Former Lawmakers Threaten Legal Action Over Cleveland Browns Funding
Two Democratic former lawmakers are making headlines as they consider legal action against the state of Ohio regarding a controversial budget proposal. Their potential lawsuit arises from concerns over the allocation of $600 million from unclaimed funds to the Cleveland Browns for the development of a new domed stadium in Brook Park. This allocation raises fundamental questions about ownership rights and the use of taxpayer dollars.
Unclaimed Funds at the Center of Controversy
The budget proposal includes $1.7 billion out of a total of $4.8 billion in unclaimed funds, earmarking a significant portion for a sports and cultural facilities fund. The plan is outlined in the recently approved House Bill 96, which seeks to provide financial backing to the Haslam Sports Group in a form of a loan that would be paid back over 16 years with interest.
Former State Representative Jeffrey Crossman argues this approach is unconstitutional. He states, “These funds belong to all those hardworking Ohioans with forgotten savings accounts and uncashed checks. They’re not abandoned. That’s not state assets. This is private property.”
The Legal Challenge: A Stand for Individual Rights
Both Crossman and former Attorney General Marc Dann have made it clear: if Governor Mike DeWine does not veto this provision, they will file a lawsuit on behalf of the individuals who have made claims to these unclaimed funds.
“We’re not anti-stadium; we’re anti-theft,” stressed Crossman. Dann followed up, underscoring the importance of protecting individual property rights as a cornerstone of conservative values, a viewpoint they feel is being overlooked by current Republican leadership. “They’re saying we don’t care that you own this money,” Dann lamented.
Exploring the Republican Perspective
Supporters of the funding, primarily Republicans, argue that unclaimed funds have historically been used to cover budget deficits and other expenditures. However, Crossman and Dann challenge this long-standing practice, asserting, “This is the most blatant example of using these funds to benefit a private entity for their construction project. It’s unprecedented.”
Governor DeWine’s initial budget plan proposed a different method to fund this project through a doubling of the tax on sports gambling operators. However, House Republicans stripped that provision and instead opted for a package of 30-year state-backed bonds for the stadium. While DeWine hinted at a potential veto, he has yet to make a firm decision on the issue.
Conclusion: A Call to Action
The potential legal battle over the Cleveland Browns funding not only raises questions about the ethical use of taxpayer dollars but also ignites a broader conversation about property rights and government responsibility. As discussions heat up, both lawmakers and citizens will be watching closely to see how this situation unfolds.
For further insights, check out House Bill 96 and more on DeWine’s funding proposals.
