Five years later, 2000 election saga still endures
Published 12:00 am Tuesday, November 15, 2005
An Ohio election-law fight - five years running - illustrates the evolving state of campaign finance amid new federal laws and the ongoing realignment of the U.S. Supreme Court, a professor who teaches election law says.
The Ohio Elections Commission made two rulings on Thursday that, combined, may have changed the status of issue advocacy groups that have not had to adhere to state election laws because they do not promote the election or defeat of a specific candidate.
The commission, in a pair 4-3 rulings, found that the corporate-funded group Citizens for a Strong Ohio, created by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, behaved as a political action committee, not an issue advocacy group.
The commission ruled the group violated Ohio election law when it ran ads in 2000 accusing Ohio Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick of siding with her lawyer-contributors in 70 percent of her votes. The ads violated an election law against making false statements, the commission said.
Citizens for a Strong Ohio was fined $100 and received a public reprimand for the two violations and was fined $1,000 for using corporate money in support of a candidate.
The group spent $4 million in the 2000 campaign that included a television ad showing a female justice changing a vote after bags of money are dumped on her desk. Resnick was re-elected with 57 percent of the vote.
Candice Hoke, a professor of election and constitutional law at the Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, said the rules for campaigns are in flux since the passage of the McCain-Feingold federal finance law, which put new limits on campaigning, and the changing shape of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court upheld the McCain-Feingold changes 5-4, but the pending retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, considered a swing vote in campaign finance cases, could change the direction the court takes. The court has agreed to review a Vermont law that limits donations and spending, and an appeal by a Wisconsin anti-abortion group over that state's law that restricts political ads.
‘‘Campaign finance is an evolving area. To say we have much-settled law here is a mistake,'' Hoke said. ‘‘All of election law right now is the single most dynamic area of law, no question.''
If Samuel Alito is confirmed as O'Connor's replacement, it should swing the court toward free speech, said William Todd, attorney for Citizens for a Strong Ohio. Alito has a conservative First Amendment record but has not ruled in campaign finance, Todd said.
‘‘I think you're going to see an extreme backlash in the U.S. Supreme Court against the states,'' Todd said.
Citizens for a Strong Ohio hasn't decided whether to appeal the commission's rulings in court, he said.
None of the current members were on the commission when Common Cause filed its complaint in October 2000. Another political advocacy group, Alliance for Democracy, joined the suit later.
In light of the commission rulings, Alliance for Democracy or another group likely will go after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which produced similar anti-Resnick ads, alliance attorney Cliff Arnebeck said.
‘‘If we have to file a new complaint against the U.S. chamber for making illegal corporate contributions, we will,'' Arnebeck said.
Resnick, who never has been involved in the case, did not return a telephone call seeking comment but released a statement through lawyer David Zoll. Resnick, 65, is up for re-election next year but has not decided whether to seek a fourth term.
‘‘Although the 2000 election is long over, hopefully this ruling will prevent this kind of misconduct in the future, because Ohioans deserve clean and fair elections,'' she said.
John McCarthy is a correspondent for the Ohio Associated Press' Columbus bureau.