 |
City Councilman Pat DeWine says tax money
shouldn't subsidize political campaigns.
|
If you think Carl Lindner has too much influence at City Hall, the Fair Elections Coalition has a petition for you.
In 1999, seven of the nine people elected to Cincinnati City Council received money from Lindner, chairman of the board of both Chiquita Brands International and American Financial Corp. and majority owner of the Cincinnati Reds. The only people elected without Lindner cash were Todd Portune, a Democrat, and Jim Tarbell, a Charterite. The other seven each received at least $18,000 from Lindner, and most received $25,000.
Lindner and his relatives contributed nearly $400,000 to council candidates in the past four elections, about half of it in the 1999 race.
With new city-council elections coming in November, a reform group is working to limit the influence of money in local campaigns. Organizers have so far collected about half of the 6,800 signatures needed for a city charter amendment proposed by the Fair Elections Coalition. If approved by voters in May, the charter amendment would provide partial public funding for council campaigns in the fall.
Instead of restricting how much candidates can spend -- a tactic found unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court -- the Fair Elections Coalition proposes setting voluntary limits for candidates and rewarding participants with public funds. The proposal offers $2 in public funds for every $1 raised by a campaign, with a maximum of about $100,000 for council candidates or about $200,000 for mayoral candidates.
Voters say yes, courts say no
In 1976, the Supreme Court ruled that restricting campaign spending unlawfully restricts free speech. In response, reformers have been creating programs that establish voluntary campaign spending limits coupled with public campaign financing.
New York City's reforms, instituted 12 years ago and amended several times, increased both the number of candidates and the number of small contributions between 1996 and 2000, the most recent election cycle.
In New York, qualifying candidates receive 4-to-1 matches for contributions of $250 or less. To qualify, candidates for borough president may not accept a contribution larger than $3,500 or spend more than $1.18 million. Mayoral candidates face limits of $4,500 on contributions and $5.2 million on spending. Corporate contributions are illegal, as are contributions from political-action committees not registered with the city's campaign-finance office.
From 1996 to 2000, the number of candidates grew from 21 to 102, and the number of $250-and-under contributions increased from 10,518 to 30,011, according to the city's campaign-finance office. These small contributions accounted for 73 percent of all contributions, compared to 64 percent in 1996.
More people believe their contributions count, because their money multiplies instantly, according to Carl Castillo of the National Civic League. A handful of other cities have adopted public-funding programs, including Los Angeles, Boulder and San Francisco. Castillo estimates at least 90 cities have adopted contribution limits, spending limits or other reforms.
"There's definitely a strong movement at the city level," Castillo says.
In Cincinnati, campaign-finance efforts began in the early 1990s. As more candidates turned to television ads, the League of Women Voters and other groups noticed steep increases in spending on city council campaigns. In 1987, 25 candidates raised $958,000. Four years later, the figure doubled, with 26 candidates raising $1.9 million. Reformers began worrying that the skyrocketing costs were scaring away new candidates.
In 1994 the League of Women Voters, backed by then-Councilman Portune, proposed a charter amendment giving city council the power to regulate campaign spending. The measure passed in 1994 with 51 percent of the vote.
After hearing recommendations from a nine-member, tri-partisan panel it had appointed, city council passed a campaign-spending limit pegged to three times a council member's salary. The ordinance also limited campaign contributions to $1,000 for individuals, $2,500 for political-action committees and $10,000 for political parties.
The ordinance was scheduled to take effect with the 1997 election. Meanwhile, in 1995 a field of 17 council candidates set a campaign-spending record of $2.41 million.
The new spending limits faced a court challenge even before they could take effect. John Kruse, an unsuccessful Republican candidate in 1993 and 1995, sued to have the limits repealed. He won in court, and the ruling survived an appeal.
But even with just the contribution limits left, the local reform had an immediate impact on reducing campaign spending. The 1997 field of 18 candidates for city council spent $2.04 million -- a reduction from the campaign two years earlier.
In 1998, the city of Cincinnati, with support from 25 state attorneys general, asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its appeal of Kruse's lawsuit. But the court, without comment, refused to take the city's appeal, effectively ending local campaign-spending limits.
Then, in the same year, city council tossed out the contribution limits as well. The five-person majority that dumped what remained of the reform included Republicans Charles Winburn, Phil Heimlich and Jeanette Cissell and Democrats Minette Cooper and Paul Booth.
In 1999 the League of Women Voters and other civic organizations decided to try again, organizing the Fair Elections Coalition to examine campaign reforms adopted by other cities. The coalition includes Ohio Citizen Action, Citizens for Civic Renewal, Dollars and Democracy, the Woman's City Club, the Charter Committee and the NAACP. Funded by $80,000 in grants, mostly from the Joyce Foundation in Chicago, the coalition spent 18 months researching and drafting the current proposed charter amendment.
Meanwhile, the 1999 field of 20 candidates set yet another city council campaign record, spending $2.5 million.
Council doesn't want to talk about it
The charter amendment would re-establish limits on campaign contributions and increase reporting requirements. Candidates would have to report within five days any contribution of $500 or more received within 20 days of the election. The same would apply to expenditures of $1,000 or more. Campaign-finance reports would have to include contributors' addresses and employers or occupations -- information federal and state candidates already must provide.
The amendment would also create the five-member Cincinnati Elections Commission (CEC) with subpoena power to monitor campaigns and to fine any violators.
To qualify for public financing, a council candidate would have to receive $10 contributions from at least 150 different sources. Mayoral candidates would need twice as many contributions in order to qualify.
The fine for violating voluntary spending limits would be equal to three times the excess spending. Filing late reports would carry fines up to $100 a day for council candidates and up to $200 a day for mayoral candidates.
Dell Heitkamp, a League of Women Voters member involved in the project, isn't optimistic about support from city council.
"I don't think we're going to get council participation," she says.
Most council members seem less than eager to talk about the proposal. After receiving copies of the charter amendment from CityBeat and given nine days to respond to requests for interviews, Pat DeWine was the only member of council who returned a reporter's calls -- and he opposes the charter amendment. A member of Councilman John Cranley's staff said Cranley needs more time to study the proposal.
Tax money shouldn't pay for political campaigns, DeWine says, because citizens are bound to disagree with some of their positions.
"I have a philosophical problem asking people to subsidize speech that they're opposed to," he says.
Paving streets or other basic services would be a better use of the money, DeWine says.
Bill Woods of Hyde Park, who helped research the charter amendment, acknowledges public funding will be the hardest part of the amendment to sell. But he says the proposal stands a good chance to pass, because people believe they no longer have a voice in elections.
"Who do you want to own the elections process?" Woods asks. "What's more valuable than the democratic process itself?"
DeWine estimates the proposal could cost $3 million or $4 million if it got wide participation from the 20 or so candidates who usually fill the city council ballot. But Woods says $2 million is a better estimate, because not every candidate will accept the limits or qualify for the maximum level of public funding. With council elections every two years, the cost -- using Woods' projection -- would be about $3 annually for each city resident.
DeWine, a Republican, also says the appointment system for the new five-member CEC is unfair. Each of the three political parties on city council would appoint one member, and the mayor would appoint the other two, effectively giving the mayor's party -- currently the Democrats -- control of the board.
"I don't know too many ethics boards where the person being regulated appoints the regulators," DeWine says.
In point of fact, many legislative bodies across the nation, including the Ohio General Assembly and the U.S. Congress, appoint committees to enforce their own ethical standards.
In cities with campaign-finance systems similar to the charter amendment, Woods says, election boards are staffed by university presidents and people perceived to be politically independent. Woods says the same would likely happen here. In addition, he says, rules governing the CEC would prohibit the appointment of public employees or lobbyists.
DeWine doesn't oppose all campaign-finance reform. To restore accountability, he'd like to see council elected by districts rather than choosing nine candidates via a citywide vote. He also supports contribution limits and enhanced reporting of contributions.
Kruse, too, says better finance reporting is needed but argues that public funding and additional regulation aren't the cure.
DeWine gives the charter amendment little chance of passing.
"I think the effort is destined to fail," he says. "It's too bad they haven't focused on something meaningful they could have accomplished."
Money will find a way
One meaningful improvement -- better reporting of campaign finances -- could soon be on the way, with the help of Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, a Republican and former Cincinnati mayor.
If you want to track the number of city council members who take money from Lindner, for example, at present the only way to do so is by visiting the Hamilton County Board of Elections and reviewing campaign-finance reports. Blackwell is trying to get all county election boards in the state to convert to electronic filing so campaign finances would be accessible via the Internet.
Blackwell's goal is in line with similar measures underway in state and national elections.
No one imagines reform efforts can ever completely eliminate the influence of money in political campaigns. Just as each new tax code presents unanticipated loopholes for creative taxpayers, every campaign-reform law will leave room for people who have money to impact elections.
In 1997, for example, when city council's limits on campaign contributions were briefly in effect, the name Lindner did not lose prominence among political donors; it simply diversified. Faced with $1,000 limits on personal contributions, more than a dozen of Carl Lindner's relatives gave candidates the maximum legal amount.
Supporters of the charter amendment, however, aren't discouraged by potential loopholes.
"By and large, I think the public is pretty well fed up with the amount of donations being given and the loss of influence they have on the election," Woods says.
Opposition from officeholders is inevitable, according to Jane Anderson, a reform proponent and an adjunct professor of political science at the University of Cincinnati. But the public wants change, she says.
"Individuals who benefit from the status quo are reluctant to change the status quo," says Anderson, who ran unsuccessfully for city council in 1999. "The status quo is not acceptable." ©
