FINDING: Ethical violations, often intertwined with campaign finance violations, have become commonplace in Ohio politics.

The Noe scandal, which primarily revolved around campaign finance and pay-to-play misdeeds, also triggered a closer examination of ethics filings. At the beginning of the Toledo Blade investigation of Noe in April 2005, Governor Bob Taft staunchly defended the state’s investment in rare coins, but within a short period of time, it became clear that there were problems with the investment.

In the face of increased public scrutiny, Governor Taft sent a letter to the Ohio Ethics Commission on June 14, 2005, stating that it had “recently come to my attention … that financial disclosure forms filed annually with the Ohio Ethics Commission failed to include golf outings in which I participated.” The Commission began an investigation and determined that, over a four-year period, the Governor had failed to disclose golf outings and other events paid for by lobbyists and business leaders in Ohio, including Noe. At least 52 undisclosed gifts were found, and the case was referred for prosecution. On August 19, 2005, Taft pleaded no contest to four ethics violations (one violation per annual ethics filing). He was ordered to pay a fine of $4,000 and issued a public apology. Before the sentencing, Taft apologized for what he described as "errors and omissions" on his statements.

Former aides to Governor Taft have also been found guilty of ethical violations. On July 29, 2005, Brian Hicks, former Chief of Staff to Governor Taft, and Cherie Carroll, Hicks’ executive assistant, admitted that they took gifts from Noe. Hicks pleaded no contest to knowingly failing to disclose that he and his family stayed at Noe’s 1.3 million dollar house in Florida in 2002 and 2003. Carroll pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor, accepting meals from Noe valued at over $500.

In February 2006, the Commission referred two more former Taft aides for prosecution: H. Douglas Talbott and J. Douglas Moorman. Talbott was referred for prosecution based on a complaint that he funneled Noe campaign contributions to three Ohio Supreme Court Justices and that he did not report the gift from Noe on his ethics filings. The Commission also referred Talbott to prosecutors for failing to disclose a $39,000 loan and meals from Noe. J. Douglas Moorman was referred to prosecutors because he failed to report a $5,000 loan from Noe. On February 24, 2006, Talbott received a $4,000 fine for breaking ethics and election laws and Moorman received a lesser fine of $1,000.

On June 7, 2006, Terry Gasper, the former chief financial officer of the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation pleaded guilty to federal racketeering counts of extortion for trading Bureau investment business. Gasper acknowledged that he accepted tuition for his son and stays a Florida condominium in exchange for business deals with the Bureau. Prosecutors may call him to testify against Noe. They allege that Gasper accepted $25,000 from Noe, in exchange for a contract to manage Bureau monies.

Unfortunately, ethics violations are not limited to public officials associated with Tom Noe. In the fall of 2003, chairman of the Ohio Police and Fire Pension board David Harker resigned from the board after the state's largest police organization called on him and two other trustees to step down. In June 2005, Harker pleaded guilty to four first-degree misdemeanor charges for receiving gifts from state contractors, including a golfing trip to Scotland and a trip to see The Ohio State University football team play in the 2002 National Championship. He also filed false ethics financial disclosure forms. In August 2005, Harker was ordered to pay a $2,000 fine as part of a plea agreement.

In 2001, Arnold Tompkin, the former director of the Ohio Department of Human Services pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges for improperly steering $60 million in mostly unbid contracts. He was sentenced to 300 hours of community service. The Consumers’ Counsel (utility watchdog), the manager of the state fair, and the director of the Ohio Turnpike Commission all resigned, after it was found that each accepted improper freebies from lobbyists or vendors.

FINDING: Current enforcement of ethics violations in Ohio is woefully inadequate.

This series of ethical violations spotlight the need for better disclosure. The Ohio Ethics Commission has jurisdiction over the executive branch and all public employees and public officials at the state and local level, except for judges and state legislators. Annual financial disclosure statements are filed with the Ethics Commission but they are not available online. Ohio law also does not require financial disclosure statements from village and township trustees who make many important zoning/development decisions in Ohio.

Ethical inquiries are long and intensive but they seldom result in more than light fines or community service. Cases that are referred to the Ohio Ethics Commission are not revealed to the public. Enforcement is difficult because prosecutors are not obliged to pursue cases that the Ohio Ethics Commission refers to them. Voters remain unaware of these investigations and referrals unless the prosecutors make them public.

The Joint Legislative Ethics Committee (JLEC) is comprised of twelve members of the General Assembly, six each from the two major political parties. There are six from each legislative chamber. Both chamber leaders, Senate President and House Speaker, are automatically appointed. The ten additional members from the House and Senate are appointed by the House Speaker and Senate President. JLEC was established to monitor the legislative branch’s compliance with Ohio's ethics law and to administer Ohio's lobbying laws. The Office of the Legislative Inspector General (OLIG) is accountable to the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee and is responsible for implementing the ethics and lobbying laws. In effect, this means that the Ohio General Assembly is policing itself.

During early 2005, the JLEC investigated veteran State Senator Ray Miller (D-Columbus) for “theft in office,” a fourth-degree felony. JLEC conducted an inquiry and determined that there was evidence that Senator Miller used both his Senate staffers and government equipment to work on his private nonprofit get-out-the-vote campaign called “Reclaim Our Democracy.” Senator Miller received a salary from this nonprofit. On March 28, 2005, JLEC sent a letter to the Franklin County Prosecutor indicating that there was substantial evidence of theft in office. The prosecutor decided not to press charges. Senator Ray Miller made a public apology in December 2005 and reimbursed the state $936.35 for “improper utilization of State assets.” JLEC eventually accepted Senator Miller’s apology and ordered him to complete one hour of ethics training.

On October 25, 2004, a prominent lobbyist Richard Colby invited six Republican lawmakers from Cincinnati to dinner and a Cincinnati Bengals game in a luxury box, but five members did not report these gifts. The tickets cost $300 apiece and the total cost for the evening surpassed $5000. JLEC decided not to impose any fines for this incident; instead it required those involved to attend one-hour of ethics training. JLEC sent the Ohio Attorney General information about their investigation of lobbyist Richard Colby’s omissions on the lobbyist disclosure statements and the Attorney General referred the matter to the Franklin County Prosecutor. Colby was found guilty and was fined $250.

In early 2005, the Legislative Inspector General Tony Bledsoe investigated transportation giant CSX for failing to report that it had paid for a fishing trip and conference about state tax laws held in Jacksonville, Florida. Legislators that attended this retreat included Speaker of the House Jon Husted, Rep. Bill Seitz, former Speaker Larry Householder, and Rep. Chuck Blasdel. After becoming aware of the situation, Bledsoe insisted that the legislators reimburse CSX for the trip to prevent any other ethics violations. All legislators did so in a timely manner. CSX was referred to the Attorney General’s office, and the AG referred the matter to the Franklin County Prosecutor.

FINDING: At a time when the number of lobbyists and expenditures for lobbying continue to rise, Ohio’s public disclosure requirements are not adequate to shed light on the impact of lobbying on elections and policymaking.

Although ranked 11th-best in the nation by the Washington-based Center for Public Integrity, Ohio's lobbying laws are in fact stronger on paper than in practice. Legislative Inspector General Bledsoe summed this up in February 2006 when he noted that Blockbuster rental stores have more power to enforce their late-return policies than he does to enforce some lobbying laws.

For example, two companies that employ lobbyists did not file the required forms detailing lobbying activities in 2005, but they were able to register and continue lobbying at the beginning of 2006. It is difficult to enforce ethics laws because legislators and lobbyists are required to submit financial disclosure forms at different times. Legislators file financial disclosure statements annually; lobbyists file statements three times per year. Some also find the reporting requirements confusing because disclosure for meals begins at $50, while disclosure for gifts begins at $25.

There are three different types of lobbyists in Ohio: legislative lobbyists, executive lobbyists, and retirement system lobbyists. Most lobbyists attempt to affect both legislative and executive decision-making. In 2005, there were ten lobbyists for every legislator (1388 to132). In the executive branch, where there are five executive branch officials and 24 executive branch departments, there were more than 30 lobbyists per decision-making entity (946 to 29). From 2002 to 2005, there was a dramatic increase in legislative lobbyist spending. While the number of lobbyists remained relatively steady, spending per lobbyist increased by 525 percent, while lobbyist spending per legislator rose by a whopping 584 percent.

Lobbyists enjoy unusually close and continuous access to lawmakers by the very nature of their employment and do face some disclosure requirements. Lobbyists must file separate reports for each employer, while employers are required to file one report that lists all agents in their employ. The forms require the name, business address, and occupation of the lobbyist, the name and business address of the employer and the party whose interests are being represented, and a brief description of the type of legislation expected to be affected. Lobbyists are required to disclose gifts and meals that they give to policy makers, but they are subject to the same rules as the general public for campaign contributions to these same officials. They are not required to report campaign contributions on their disclosure statements and are not required to report fundraising activities. Disclosure of all lobbyist activities in financial disclosure filings for the Ohio Legislative Ethics Commission would create a clearer picture of how lobbyists influence public policy.

All of these events have adversely affected Ohioans’ faith in the government. A November 2005 poll conducted for the George Gund Foundation by Belden Russonello & Stewart found that 71 percent of Ohio voters said that they had “little confidence” in state government. This polling mirrors research by the American National Elections Studies. According to their biennial poll, citizen confidence and public trust declined from more than 60 percent in the early 1960s to less than 30 percent by the year 2000.

All Ohio public officials, including township trustees, should be required to file ethics/financial disclosure statements more frequently (four times a year rather than once a year), and this information should be made available online in an easily searchable format. In addition, the state should take steps to provide the public with more complete and timely information about the investigations into and disposition of actual, suspected or potential ethics violations.

Ohio’s regulation of lobbying should be strengthened by requiring registered lobbyists to (1) report their campaign contributions when they file their financial/gift disclosure form and (2) report whether they were proponents, opponents or interested parties on the legislative measures they lobbied. Such information should be available to the public online in a searchable format that would permit citizens to enter a bill number and find out which lobbyists are being paid to advocate for or against it.

Enforcement of Ohio’s ethics laws and regulations, including current restrictions on former government officials becoming lobbyists, should be strengthened through increased funding for monitoring and enforcement activities and stiffer penalties for violations.

Lobbyists should be prohibited from actively working on candidate campaigns, acting as treasurers of associated political action committees, and from fundraising for political parties.