Election ad complaints rejected

Associated Press

COLUMBUS: The Ohio Elections Commission yesterday dismissed complaints against campaign ads that slammed Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick during last year's campaign.

The commission ruled 4-3 that it lacked jurisdiction because of a federal court ruling that gives campaign groups known as issue advocates leeway in producing such ads without adhering to contribution limits or disclosure laws. Norton Webster, an independent, joined Republicans on the panel in the vote.

Common Cause and the Alliance for Democracy filed the complaints against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Citizens for a Strong Ohio, respectively.

The ads implied that Resnick's votes on the court had been influenced by campaign contributions. The chamber's ad showed a bag of money being dumped out on the desk of a judge. The Citizens for a Strong Ohio ad showed the Lady Justice figure holding a set of scales weighed down by money.

Despite the ads, Resnick easily won re-election last November.

Don McTigue, a lawyer representing Common Cause, said he had hoped the commission would rule on the merits of the case.

``I think it's a sad day for the citizens of Ohio and especially a sad day for elections in Ohio. This means we're going to see a lot more money being spent on a lot more negative ads,'' said McTigue, who added he likely will appeal the commission's ruling in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

Common Cause and the Alliance for Democracy argued that the ads directly advocated Resnick's defeat. Issue ads are prohibited from explicitly urging the election or defeat of a certain candidate.

The groups also claimed that because of the ads' nature, the pro-business groups should be forced to disclose their contributors and the amounts they gave. The groups say they are not political action committees and are not bound by election disclosure laws.

The two groups spent at least $3 million on the ads, according to an Associated Press check of advertising records at television stations.

Resnick did not return a telephone message seeking comment on the ruling.

Republican Commissioner Mary Sullivan said U.S. Supreme Court rulings on whether such ads violate free speech rights kept jurisdiction from state bodies such as the commission.

Commissioner Judy Sheerer, a Democrat, agreed that disclosing contributors would fall outside the commission's jurisdiction but said the commission could rule on whether the ads included false statements.

The commission voted, along the same 4-3 lines, against separating the issues.

Sheerer, a former state senator, concluded that voters had the final say on the matter.

``I think the people of Ohio put them in their place,'' Sheerer said.

Matthew Kairis, a lawyer representing the chamber, said the ruling should end the case because the ruling applied only to whether there was cause for the commission to proceed. He said such decisions can't be appealed.

Other stories currently appearing on Ohio.com

• Settlement offered in Browns season-ticket holders' lawsuit
  
• Ohio and Pennsylvania consider joining forces in new lottery game
  
• Ford to plant workers: bacteria in water was harmless
  
• 13 barns damaged in Wayne, Holmes Counties; arson suspected
  
• Terry Pluto: Indians crowds have come a long way
  
• Canal Square YMCA thrives with best year since 1960s
  
• Akron man gets life term in killing
  
• Police find escapee in hot tub
  
• Nude studio can't trade in its image
  
• Indians even the score by upping White Sox 8-4
  
• Facing a facelift at Augusta
  
• Bright Net loses critical link when supplier closes down high-speed lines
  
• Sordid `E! True Hollywood Story' is lasting TV guilty pleasure
  
• Survivor: Who will be next now that Jerri is out of the game?
  
• E-Check gets `F' in air cleaning