Campaign finance reform pushed

By Kevin Osborne, Post staff reporter

A coalition of civic groups is hoping the image of a grinning, cigar- chomping cat holding a pawful of cash will remind Cincinnati voters of the powerful interests who pump massive amounts of money into City Council campaigns - and persuade voters to help pick up the tab themselves.

The groups, united as the Fair Elections Coalition, are circulating petitions to place a charter amendment on the ballot that would create a system of voluntary campaign spending limits tied to partial public financing of campaigns.

After more than a year of planning and false starts, the coalition has collected about 3,000 of the 6,900 signatures it needs to place an initiative on the ballot.

If successful, the measure would go before voters in May or November 2001.

Supporters, who say the plan would lessen the influence of special interests and make elected officials more accountable, concede convincing voters to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize political campaigns will be a tough sell.

But they believe the complicated plan can best be summed up with the feline image and the slogan, ''Who owns City Hall - you or the fat cats?''

Large donations from wealthy contributors and groups are driving legislative policies and agendas, and that leads to bad decisions, backers said.

''We're trying to put ordinary citizens back in control of elections, instead of big money,'' said William K. Woods, a coalition spokesman.

Under the proposal, council candidates could raise up to $50,000 privately and receive up to $100,000 in matching public money from the city's general fund. Mayoral candidates could raise up to $100,000 privately and receive up to $200,000 in public funds.

In return, the amount of individual contributions would be limited and the candidates would be required to provide more extensive information on contributors.

Similar campaign financing systems have been established in several cities nationwide, from New York City to Phoenix, Az.

Although mandatory spending limits have been ruled unconstitutional by the courts - including in Cincinnati - voluntary limits in some cities have been upheld.

Among the groups that have endorsed the effort are the Cincinnati Area League of Women Voters, the Charter Committee, Citizens for Civic Renewal, the NAACP, Cincinnati Women's Political Caucus, Woman's City Club and Ohio Citizen Action.

During the past decade, costs to campaign for City Council have skyrocketed. Total campaign spending by all council candidates increased from about $960,000 in the late 1980s to more than $2.3 million in recent elections.

Based on past City Council elections, it is estimated the proposal would require up to $850,000 from the city's general fund each year. Adding probable mayoral campaign costs, the cost could rise up to about $1.5 million annually.

Several current City Council members, however, are lining up against the plan.

Council's Republicans - Pat DeWine, Phil Heimlich and Charlie Winburn - oppose the proposal.

Many GOP activists say it costs more to elect a Republican in the predominantly Democratic city.

''Think of all things that could be better done with this money - more neighborhood police patrols, improved health care or tax cuts,'' DeWine said.

''In addition to the outrageous costs, it is inappropriate to force taxpayers to fund messages they oppose,'' he added. ''Think of the council member you like the least. Should the government really take your money and force you to pay for his campaign?''

''If you don't have the ability to raise money, you shouldn't be running for office,'' Winburn said. ''There shouldn't be any limits, this is the American Way. I'm going to work against this and beat it down precinct by precinct.''

Plan supporters said they have met with Mayor Charlie Luken, a Democrat, who had a lukewarm reaction.

''The general public isn't all that enamored of the current City Council,'' Woods said. ''Voters are ready for change and reform. Especially if the biggest spenders come out against us, that could work in our favor.

''We feel $150,000 should be sufficient to get anybody's voice out there and heard, and especially the $300,000 for mayor,'' Woods added. ''We know this isn't perfect, there are still holes. But it's a start. We've reached the point where we need to do something.''