Openness is the key to our democracy. It is the sunlight of public scrutiny that keeps honest elected officials at all levels of government and holds accountable those who wield money, power and influence in the public arena.
It is why I am a staunch supporter of openness with regard to campaign finance reporting. It may sound cliché, but in this day and age, knowledge truly is power. Full disclosure allows every citizen the ability to know who is paying for the campaign messages that blitz the airwaves come election time.
Given my support for full disclosure, I am wholly supportive of legislation introduced in the Ohio Senate by State Sen. Randy Gardner, R-Bowling Green. Although Senate Bill 214 is not the across-the-board-campaign finance reform I'd like to see, it is a step in the right direction.
Primarily, the legislation will require full disclosure of donations to independent and third party issue advocacy committees that run ads mentioning Supreme Court candidates. In 2002, these types of third-party groups spent nearly $12 million on two seats up for grabs on the high court. To put this in perspective, more money was spent on these two Ohio races than on Supreme Court races that year in every other state combined. Under SB 214, every Ohioan will be able to see who is spending money and how much they are spending to influence who the public selects for our Supreme Court justices this fall.
The stakes are very high. Public confidence in the judiciary is placed at risk if we continue to allow enormous amounts of money to be spent by anonymous donors to influence whom the voters will support.
The assurance of an independent and unbiased judicial branch to interpret the law fairly is a principle cornerstone of the balance of powers that makes our Constitution work. In order for voters to make informed decisions on who should be elected to the court, they deserve and should demand to know who is footing the bill for third party ads that have reached new lows in terms of appropriateness and accuracy.
Gardner's proposal will shine sunlight on any third party issue groups that choose to fund ads in this fall's Supreme Court races. Among other things, the bill will require contributions and contributors of $500 or more to third party advocacy groups to be reported and posted on the Internet. The same will be required for expenditures of $10,000 or more by third party groups running ads referring to Ohio Supreme Court candidates within 60 days of the election. If these groups do not properly disclose under the new requirements, the law imposes a $10,000 penalty plus an extra $1,000 for each day of the violation.
Quite frankly, this proposal is a strong dose of the medicine our entire campaign finance system needs. Indeed, the doctor would probably order an even broader prescription, applying this bill to all campaigns. I would agree with him.
Maybe - just maybe - this newly imposed light of day will discourage the appearance of negative ads that, in past Supreme Court races, have left a bad taste in the mouths of voters. If enacted, Ohio would be leading the nation to reform. That would mean a great deal coming from the state known nationally for an excess of negative issue advocacy ads in judicial races.
I urge you to ask your state legislators to support SB 214. The public deserves no less.
17 Archives
Betty Montgomery
