When the final pre-election campaign finance reports for local races were filed Oct. 24, the group backing Issue 8 — which seeks to overturn a campaign reform measure narrowly approved by voters last November — did not file a report, indicating less than $1,000 had been raised.

However, during the final week of the campaign, pro-Issue 8 radio advertisements, yard signs and newspaper ads have appeared, evidence that a sizable amount of money has been raised and spent on behalf of the ballot measure since the Oct. 24 filing deadline.

While the actions of the Yes on 8 committee are legal, Issue 8's opponents argue that they underline the need for the kind of campaign finance reform passed last year.

"This kind of deception and hiding of big donations until after the election is a good argument that we need all the campaign finance reform we can get,'' said Issue 8 opponent Bill Woods.

Cincinnati City Council Member Chris Monzel, one of Issue 8's leading advocates, denied today that the group is deliberately trying to conceal its campaign contributions until after Tuesday.

"We're not trying to hide anything at all,'' Monzel said. "The money just hadn't come in yet by the last report. In fact, they're still collecting checks. But nothing's being hidden.''

However, Issue 8's backers offered a similar explanation last year when they opposed the public financing plan, on the November 2001 ballot as Issue 6, which passed by 547 votes out of nearly 85,000 ballots cast.

In last year's campaign, opponents of public financing did not reveal $68,500 in donations until after the election.

"When it occurs two times in a row, there's not much doubt about what the other side's trying to do,'' Woods said.

Monzel said he anticipates about $25,000 will be spent for Issue 8 — a figure the measure's opponents predict will be much higher. As of the Oct. 24 report, the anti-Issue 8 group reported raising $14,499, and since has raised another $5,000 Woods said.

The tactic of holding back public disclosure of major political contributions, within legal time limits, occasionally surfaces in races for office and ballot measure campaigns. In the 1996 battle over a half-cent sales tax to help build new stadiums for the Reds and Bengals, for example, tax supporters filed one pre-election report showing they had raised only about $3,400 — although the group already had bought nearly $100,000 in TV ads by the time that report was filed.

If Issue 8 is approved, it would overturn the public financing provisions of Issue 6, which also established voluntary campaign spending limits for Cincinnati council and mayoral races.

Billed by backers as a way to curtail big money's influence in Cincinnati politics, last year's measure created a $1,000 contribution limit for individual donors, a $2,500 limit for political action committees and a $10,000 limit for political parties. Mayoral and council candidates willing to abide by a voluntary cap on overall spending — three times the offices' respective salaries — would be eligible for $2 in public money for every $1 in private donations raised.

City Council members' current annual salary is $57,150, creating a $171,450 voluntary limit, an amount substantially below what some major candidates typically spend.

Last year, four of the nine winning candidates surpassed that figure, led by Republican Pat DeWine's $409,715, according to a study released Wednesday by Ohio Citizen Action, a non-partisan watchdog group. The voluntary cap for mayoral candidates would be $342,900, three times that office's $114,300 salary.

Supporters of Issue 8 argue that it is inappropriate to fund campaigns with tax dollars. Under the 2-for-1 formula established by last year's measure, council candidates who raise $57,150 in private donations would qualify for a maximum of $114,300 in public dollars.

Given that several dozen candidates typically run in the biennial field campaigns for the nine council seats, public financing could cost the city about $2 million per election — money better spent, they contend, on police and fire protection and other city.

But Issue 8's opponents contend that because of the fund-raising thresholds that trigger public financing — council candidates, to demonstrate their seriousness, must raise at least $5,000 from 150 contributors — the measure's actual cost would be far less, probably only about $500,000 per election.