Sunday, April 23, 2000

By Darrel Rowland
Dispatch Public Affairs Editor

What motivated the Ohio Republican Party to make sure the bookshelves at its headquarters were built-in?

How could a Dublin investor write a $200,000 check to the Ohio Democratic Party when state law then limited campaign contributions to parties to $15,500?

Why were there were no legislative fund- raisers March 27 but a half-dozen a day later?

A recently revealed scheme to trade access to top state officials for big political donations is only one of many tricks of the trade used to manuever through Ohio's loophole-ridden campaign-finance laws.

The convoluted set of regulations governing campaign money has occupied center stage for the past week since The Dispatch uncovered Gov. Bob Taft's offer of a reception at the Governor's Residence or a spot in his box at Ohio Stadium to donors who gave $25,000 or $50,000 to the Ohio Republican Party. The campaign cash was slated for the party's operating fund, which, under Ohio law, is secret as long as the money is used only for operational expenses of the party.

Taft, Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell and all other statewide officeholders have called for a law making future operating-fund records public. And next month, Blackwell plans to roll out a plan for sweeping campaign-finance reforms.

"We need to fundamentally change the way we conduct the people's business,'' Blackwell said. "The people's confidence in the political and legislative process is at an all-time low. Government needs to be more transparent.''

But a huge roadblock stands in the way of reform: Senate President Richard H. Finan.

Finan flatly refuses to consider any changes in state campaign-finance laws.

"Every time you bring a campaign-finance bill to the Senate floor, it becomes a circus,'' the longtime Republican legislator from Cincinnati said. "We're not going to have that.''

But critics said the real circus is the never-ending quest to find ways through and around Ohio's campaign-finance laws.

For example, the Ohio GOP's bookcases and other furniture at its headquarters were built-in so they would be considered part of the building. And if they were part of the building, they could be funded by the party's building fund.

Why is the building fund important? Because, under a loophole in state law, it's the only fund eligible to receive direct corporate contributions. Three corporations chipped in $100,000 apiece when the $1.5 million facility at 211 S. 5th St. opened in the mid-1990s. The building fund has attracted major corporate donors every year since, including $5,000 from tobacco giant Philip Morris in December.

Ohio lawmakers established campaign-contribution limits in 1995. But while the caps applied to a party's state candidate fund -- which provides cash directly to candidates -- the legislature exempted the similar- sounding state campaign fund, which can be used for more genertic expenditures.

The latter fund is where a $200,000 check from Montford Will, a securities executive from Dublin, landed two weeks before the 1998 election. Adding in other donations, Will padded Democratic coffers by $360,000 -- and almost none of the money was subject to contribution limits.

Legislators have demonstrated that they understand the most effective ways to raise cash. No matter where they're from, lawmakers often schedule fund-raisers in Columbus to coincide with legislative sessions -- when lobbyists and representatives of special-interest groups are eager to open their wallets.

Thus, no fund-raisers were held on March 27, when neither the House nor the Senate was in session; but several were held the next day, when legislators considered such issues as the estimated $1.8 billion capital-budget bill.

Twenty-seven states restrict fund- raisers during legislative sessions, and Blackwell wants to add Ohio to the list.

Some states bar all fund-raisers while the legislature is in session, and others restrict contributions from lobbyists. Illinois doesn't allow fund-raisers within 50 miles of the state capital, except those for lawmakers whose districts lie in that area.

"People perceive deals are being cut and bills getting passed not on the merits of the legislation, but on wining and dining during the period the legislature is in session,'' Blackwell said.

"People around the state believe their votes are marginalized. They believe they send people to Washington, D.C., or Columbus, and then they start listening to other voices: the insiders.''

James Ruvolo, former chairman of the Ohio Democratic Party, said what is obvious to most: "Donors have always received access for their contributions, though both they and the candidate often deny that.''

He noted that since ethics reforms in 1994 severely limited lobbyists' ability to buy meals and gifts for legislators, much of their "unofficial'' contact with lawmakers now comes at political fund-raisers.

There's danger for Ohioans in those gatherings, said Larry Makinson, director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.

"The reality is that campaign contributions are probably the most powerful persuader in the lobbyist's toolbox -- at least on those issues where the public isn't paying attention,'' he said.

"At its rawest, it's flat-out influence peddling. At its best, it compromises the perceived independence of legislators and raises suspicions among the public that money can influence decisions that are supposed to be made in the interest of the public at large.''

Ohio's last major campaign-finance reform came five years ago. Critics said the changes primarily benefited political parties, not necessarily citizens.

For example, contributions to legislative candidates were capped at $2,500, but donations to parties' legislative caucuses could be as much as $5,000 and those to a state party's fund for state candidates could be up to $15,000 (a limit subsequently raised to $15,500, then $16,000).

But a major loophole was left open, allowing the parties to make unlimited in-kind contributions, donations of such valuable campaign staples as TV time or mass mailings.

Proponents of the 1995 reforms said the public benefits because the big money now goes to the party instead of to candidates.

Laura Yeomans of Ohio Citizen Action, who has spent hours with computerized state campaign-money data, disagreed.

"Candidates are not insulated from pressure because they participate in party fund-raising and because they are not fools,'' she said. "They know where the funding they received through the political party originally came from.''

Indeed, other statewide officeholders besides Taft came forward last week to acknowledge that they helped generate major contributions for the state GOP.

Makinson said Ohio's low limit on direct contributions to candidates, combined with the higher cap on donations to parties, is not a plus.

"The temptation for fund-raisers is to tell top-dollar donors to max out to the candidate and give extra to the parties, with a wink-and-a-nod understanding that the candidate will be extra grateful and the party will use it on that candidate's behalf,'' he said.

"If you want to look to the future of Ohio fund-raising, look to what's happening at the federal level today, where soft money has in some cases seemed to turn the parties into money-laundering machines.''