Friday, February 23, 2001

Robert Ruth
Dispatch Staff Reporter

A federal lawsuit will not stop the Ohio Elections Commission from deciding next week whether the names of contributors to a secret campaign fund should be made public.

And U.S. District Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. indicated yesterday that the Elections Commission might wrap up its entire investigation of the secret-fund case before he rules on the constitutionality of the commission's probe.

The commission's inquiry and the federal lawsuit arise from TV commercials that blasted Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick during her successful re-election campaign last year.

The ads were financed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Citizens for a Strong Ohio, a pro-business group.

The two groups have refused to disclose the names of people who contributed to the multimillion-dollar anti-Resnick campaign. The groups argue the ads were educational and issue-oriented and did not directly advocate Resnick's defeat, therefore the names of contributors do not have to be revealed.

But Common Cause-Ohio and the Alliance for Democracy of Waltham, Mass., two watchdog organizations, disagree. They have filed complaints with the Elections Commission against the chamber and Citizens for a Strong Ohio.

The chamber countered by filing a federal lawsuit last month, asking Sargus to halt the Elections Commission's investigation. The probe violates the chamber's First Amendment right of freedom of speech, the suit argues.

The Elections Commission is expected to decide on Thursday whether Common Cause and the public can have access to the names of contributors to the fund. And the commission is expected to rule during an April 5 hearing on the legality of the entire anti-Resnick ad campaign.

Sargus convened yesterday's 90- minute hearing to consider a motion by the state to dismiss the chamber's suit.

Toward the end of the hearing, the judge said he will not rule on the dismissal motion until next Friday at the earliest.

If he decides not to dismiss the case, many other issues -- including the constitutionality of the Elections Commission's investigation -- will take additional weeks to resolve, Sargus said.

During yesterday's hearing, Assistant Attorney General Sharon J. Jennings characterized the chamber's suit as "no more than an attempt to stall the commission's proceedings.''

Thomas W. Kirby, an attorney for the chamber, countered that the state law allowing the Elections Commission to investigate the anti- Resnick ads is unconstitutionally vague. Sargus should deny the state's motion to dismiss the suit, Kirby added.

The anti-Resnick commercials implied the Toledo Democrat traded favorable decisions in exchange for contributions from trial lawyers. Despite the ads, Resnick defeated Republican Terrence O'Donnell by capturing 57 percent of the vote in the Nov. 7 election.

bruth@dispatch.com

---