Automatic recount on campaign finance
By Kimball Perry, Post staff reporter
Hamilton County voters put their money where their hearts are
while Cincinnati voters will have to wait for a recount to learn
which side of the debate over campaign finance won.
Issue 6 - an attempt to limit money used in political campaigns
by using partial public funding for candidates who agree to
voluntary spending limits - lost by 23 votes with 40,861 or 49.99
percent for and 40,884 or 50.01 percent against.
That represents a difference of less than one-half of 1 percent
and means an automatic recount.
But Ohio legislator and Issue 6 opponent Tom Brinkman is
convinced that it will pass when all the votes are counted.
''We're going to lose on the provisional votes,'' Brinkman said.
''We did nothing on the absentees. We're going to lose.''
Provisional votes are some absentee and ''walk-in'' votes that
are counted last.
''I just don't think we'll win,'' Brinkman said.
That's fine with Bill Woods, one of the co-chairs of the
pro-Issue 6 campaign.
''Local democracy needed some reform. Money is really warping the
political process,'' Woods said.
''There was a lot of effort to distort that message.''
It calls for limits on campaign fund raising with more money to
come from the city of Cincinnati general fund - which is facing a
$17 million deficit.
The measure would create 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 dollars for every $1
in private donations raised.
In reality, most incumbents have said they likely wouldn't abide
by the voluntary spending limits or seek public funding.
For that reason, only those candidates who have little money or
no name recognition would benefit from Issue 6.
Voters passed two countywide levies - to fund health care for the
indigent and to provide services for abused and neglected children -
already on the books.
Issue 1 provides continued support for health care for
the poor - as it has for the last 35 years. Voters approved it
Tuesday 55.7 percent to 44.3, or 113,125 to 89,993.
It is a renewal and increase of the existing levy and will raise
$264 million over five years, costing the owner of a $100,000 home
$70.05 annually, an increase from the current $50.74 per year.
It will provide medical care to about 40,000 indigent as well as
some care to inmates, and funding for alcohol and drug abuse
programs.
''Without the hospital levy, we wouldn't be able to provide the
access to quality medical care throughout the county,'' said Al
Tuchfarber, an Issue 1 proponent.
There shouldn't be a fight, he said, over which area hospitals
should re ceive levy funds that now go to University and Children's
hospitals in an approximate 80-20 percent split.
''Fairness to providers has never ever been an issue,''
Tuchfarber said.
''This levy was never designed ... on what's fair to providers.
It's what's best for taxpayers and the medically indigent.''
Issue 2, which will continue to provide services for
abused and neglected children, easily won 64.9 percent to 35.1, or
130,787 to 70,817.
It will generate $40 million annually over five years, costing
the owner of a $100,000 home $64 a year.
''When it comes to abuse and neglect, voters aren't stingy,''
said Issue 2 co-chair Brewster Rhoads.
''This is a shot in the arm to the hundreds of foster parents who
need a big hug.
''This is a big hug for those kids.''
.gif)
