, about 120. <v Kurt Lausecker>And, well, we buy green. <v Kurt Lausecker>We would like to be a part of the economy here. <v Speaker>But Joseph Waterman of a group called S.O.S. <v Speaker>America is worried about foreign control of American markets. <v Speaker>And so many of these purchases are done by corporations that are owned by another
<v Speaker>corporation and is owned by another corporation, formed in a foreign company, a country <v Speaker>that you don't have the slightest idea of who is really owning them. <v Speaker>It affects them enough that someday, if it's allowed to go on, there won't be any small <v Speaker>farmer. And not only that, the if enough land gets into control <v Speaker>of foreign ownership, you will have production and prices controlled <v Speaker>by those foreign owners. <v Speaker>S.O.S. America's slogan is, let's wake up. <v Speaker>We may be sleeping on foreign soil, but members of the Ohio Farm <v Speaker>Bureau meeting recently in Columbus for their annual convention didn't <v Speaker>seem very confused about who the land belongs to. <v Speaker>This is.
<v Speaker>I think I read all <v Speaker>along these lines. <v Speaker>With us in the studio to discuss this issue are State Representative Dale Locher, <v Speaker>chairman of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, and Larry Kandal, <v Speaker>associate director for public relations for the Ohio Farm Bureau. <v Speaker>Mr. Kandal, what is the Ohio Farm Bureau's major concern when it comes <v Speaker>to foreign investment in Ohio farmland? <v Speaker>Our annual meeting was just completed with three hundred and seventy delegates discussing <v Speaker>this issue. Their primary concern was in the area of possible tax advantages to <v Speaker>foreigners, and they're reassured that that possible problem <v Speaker>could be rectified through a higher legislature activity. <v Speaker>Representative Locher, even with a law like the one that passed, you are Cornette. <v Speaker>Even if we had that, wouldn't it be possible to hide who owns the land through a dummy, <v Speaker>corporations and trusts?
<v Speaker>Well, the at the federal level, as well as the state level, we do have a reporting <v Speaker>process which tracks that down, especially the federal a federal level threw out <v Speaker>that dummy corporation. And I think from what experience we're finding now, they're <v Speaker>going to be able to track that pretty far. And I think it would be very effective. <v Speaker>I don't think that would be a possibility. <v Speaker>Rivers of luck. How can we forbid foreign ownership of anything when the United States <v Speaker>owns so much of other countries? <v Speaker>Well, one of the one of the things that did come up in the committee was that there are <v Speaker>some 32 other countries that prohibit alien investments, which says it prohibit prohibit <v Speaker>the United States from investing in their countries, Greece and Italy, Japan, <v Speaker>Mexico, Portugal. Several of these countries are those that are investing here that we <v Speaker>do business with. I think that we ought to have the same thing without really causing <v Speaker>any imbalance of problems there. <v Speaker>Federal records indicate that there are about maybe 8000 acres out of 17 <v Speaker>million total owned by foreign investors. <v Speaker>Do you think your committee overreacted in passing this bill? <v Speaker>No, but I don't think we've got the proper statistics yet on what is being and I just was
<v Speaker>in Washington a week ago. And at the federal level, they are showing some surprising <v Speaker>statistics, increasing in the amount of alien ownership in land, period. <v Speaker>I'm not just in Ohio. I think we're going to see that in Ohio. <v Speaker>There's going to be more reporting and they still have some time to report. <v Speaker>I think we're going to see a great deal more land that is being under foreign ownership. <v Speaker>So you don't think your committee is overreacting? No, and I don't think so for another <v Speaker>reason. You know, one of our problems is that we wait till after the problem is on us and <v Speaker>then we want to react to it. And I'd much prefer addressing ourselves with the problem <v Speaker>now and saying no foreign ownership rather than having a problem like we have with our <v Speaker>oil situation now where the foreign countries are saying, you've had it, we've got <v Speaker>control. <v Speaker>Mr. Kandal, don't most farmers fear a concentration of land ownership by <v Speaker>by any large agribusiness corporation as much as they fear foreign investment investment? <v Speaker>Aren't American corporations buying up as much land or more land and then foreign <v Speaker>investors? <v Speaker>Now, the fact is from statistics that we have available, that neither corporations nor <v Speaker>foreign investors are buying it up in anywhere near the kind of figures that some
<v Speaker>of the sensational stories would tend to indicate that although farmers have a concern <v Speaker>of this possibility happening, there been many times in the history of both <v Speaker>Ohio and the United States where foreign ownership has been much higher than it has been. <v Speaker>Now we've survived. That was certainly no problems. <v Speaker>And I think basically the more advantages to this than our disadvantage. <v Speaker>So you're saying then that in the future we're not likely to see most Ohio farms run by <v Speaker>giant corporations? They will still be family farms. <v Speaker>Well, it's proven that most of the corporation experiences have shown that <v Speaker>they really can't run the farms as effectively, as efficiently. <v Speaker>From a corporation standpoint, as a farmer who owns land, who's involved in it for his <v Speaker>own personal business. <v Speaker>Representative Locher, on the one hand, the state is bending over backwards to attract <v Speaker>foreign investors. And then on the other hand, your committee passed a bill prohibiting <v Speaker>it. Do you see any possible conflict there? <v Speaker>No, we're talking about a couple of different entities. <v Speaker>When you're talking foreign investment, I don't mind their investment. <v Speaker>But when you're talking about owning the land and response to the comment we've just made
<v Speaker>about the amount of acreage, foreign investment is smart money and they're looking <v Speaker>for prime ag land. They don't want to rock piles that I have to raise my garden in. <v Speaker>They want prime ag land, which is which is another significant point. <v Speaker>Now, I don't think that is an overreaction. I'm glad to have them invest, but not in <v Speaker>buying the one commodity, which is a non replenishable source, <v Speaker>which is the land itself. <v Speaker>But what's really the difference between Honda buying land to build a motorcycle plant <v Speaker>and a group of West Germans buying land to build an egg farm? <v Speaker>The primary difference there is that the if handled properly and I think we need to go <v Speaker>a little further than than just prohibiting foreign investment. <v Speaker>If handled property properly, the prime ag land should be <v Speaker>preserved so that you don't have that type of foreign investment picking up that to put <v Speaker>a Honda plant or anything else on it. There are other places that they can build. <v Speaker>They can. They can, at least from American factories. <v Speaker>If that was an alternative offered, hey, the smart money says they can make money here if <v Speaker>the alternative is leasing an American established built factories such as General Motors
<v Speaker>that several plants. <v Speaker>Not put their money there. I say that very positively, I don't. <v Speaker>I don't check with my foreign investors to see. But from what I can gather and the <v Speaker>information we've had, that's a valid statement. <v Speaker>Representative Locker, I read something where it said Department of Agriculture <v Speaker>statisticians said that the conversion of good farmland to <v Speaker>highways, factories and homes by Ohioans is of much <v Speaker>greater concern or should be of much greater concern than the threat of foreign takeover <v Speaker>of farmland. How would you react to that? <v Speaker>I think presently it probably is as great a concern. <v Speaker>But one of the things that always happens is if you if you can't detract head on <v Speaker>with a problem, what you do is say, well, geez, smallpox is as bad as measles, <v Speaker>which is supposed to dissipate the problem. <v Speaker>Yeah, we have problems with our highways. Yeah. We ought to control how those are abused. <v Speaker>But I think our foreign invest, at least we still have the land here and we still have <v Speaker>the power as a state to say cease and desist, etc.. <v Speaker>When you're talking about foreign investment, once that foreign company owns the land
<v Speaker>here, then you're talking about an international incident. <v Speaker>When you say we're going to nationalize all the lands this year, whatever the problem is, <v Speaker>we've really got a problem. Therein lies the difference to me between state. <v Speaker>There is abuse, genuinely is abuse, and we ought to be cognizant it and work towards <v Speaker>it and do something about it. We're at this time addressing alien ownership because that <v Speaker>seems to be more of a problem in the forefront at this time. <v Speaker>Are you satisfied with the bill as it is, and do you think it has a good chance of <v Speaker>passing the full house? <v Speaker>I think it has a very substantial chance of passing the full house. <v Speaker>I think at this time it is a decent bill. <v Speaker>There is argument about it being unconstitutional. <v Speaker>And I've got to get a shot in here. <v Speaker>The people in my district in the state of Iowa hired me to be a legislator, not to be a <v Speaker>Supreme Court justice, to decide whether it's constitutional or not. <v Speaker>That's not my game. I am to legislate what is asked for by people. <v Speaker>And I think, frankly, it is constitutional. We've checked enough to find that it is <v Speaker>acceptable, but I think it has a good chance. <v Speaker>And I think it's probably a solid. But it's not it's not a strong bill. <v Speaker>It's not a destructive bill.
<v Speaker>It's very neat and very rather precise. I mean, I think it has a good chance of being <v Speaker>passed. <v Speaker>Mr. can't use your organization as taking a more active role in <v Speaker>this bill when they meet again in January. <v Speaker>We've had several of our farmer members testify on the bill to this point, and I would <v Speaker>assume that that would continue. <v Speaker>There's also a federal legislation addressing the problem of the capital gains tax. <v Speaker>That's not only passed the Senate, but it's being heard in the House this past week. <v Speaker>Speculation is that it's moving very well and would progress when <v Speaker>they resume the beginning of the year. <v Speaker>We would be strongly supportive of that. And for the time being, until the secretary of <v Speaker>state's reports and so forth are complete. We think that that would certainly be well <v Speaker>enough for the problem. <v Speaker>Okay. Well, thank you very much, gentlemen. That's all the time we have. <v Speaker>Our pleasure. <v Speaker> Next week on Ohio Journal. <v Speaker>We'll look at charges that the state is dumping mental patients out of institutions <v Speaker>and into the community without the help they need to live on their own. <v Speaker>And a look at how two editorial cartoonists view their work.
Series
Ohio Journal
Episode Number
No. 511
Episode
The Ohio Lottery; Foreign Ownership of Ohio Farmland
Segment
The Ohio Lottery
Segment
Foreign Ownership of Ohio Farmland
Producing Organization
Ohio Educational Broadcasting Network Commission
WOSU-TV (Television station : Columbus, Ohio)
Contributing Organization
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia (Athens, Georgia)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip-526-jh3cz33b2z
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip-526-jh3cz33b2z).
Description
Series Description
"OHIO JOURNAL is a weekly public affairs series which reports on state government and state political issues for all the member stations of the Ohio Educational Broadcasting Network. The program entered is typical of the series and features two reports. The first is a mini-doc examining the problems and benefits of the Ohio lottery. The second is a mini-doc and studio interview on proposed legislation which would prohibit foreign ownership of Ohio farmland. "The target audience for the OHIO JOURNAL series is all Ohioans who are interested in state government and public policy. The goal of the series is to provide to the public comprehensive reporting of the activities of state government and officials."--1979 Peabody Awards entry form.
Broadcast Date
1979-12-15
Asset type
Episode
Media type
Moving Image
Duration
00:29:30.836
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Executive Producer: Borstein, Steven
Producer: Zimmermann, George
Producing Organization: Ohio Educational Broadcasting Network Commission
Producing Organization: WOSU-TV (Television station : Columbus, Ohio)
Reporter: Garvey, Peggy
Reporter: Cohen, Bill
AAPB Contributor Holdings
The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia
Identifier: cpb-aacip-0c918037267 (Filename)
Format: U-matic
Duration: 00:30:00
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Ohio Journal; No. 511; The Ohio Lottery; Foreign Ownership of Ohio Farmland; The Ohio Lottery; Foreign Ownership of Ohio Farmland,” 1979-12-15, The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed June 26, 2022, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-526-jh3cz33b2z.
MLA: “Ohio Journal; No. 511; The Ohio Lottery; Foreign Ownership of Ohio Farmland; The Ohio Lottery; Foreign Ownership of Ohio Farmland.” 1979-12-15. The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. June 26, 2022. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-526-jh3cz33b2z>.
APA: Ohio Journal; No. 511; The Ohio Lottery; Foreign Ownership of Ohio Farmland; The Ohio Lottery; Foreign Ownership of Ohio Farmland. Boston, MA: The Walter J. Brown Media Archives & Peabody Awards Collection at the University of Georgia, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-526-jh3cz33b2z