Report Rips Ohio High Court
Watchdog Coalition Says Special Interest Groups Rule Elections

By Carl Weiser
Gannett News Service
News Herald
May 8, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Ohio is the national poster child for Supreme Court elections dominated by big money and special interests, a coalition of watchdog groups said Thursday.

Winning a seat on the court now costs $1.85 million. More TV ads aired in Ohio -- 13,105 -- than in eight other states combined where ads aired.

About a third of those ads were from groups whose fund raising is kept secret.

"The extreme amount of big money in this year's judicial elections will only reduce public trust in the judicial system," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who joined the groups at a news conference here.

In 2002, two Republicans running in Ohio far out raised their opponents, outspent them on TV ads, and won their elections. Business groups supplied most of the campaign money for the two winners, Evelyn Stratton and Maureen O'Connor.

"America's supreme court elections could be degenerating into a succession of political auctions fed by big money and led by special interests," said the report from Justice at Stake, a partnership of more than 40 legal and citizen groups. "The 2002 campaign secured Ohio's reputation as a poster child."

Thomas J. Moyer, Ohio Supreme Court chief justice, said the report shows the need for a reform bill making its way through the General Assembly. Passed by the state Senate last week, it would require any group that airs an ad about an Ohio Supreme Court candidate to disclose contributors in the same manner that candidates must make public who has donated to their campaigns.

Donations don't buy or corrupt judges, he said. He's often ruled against his contributors.

But he acknowledged the perception that money influences judges. If the court's decisions are to be respected as fair and unbiased, that perception has to be addressed, he said.

"To me, that's fundamental," Moyer said.

A poll released Thursday found that 72 percent of Americans believed campaign contributions influence judges' decisions. The poll surveyed 1,204 adults in March and had a 2.9-percentage-

point margin of error.

Eight in 10 said they supported forcing groups that air TV ads in judicial races to disclose who paid for them.

The report noted that Ohio's high court races now attract fund-raising techniques common to political races, including bundling -- multiple contributions from a single industry or interest group delivered en masse to a candidate. It said more than 200 employees of Cincinnati Financial Corp. combined to donate $96,663 to the two Republicans in 2002.

http://www.portclintonnewsherald.com/news/stories/20040508/localnews/379911.html