From the Columbus Dispatch

CHAMBER TOLD TO GIVE UP NAMES
Ruling aimed at backers of negative campaign ad
November 5, 2003

By Jon Craig
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Growing impatient with delaying tactics of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, a Franklin County judge yesterday gave its issue-advocacy group until Nov. 17 to name those who bankrolled negative television ads against Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick three years ago.
Failure to comply with the Ohio Elections Commission subpoenas will result in a $25,000-per-day fine, Common Pleas Judge John F. Bender ruled. He reserved the right to impose harsher penalties "if that doesn't work.''
It was the strongest ruling yet in the elections commission case stemming from the hotly disputed 2000 Supreme Court campaigns.
Charles T. McConville, the chamber's political director, said the chamber and its advocacy group, Citizens for a Strong Ohio, plan to appeal and ask for a hold on Bender's ruling.
Bender said the chamber could have avoided years of litigation by seeking an advisory opinion from the elections commission before soliciting money.
Bender, who was chief elections counsel when Gov. Bob Taft was secretary of state, said some of the chamber's arguments were "nonpersuasive.'' At one point, he called a 20-minute recess so chamber attorney William M. Todd could retrieve a copy of one case he cited.
"I want it now. Go find it,'' Bender said. Upon reading it, the judge snapped, "It doesn't have anything to do with the issue I posed to you.''
By a 4-2 vote in September, the elections commission said the issue-advocacy group should not be able to protect the names of people and corporations that gave at least $4 million in an effort to defeat Resnick and re-elect former Justice Deborah L. Cook.
The most striking ad featured "Lady Justice'' lifting her blindfold to grab a handful of cash. The secretly funded ads were widely condemned.
Resnick, a Democrat accused of voting against business interests, easily won a third six-year term. Cook, a Republican, also won and has since been appointed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Todd said disclosure would infringe on privacy and rights of free speech and free expression. "It is simply a fishing expedition,'' he said.
Assistant Attorney General Sharon A. Jennings, representing the elections commission, said she would like to ask contributors what they were told about the nature of the so-called "Justice for Sale'' ads.
"The list of donors is relevant,'' she said. "Disclosure in general can serve important governmental interests.''
Bender agreed that full disclosure might help determine whether the chamber should have filed campaign-finance reports as a political action committee under Ohio law. Interviewing donors could reveal "the state of mind of those who actually produced and ran the ads,'' he said.
"I think that is a very live issue here,'' the judge said. "The subpoenas are relevant to the determination of that.
"What interest do they have in anonymity?'' Bender asked Todd. "Where are those protections in Ohio statutes or direct on-point case law?''
Todd couldn't name any, instead citing protections under the U.S. Constitution.
The original complainant, Alliance for Democracy, alleges false statements were aired and illegal corporate expenditures made in the ad campaign.
The alliance's attorney, Clifford O. Arnebeck Jr., is pressing for full disclosure.
"I think it's a beautiful decision and very much in the public interest,'' Arnebeck said. "He's a judge who knows the election laws. He is not going to be misled.
"We still have to prove -- and the (elections) commission still has to find -- there were illegal contributions.''