Ohio elections commission can investigate campaign ad fund

By The Associated Press

03.10.01

Printer-friendly page

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Elections Commission can investigate a campaign fund that paid for television advertisements opposing the re-election of Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick, a federal judge has ruled.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which sponsored some of the ads, sued in U.S. District Court to halt the commission's inquiry, saying it violates the chamber's right to free speech. Attorney General Betty Montgomery's office said the federal suit was premature.

Judge Edmund A. Sargus Jr. also ruled on March 5 that the federal lawsuit could be resurrected only if the chamber loses its case before the commission and in state appeals courts.

The commission's investigation resulted from complaints by two watchdog groups — Common Cause and the Waltham, Mass.-based Alliance for Democracy.

They said that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and an advocacy group known as Citizens for a Strong Ohio violated state law by running the ads. They say that names of contributors to the fund that paid for the ads should be made public.

The chamber and Citizens for a Strong Ohio said that the ads were educational, issue-oriented commercials and therefore not subject to Ohio's campaign donation reporting law.

The ads criticized Resnick for her vote that helped to overturn an Ohio law limiting the amount parties could collect in lawsuits and for other votes in a case that ruled Ohio's school funding formula unconstitutional.

An ad sponsored by Citizens for a Strong Ohio depicted a bronze "Lady Justice" holding scales laden with cash. The chamber ad showed bags of money piled on a judge's desk. Both ads tried to tie Resnick's votes to her campaign contributors, an allegation she denied.

Resnick easily won re-election on Nov. 7.

The commission, which is expected to decide in April whether the ads violate state law, can fine the groups or refer the case to the Franklin County prosecutor's office.

Meanwhile, in Sacramento, Calif., a consortium of lobbyists has challenged a voter-approved campaign finance measure that banned lobbyists from making contributions to political campaigns.

The Institute of Governmental Advocates filed a suit with the state's 3rd District Court of Appeal, asking that the Fair Political Practices Commission be prohibited from enforcing the provision.

Proposition 34, approved Nov. 7 with 60% of the vote, generally limited campaign contributions from individuals to $3,000, but banned donations from lobbyists.

The lobbyists say this violates their First Amendment right of free speech.

Update

California lobbyists can't contribute to coffers of those they lobby
Federal court rejects arguments that voter-approved ban violates free-speech, association rights.  09.23.01

Related

U.S. Chamber wins round in campaign-ads case
Overturning lower court, 5th Circuit rules that forcing business lobby to disclose amount spent on Mississippi election ads would violate free speech.  04.09.02

Mississippi asks high court to hear U.S. Chamber campaign-ads case
State argues that without some clarification by Supreme Court, other states' election-finance disclosure laws could be meaningless.  08.28.02