DaytonDailyNews.com

COLUMBUS — Anyone who watches TV can see that the opposition to Issue 5 is well-funded, airing scores of ads that urge voters to protect their financial choices and keep thousands of jobs in Ohio.

So far, the payday lending industry has spent more than $1 million getting Issue 5 on the ballot. They're urging a No vote, which would block reforms passed by the legislature earlier this year.

The other side — Yes on Issue 5 — is relying on churches, consumer groups, political leaders and a guy dressed in a shark costume to get the word out.

"Shady," the reformed loan shark, crashes the opposition's press conferences, had a Facebook page with 250 friends, and snagged a spoof interview with a Columbus newspaper columnist — all gimmicks to get free attention for the Yes on Issue 5 campaign.

Earlier this year, the state passed a law capping annual interest rates on short-term loans at 28 percent and limiting people to four such loans a year. Payday lenders have been charging 391 percent annual percentage rates for two-week loans.

A Yes vote on Issue 5 would keep the new rate cap.

"It's all about the rates. It's not about financial freedom. It's not about financial choice. It's all about greed. If people know what they're voting on, we crush them. If they don't, then we're in trouble," said Sandy Theis, spokeswoman for Yes on Issue 5.

Ohioans for Financial Freedom, which is funded by the payday lenders, say if Issue 5 passes, Ohioans will lose a financial option that many of them rely on in emergencies. Their ads warn that Big Brother government will be watching their private financial transactions, their personal data would be at risk, and it's another case of government butting into people's lives.

"Ohio is moving toward, 'We know better than you, hardworking Ohioan. We know how many loans you should take out and when you should take them out,'" said Ohioans for Financial Freedom spokeswoman Kim Norris.

Absent from the ads being run by Ohioans for Financial Freedom are the words "payday lending." Instead, their message is financial choice and the potential loss of 6,000 jobs if the reforms are enacted. About 150 of the state's 1,600 have already closed.

The Yes on Issue 5 campaign points to the fact that 1,200 payday lending stores have already applied for licenses to offer short-term loans under the new law. Norris counters that those stores are merely keeping their options open.

Although Yes on Issue 5 will be easily outspent, a ground game can be effective. Early on, Yes on Issue 5 leaders got advice from smoking ban advocates, who in 2006 beat Big Tobacco interests by spreading the word through supportive groups.

Groups such as AARP Ohio, with 1.6 million members, Ohio Farm Bureau, with 234,000 members, and the United Methodist Church, with half a million members, are urging a Yes vote on Issue 5.

"They (the anti-smoking advocates) reassured us that you can win something complicated when you're under funded and you have the moral high ground," Theis said.

Contact this reporter at (614) 224-1624

.

Other Ohio issues

State issues involving casino gambling (Issue 6) and payday lending (Issue 5) have received the most attention, but three other issues are on the Nov. 4 ballot. They are:

Issue 1: The proposed constitutional amendment would make petition filing deadlines earlier for statewide ballot issues. The deadlines would be set to 125 days. Currently, the deadlines are 90 days before the election for statewide initiative petitions (laws and constitutional amendments proposed by citizens) and 60 days for statewide referenda (citizen-initiated votes to repeal new laws.) It also adds deadlines for public officials to act on the petitions. Proponents say earlier deadlines would allow more time to determine the validity of petitions and signatures. Opponents say the revised deadlines decrease the time for each stop of the review and may be difficult to meet.

Issue 2: The proposed constitutional amendment would add to funding for the Clean Ohio Program. It is identical to the issue approved by voters in 2000 and will allow the state to issue $400 million in bonds to be used for conservation and revitalization programs. Proponents say the money could be used to improved drinking water, help keep rivers and streams clean, preserve and protect wildlife and farmland, clean up polluted industrial sites, expand outdoor recreational opportunities, and stimulate economic development in urban areas across Ohio. Opponents say the borrowing may limit money available for other programs and would allow the borrowing to continue without a vote of the people when the original bonds are paid off.

Issue 3: The proposed constitutional amendment would reaffirm the rights of owners to use water on or under their private property. The issue resulted from the Ohio legislature's passage of the Great Lakes Water Compact this spring. Some feared the compact may limit private water rights. Proponents say the constitutional amendment would reiterate the state's right to regulate water use and quality. Opponents say those rights are well-established in case law and doesn't need to be in the constitution, which should be a body of fundamental principles.

»Read more about the issues online DaytonDailyNews.com/votersguide