 |
Campaign cash plays a significant role in Ohio elections. Money has a corrupting influence on politics because it allows the wealthiest among us to exert undue influence. Political reforms, including campaign finance reform, easier access to information, and improvements in governmental ethics laws, are essential. We deserve accountable government that is responsive to our needs.
The Ohio Citizen Action Education Fund, the research affiliate of Ohio Citizen has been producing money in politics studies since 1994. The Money in Politics Project researches contributions to Ohio statewide and legislative candidates. The Money in Politics Project is committed to “following the money” by exposing the source of candidates’ campaign funds.
Recent News
Mar 16: Husted wants corporate funds disclosed
COLUMBUS -- "If unions and corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money trying to influence elections in Ohio, state legislators say they at least should do it in the open.
Sen. Jon Husted, a Kettering Republican and candidate for secretary of state, yesterday proposed new disclosure requirements to deal with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited cash to help elect or defeat candidates. A week earlier, House Democrats introduced their own plan.
'While the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the right to free speech, we should take steps to ensure there is proper disclosure of these expenditures,' Husted said. The court 'did not rule that they had a right to anonymous free speech,'" Jim Siegel, The Columbus Dispatch.
Senator Husted's Letter to President Harris and Speaker Budish
Feb 17: Editorial: Ohio needs new disclosure law on election money
DAYTON -- "Corporations cannot spend money directly on state elections, under Ohio law. Nevertheless, a bill may soon be pending in the legislature that regulates how they do that. Moreover, the bill is a good idea.
Long story.
The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the practice of not allowing direct corporate spending on elections. In future federal elections (that is, for Congress and the presidency), corporations — and unions — may spend as much as they want, so long as they don’t contribute directly to candidates.... Whatever one’s expectations, disclosure is desirable. It will cause executives to think harder before jumping into issues that might divide their stockholders or customers. And the public simply has a right to know — whether it has a taste to know or not — where political money is coming from," Dayton Daily News.
Feb 17: Editorials: after ‘Citizens United,’ new disclosure needed
WASHINGTON DC -- "The need for more sunlight on corporate political spending, following the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, lies at the heart of editorials in two major newspapers about proposed congressional fixes.
Referring to upcoming legislation outlined by Sen. Charles Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the Baltimore Sun editorialized that 'the approach appears to be right on track: Ban expenditures where possible, toughen reporting requirements, and disclose, disclose, disclose.' The editorial also asked why the proposal lacks provisions for public financing of congressional elections.
A Washington Post editorial labeled the Democrats’ framework an 'important proposal.' Letting corporations spend political money secretly–by channeling donations through trade associations or other groups that are not required to disclose donors–is 'the most dangerous aspect' of Citizens United, the editorial noted," Peter Hardin, Gavel Grab.
Feb 16: Former University Heights official must reimburse city for misused funds
COLUMBUS -- "Former University Heights Finance Director Arman Ochoa helped himself to $69,795 in payroll advances and $1,496 in vacation leave overpayments, according to a state audit of fiscal year 2008.
The report from State Auditor Mary Taylor detailed the misuse of funds going back to 2005.
The city has recovered $37,841 and Ochoa is expected to repay the remaining $33,451, officials said. Ochoa was finance director from 2000 until 2009," Tonya Sams, Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Feb 8: Exclusive: How corporations secretly move millions to fund political ads
WASHINGTON DC -- "Exclusive: How corporations secretly move millions to fund political adsThe Supreme Court’s seismic January ruling that corporations are free to spend unlimited amounts of their profits to advertise for or against candidates may have been the latest shakeup of campaign finance – but gaping holes already allow corporations to spend enormous sums without leaving a paper trail, a Raw Story investigation has found.
Campaign finance experts confirmed that though disclosure rules remained intact in the new Supreme Court decision, there are effective methods to circumvent them. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, an attorney and campaign finance expert at New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, said corporations already effectively end-run campaign finance law by shuffling money through trade associations," Brad Jacobson, The Raw Story. Posted Feb 4.
Feb 2:
Who is New Models?
COLUMBUS -- "Anyone wishing to find out who bankrolled a campaign to halt Gov. Ted Strickland's plan for slot machines at racetracks was supposed to be able to find out [Friday, January 29].
That was the deadline for LetOhioVote.org to report its funding sources to Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner. The group, headed by three conservatives, has refused to provide information about who is paying its considerable bills. (Those bills add up to more than $1.5 million, mostly to mount a petition drive to place Strickland's slots-at-racetracks plan on the November ballot.)
But [Friday, January 29] only deepened the mystery," Jim Siegel, The Columbus Dispatch.
Who funded slots foes?
Jon Craig, Cincinnati Enquirer.
Feb 1:
Battle for House gears up
Parties raise record campaign gifts in '09; GOP needs 4 more seats to regain control
COLUMBUS -- "Signaling just how fierce the two parties will battle for control of the Ohio House, Democrats and Republicans each posted a record fundraising total for 2009.
Republicans need a net pickup of four seats in November to regain control of the chamber.
The House Democratic Caucus, which uses its money to help House Democratic candidates in key districts across the state, raised a record $4.5 million since the start of 2009 and ended the year with a bit more than $4 million on hand. Leading the caucus is Speaker Armond Budish, whose fundraising efforts have been well-known since he first ran for office in 2006," Jim Siegel, The Columbus Dispatch.
Jan 25: Editorial: Corporations didn’t need more rights
WASHINGTON DC -- "The court has ruled that corporations may use unlimited amounts of their own money on federal elections. That overturns a 63-year-old law federal. Ohio has a similar law.
And the corporations (and presumably unions) are no longer banned from funding 'issue-oriented' ads out of their general fund in the two months before an election, as they were under McCain-Feingold.
However, the corporations may still not give money directly to candidates. (The court was silent on that.) And the part of McCain-Feingold that banned unlimited contributions to national parties remains in force," Dayton Dayly News.
Stunning show of judicial activism
Erwin Chemerinsky, Akron Beacon Journal.
McCain says campaign finance reform is dead
Associated Press.
Jan 22: Expect an 'onslaught' of Ohio political ads this fall, thanks to Supreme Court on corporations and free speech
WASHINGTON DC -- "That's Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's advice for Americans this fall, when they could get caught in an onslaught of TV, radio and Internet political commercials, the velocity and volume of which we've never seen. The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday opened the gates for a new level of discourse, ruling 5-4 that corporations have a constitutional right to political communication. That means they can use shareholder money, and labor unions can use membership money, to run ads, show critical movies, mock or praise politicians, and urge voters to support or oppose candidates for election.
They'll be able to spend as much as they wish," Sabrina Eaton and Reginald Fields, Cleveland Plain Dealer.
Ruling could render Ohio's campaign-spending law toothless
Mark Niquette, The Columbus Dispatch.
Jan 21: High Court rolls back campaign spending limits
WASHINGTON DC -- "The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down key provisions of some of the central laws governing how the nation's political campaigns are financed just ahead of the pivotal 2010 midterm congressional primaries and election season.
By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, overturning a 20-year-old ruling.
It could take weeks to sort through the full ramifications of the landmark ruling, but its ripple effects could endanger federal limits on corporate and union contributions to candidates, as well as other measures that restrict how political ads are regulated. The ruling could unleash a flow of new corporate cash into the political realm," Deborah Tedford, Liz Halloran, National Public Radio.
Timeline: America's campaign finance rules
Supreme Court ends campaign-spending limits for corporations, unions
Ruling might have major effect on this fall's elections
Mark Sherman, Associated Press.
|
|
