Did City Council Ambush True Campaign Finance
Reform?
After a little hemming and hawing,
Cincinnati City Council last week passed its first campaign
finance reform law in years. But will the new law, which deals
only with information disclosure, mean the death of a
comprehensive reform package backed by a coalition of citizen
groups?
City Councilman Pat DeWine, the engineer of the new law,
based it on existing state and federal laws requiring
candidates reveal the employer and occupation of their donors.
The city ordinance applies to anyone giving $200 or more.
DeWine's law also closes a longstanding loophole. Until
now, candidates didn't have to report contributions accepted
within 19 days of the election until about a month after the
election was over. Candidates also didn't report any
election-year contributions until September.
"I think that's a real opportunity for abuse," DeWine says.
Under the new law, which passed 7-1 March 14, candidates
must file financial reports 120 days before and 60 days before
the election. They must also report within two business days
any contribution of $1,000 or more received during the final
19 days of the campaign. Any candidate failing to meet the
requirements could be fined $100 a day, or a maximum of
$2,500.
The city's Office of Contract Compliance and Administrative
Hearings and the Hamilton County Board of Elections will
collect the records, which will be published on a city Web
site.
Only Councilman Chris Monzel voted against the law, but it
took some debate to win passage.
Jeff Cramerding, executive director of the Charter
Committee, told council the law is a no-brainer.
"DeWine has thrown you an election-year softball,"
Cramerding said. "I hope you hit it out of the park."
Councilman John Cranley said the DeWine ordinance is a
matter of good government. "I think this goes a long way to
showing we have nothing to hide," Cranley said.
But Councilman Paul Booth said the two-day reporting
deadline for $1,000 contributions near election day could lead
to confusion and errors, casting suspicion on candidates only
guilty of poor bookkeeping.
Like Booth, Monzel was concerned that the law was too much
work, especially for a new candidate. DeWine scolded other
council members, calling some of their concerns "silly" and
self-centered.
"I hear people talking and talking about what's going to be
easier for the politicians," DeWine said, adding that council
is responsible for a $1.8 billion biannual budget and 7,000
employees. "Someone running for council ought to be able to
figure out how to do it," DeWine says.
But what about the city charter amendment backed by the
Fair Elections Coalition? If voters pass the charter amendment
-- which could reach the ballot in November -- candidates who
agree to only spend three times a councilmember's salary would
receive up to $2 in public funds for every $1 raised by a
campaign, with a maximum public funding of about $100,000 for
council candidates and about $200,000 for mayoral candidates
(see "Buying Back Council," issue of Jan. 4-10).
The amendment would create the Cincinnati Elections
Commission and give it subpoena powers to watch campaigns and
fine violators, and includes disclosure requirements similar
to DeWine's law.
But does DeWine's disclosure law steal enough momentum from
the charter amendment to derail it? Bill Woods, co-chair of
the Fair Elections Coalition, doesn't want to speculate.
"I'm not sure whether it makes it more difficult or not (to
pass it)," says Woods, who generally supported DeWine's
proposal.
So far the group has collected about half of the 6,800
signatures needed to put the proposal on the ballot. But Woods
says polls indicate the public is ready for a meaningful
change in the way campaigns work.
"I think it's in the wind," he says.
In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court effectively killed the
city's campaign spending limits, refusing to hear a
city-backed appeal of a lawsuit calling them unconstitutional.
Since 1976, the court has generally equated campaign spending
with free speech.
The old city law, passed by voters in 1994 but only in
effect for the 1997 election, limited spending to three times
a council member's or mayor's salary. It helped cut campaign
spending from a record $2.41 million for 17 candidates in 1995
to $2.07 million for 18 candidates in 1997.
BURNING QUESTIONS is our weekly attempt to afflict the
comfortable.
.gif){kind=small}
.gif){kind=small}
