Saturday, October 21, 2000

Darrel Rowland and James Bradshaw
Dispatch Public Affairs Reporters

Ohioans' ability to know who bankrolls political campaigns might have suffered a severe blow, scholars and political experts say.

A decision Thursday by the Ohio Elections Commission upholding the legality of secret funding for a TV ad bashing Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick could have huge ramifications for future elections.

"The scary thing is, you are just seeing the beginning. It's just building up a head of steam,'' said Larry Makinson, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that studies campaign finances nationwide.

"This is the next frontier for political consultants and very big money. The importance of this can hardly be overestimated.''

Business interests in several states are pouring money into judicial campaigns, but none to the extent that they have in Ohio, where more than $3 million worth of anti- Resnick ads have been purchased, said Samantha Sanchez, co-director of the National Institute on Money in State Politics.

"I don't know of any other state where it's going on to that degree,'' she said. "I think that what's happening in Ohio is unique in terms of the concentrated effort that's being focused on one judge because she doesn't agree with the business community often enough.''

The anti-Resnick ad is being aired by Citizens for a Strong Ohio, a nonprofit corporation formed by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. Chamber members are upset that Resnick has ruled with a 4-3 majority on what they regard as anti-business decisions.

Legally, the 30-second spot is considered an "issues-advocacy'' commercial -- not a political ad.

The distinction is huge.

Groups running issues-advocacy ads do not have to divulge their source of money. Contribution limits do not apply. And cash can be obtained from virtually anywhere, including corporations, unions or foreign interests.

While issues-advocacy groups have become almost common in congressional elections, the anti- Resnick ads are thought to represent the first large-scale effort of this type in an Ohio statewide race.

Chairmen of both of Ohio's major political parties fear the campaigns for governor and other statewide offices in 2002 will attract similar secret financing.

"The special interests are starting to rule,'' said Robert T. Bennett, chairman of the Ohio Republican Party. "I'm afraid it's what we may be seeing in the future in Ohio.''

Ohio Democratic Chairman David J. Leland agreed.

"You're going to see all sorts of secret funds by multinational corporations pouring money into Ohio trying to buy politicians,'' Leland said. "I suspect this is going to continue and get worse.''

Bennett said the special-interest groups' use of the secret funds is a logical extension of the state government lobbyists who recruit, advise and help finance candidates -- and then seek favors once the candidates are in office.

Leland said the problem is not a partisan issue.

"I think this is a bigger thing than parties or candidates,'' he said. "It's a threat to our democracy and system of government.''

Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell also expects issues-advocacy groups to proliferate in state campaigns. He predicted that any attempt to "put the brakes on free speech'' through spending limits will be unsuccessful.

"They (backers of one side or the other) will find ways around them,'' Blackwell said.

He was not surprised that the advocacy groups are coming under fire by both state party chairmen.

"Their political influence is challenged, their power and influence eroded,'' Blackwell said.

A dissenting voice comes from state Rep. Jeff Jacobson, R-Brookville, who helped developed Ohio's latest campaign-finance reforms in the mid-1990s.

He dismissed predictions that the secret funds would mushroom in future state elections. The issues-advocacy ads cropped up this year because of the unique circumstances of the Supreme Court race.

"I don't see a role for it in a generally contested statewide election,'' Jacobson said.

Philip Richter, executive director of the Ohio Elections Commission, also pans the notion that the role of issues-advocacy groups will grow.

"I don't believe there's going to be a proliferation,'' he said.

There's merit to both forecasts, said John Green, director of the University of Akron's Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics.

Certainly, the race involving the Supreme Court is unique because of strict spending limits on the candidates and ethical constraints on what they themselves are allowed to say, he noted.

Still, once a new method of funding an election is broached, it seldom is abandoned, Green said.

"There certainly is the possibility that this kind of campaigning will become more common in Ohio,'' he said. "From the point of view of a donor, this is pretty attractive. They can give money and face no consequences.

"It strikes at the very legitimacy of the campaign-finance system.''

Already, a nonprofit corporation formed by AT&T called Competition Ohio is airing ads in several Ohio House races. The ads -- like the anti- Resnick spot -- do not use "express advocacy'' to directly push for the election or defeat of a candidate, so the group is exempt from contribution limits and disclosure requirements.

The AT&T group has bought an estimated $200,000 worth of ads, including $60,000 on behalf of Rep. James P. Mettler, a suburban Toledo Republican, and $40,000 for Rep. Jim Hughes, a Columbus Republican.

Meanwhile, the ad wars intensified in the Supreme Court battle.

The Ohio Democratic Party released a commercial yesterday in response to the anti-Resnick ad. The new missive asks, "Why are corporations and big insurance companies spending millions to distort Justice Alice Resnick's record?''

The latest ad also takes a strong swipe at Republican Justice Deborah L. Cook, who also seeks re-election, contending she "voted 'no' to our kids'' when she dissented in a 4-3 ruling that found Ohio's system of funding schools unconstitutional.

Resnick voted in the majority on that 1997 ruling and wrote a follow- up opinion this year that the state has not done enough to correct the problems with school funding.

However, unlike the creators of the issues-advocacy ad, the Democratic Party must divulge its contributions and expenditures.

Richter of the elections commission said he recommended the panel throw out the complaint against the anti-Resnick ad. While he personally finds the commercial distasteful, Richter said, the commission is bound by U.S. Supreme Court rulings that equate political contributions with free speech protected by the First Amendment.

The high court has ruled that unless an ad contains explicit language advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, it is an issues ad, and the group paying for it does not have to reveal financial information, he said.

---