Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2010 > February > 16 > Entry
Editorial: Ohio needs new disclosure law on election money
Corporations cannot spend money directly on state elections, under Ohio law. Nevertheless, a bill may soon be pending in the legislature that regulates how they do that. Moreover, the bill is a good idea.
Long story.
The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the practice of not allowing direct corporate spending on elections. In future federal elections (that is, for Congress and the presidency), corporations — and unions — may spend as much as they want, so long as they don’t contribute directly to candidates.
The decision does not strike down an Ohio law — applying to state and local offices and issues — that is much like the stricken federal law.
But a good bet is that if the Ohio law is challenged in court, it will fall, because the high court was interpreting the U.S. Constitution.
State Sen. Jon Husted, R-Kettering, is a candidate for secretary of state, the office that administers campaign finance laws. He wants to require that any corporation or union funding, say, an ad disclose its identity clearly in the ad. And he wants quick filing of an expenditure report, perhaps even before the expenditure. (Some say one problem with Ohio disclosure laws about contributions to candidates is that the disclosures are not immediate.)
Similar proposals — relating to federal elections — are pending in Congress. Some would go further than the Husted plan, requiring the CEO (or, presumably, union leader) to personally appear in the ad. Some would require that stockholders be notified ahead of time.
Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown has advocated banning corporate election spending if a majority of a company’s directors are foreigners, or if the U.S. operations fall under the direction of a foreign entity. (Foreign entities are already banned from such spending.)
One theory of campaign finance regulation holds that anything should be allowed so long as it is disclosed. That is, let anybody — company, union, person, whatever — give any amount of money to any candidate or cause, but require the donations be reported to the government and be public.
That way, the theory goes, any voter who is offended by any connection between, say, a candidate and an interest group can vote accordingly.
As a result of bipartisan agreement, the nation and state do have some disclosure rules.
Skeptics point out that so much money is contributed to politicians even now — despite disclosure rules — that voters become cynical. They despair of figuring out which candidates are most beholden to special interests.
Whatever the effectiveness of disclosure, sometimes it is the only tool at hand. In the wake of the court decision, new attention to disclosure is clearly needed.
Nobody knows how much impact the Supreme Court decision will have. Sen. Husted (an experienced fundraiser) and Ohio Democratic Party Chairman Chris Redfern (likewise) both say that corporations have always been able to find a way to get their money into politics if they are so motivated. The court decision allows them to be involved more directly in specific elections, as opposed, say, to funneling money to committees they don’t completely control.
Whatever one’s expectations, disclosure is desirable. It will cause executives to think harder before jumping into issues that might divide their stockholders or customers. And the public simply has a right to know — whether it has a taste to know or not — where political money is coming from.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Martin Gottlieb, Ohio government, Ohio politics
Comments
By Phil must Go
February 17, 2010 8:32 PM | Link to this
Check out Sheriff Plummers 2008 election report for the big donations from the trial lawyers out of state. What is that about?