Hi folks ... wanted to share with you an op-ed piece I wrote in response to an editorial in the Akron Beacon Journal, that was not supportive of the RON amendments. Let me know if you have any thoughts or comments. Thanks again for all of your activism in Ohio. We are definitely making a difference. -CWe found puzzling the Akron Beacon Journal's Aug. 11 editorial (``Reform Ohio, somewhat'') opposing two initiatives headed for the ballot in November that would improve elections and establish reasonable campaign contribution limits in Ohio.
Reform Ohio Now has proposed lowering campaign contributions to $1,000 for legislative candidates and $2,000 for statewide candidates to curb the influence of special interests and wealthy donors in Ohio elections. Under current law, Ohio donors can write checks of up to $10,000 and get access and clout that ordinary citizens cannot hope to match.
Enactment of the existing law late last year on a straight party-line vote moved Ohio from the category of states with reasonable contribution limits to states that allow wealthy interests to have a louder voice than others.
RON's campaign-finance initiative would restore Ohio to the category of states with campaign limit integrity. And, given the recent Coingate scandal and revelations that high-ranking elected officials appear to be keeping close company with the very lobbyists and big-money benefactors who ask for favors once their friends are in office, lowering campaign contribution limits is a necessary first step to end these corrupt practices and clean up Ohio politics.
The Beacon Journal did correctly observe that unchecked spending by ``shadowy issue advocacy organizations'' still raises troubling questions about accountability for the often-misleading ads run by outside groups in recent elections.
We couldn't agree more.
In addition to our support for lowering contribution limits to reduce the influence of big money interests, we favor strengthened accountability for campaign spending by ``independent'' groups in Ohio politics. We encourage the state legislature to take swift action to deal with this problem. If they don't, citizens may well come back with additional measures to clean up Ohio.
But, clearly allowing direct contributions at five times the level permitted in federal races won't move us one inch closer to the goal of increasing accountability.
With regard to the initiative designed to shield Ohio elections from partisan influence, the Beacon Journal's contention that the secretary of state doesn't exercise any significant influence over elections is nothing short of astounding. At the very least, an appearance of partisanship is damaging enough; why give voters more reason to feel mistrustful of election officials?
As the chairman of the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign in Ohio, Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell repeatedly issued highly questionable rulings (some overturned by the courts) that appeared calculated to suppress Democratic votes, either by rejecting as many new registrations as possible at a time when Democrats were reportedly registering far more voters than Republicans, or by making the process of voting more difficult for voters considered likely to vote for Democrats. In fact, his actions went far beyond appearances.
It is basic common sense that the chief election official in a state should not also be the head cheerleader for a particular candidate, as Blackwell was for President Bush in Ohio. Many voters across the country, and in Ohio in particular, have lost confidence in our election system. Requiring nonpartisan election officials and reasonable campaign contribution limits are steps toward restoring that confidence.
Ohio politicians have demonstrated they can't clean their own house. We urge the people of Ohio to clean up Ohio politics by supporting these two amendments, and a third amendment to take the state's redistricting process out of the hands of self-interested politicians.
