|
BWC STORY TRANSFORMS
POLITICAL LANDSCAPE
Tensions are high and tempers are short in Columbus amid the ongoing
investigation into investment practices at the Bureau of Workers’
Compensation. Republicans are feeling the heat politically and praying
the near-daily trickle of new, damaging revelations is going to end
soon. Democrats, on the other hand, smell blood in the water and are
taking every opportunity to keep the pressure on the GOP and the public’s
focus on the allegations.
Democrats hope this is the magic bullet that will catapult the party
to success at the ballot box in November 2006, suggesting it reinforces
their emerging central campaign theme that Republican “one-party
rule” is not good for Ohio. While Democrat legislative candidates
attempted to make this same argument during the ’04 elections,
with limited success, the result could be different next year with candidates
for governor and other statewide offices also parroting the message.
The GOP hopes all of the bad news has now been reported and that the
issue will be either forgotten or deemed relatively insignificant by
voters when they go to the polls 16 months from now.
Last week, the Ohio Democratic Party began airing a TV ad, entitled
“Coingate,” designed to remind Ohioans of the recent events
and to put forward the one-party rule argument. It also attempts to
tie all three of the major GOP gubernatorial candidates – Attorney
General Jim Petro, Auditor Betty Montgomery, and Secretary of State
Ken Blackwell – to the central figure in the BWC matter, rare coin
fund manager Tom Noe.
Republicans are trying to reassure Ohioans they’re doing all they
can to fix the problems, and lawmakers have already passed legislation
they say will prevent future similar abuses. They’re also trying
to distance themselves from Noe. Nearly every candidate that ever received
a campaign contribution from the Toledo businessman is voluntarily returning
the contributions or donating them to charity. Going forward, Republicans
can potentially minimize additional political damage if they are able
to successfully recover as much of the BWC money as possible and make
sure all the individuals responsible are identified and punished.
Even then, if indictments of key GOP staffers, operatives or officeholders
were to stem from this affair, they would make the 2006 election environment
an extremely difficult one for Republicans.
NUMBER OF UNION
MEMBERS CONTINUES TO SLIDE
Every year, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics
issues a report detailing union membership rates nationally and in each
state. Nationally in 2004, 12.5 percent of workers were union members,
down from 12.9 percent the year before. The decline in Ohio was much
more precipitous, falling from 16.7 percent in 2003 all the way to 15.2
percent in 2004. According to BLS, approximately 759,000 of the nearly
five million people employed in Ohio are union members.
At the national level, 8.2 million private sector employees, or 7.9%
of the private sector workforce, are unionized. This compares to 7.3
million employees, or 36.4%, of the public sector workforce. Today,
there are only 937,000 fewer unionized public sector employees than
private sector employees, a gap that has seen considerable shrinkage
in the past decade. In 1994, by contrast, there were 2.6 million more
unionized employees in the private sector than the public sector.
Though the gap is closing, it’s not due to successes by labor in
organizing public sector workplaces. In fact, over the past decade the
number of unionized public sector employees has risen only slightly,
from 7.1 million to 7.3 million. But over this same time period, the
number of private sector union employees fell from 9.7 million to 8.2
million. All the while, the total number of individuals employed jumped
by 15.6 million.
MAJOR
UNIONS TO LEAVE AFL-CIO?
In part because of declining membership numbers and organizing failures
and in part because of a lack of recent political successes, significant
fractures have appeared within the AFL-CIO. The AFL-CIO is a federation
of 57 major unions that represent 13 million employees.
Earlier this month, four major national labor unions – the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, the Service Employees International Union,
the United Food and Commercial Workers, and UNITE-HERE, which represents
hotel, restaurant and apparel industry workers – joined together
to form the Change to Win Coalition. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters
and Joiners has since joined up as well. The five unions are dissatisfied
with current President John Sweeney’s emphasis on politics and
want to see significantly more dollars invested in organizing activities.
Change to Win, in its recently adopted Constitution, claims the founding
unions have “pioneered new organizing techniques” and will
“focus on developing coordinated campaigns to organize large groups
of workers in key areas of the private sector economy.” At least
two of the Change to Win unions already have permission from their boards
to disaffiliate from the AFL-CIO, though none have yet done so.
AFL-CIO officials acknowledge the importance of organizing efforts,
but also defend the group’s emphasis on politics by stating that
unions cannot overcome their current problems without first having more
allies in Washington and in state capitols. In a recent blueprint that
offers his vision for the organization’s future, Sweeney called
for the creation of a $22.5 million Strategic Organizing Fund, but also
for bolstering its “Member Mobilization Fund” for legislative
and political action by $7.5 million.
This issue of balance between politics and organizing will also be a
key issue in whether or not Sweeney is re-elected as president of the
AFL-CIO at its convention in July.
POLITICIANS
MAKING PLANS…
A listing of candidates who have recently announced their political
plans for the near future:
Lee Fisher (D-Shaker Heights) – The former one-term attorney general
and unsuccessful 1998 Democrat gubernatorial nominee announced officially
this month that he will not run for governor next year. He indicated
he intends to remain as chief executive officer of the Center for Families
and Children in Cleveland.
Sen. Charlie Wilson (D-St. Clairsville) – In the May 12, 2005 issue
of The Political Edge, we described Wilson as “perhaps the Democrats’
strongest potential candidate” in next year’s open seat race
to replace gubernatorial candidate Ted Strickland (D-Lisbon) in Congress.
On May 31, Wilson made it official – he is seeking the Democratic
nomination to replace Strickland. So far, he is the only declared Democrat
in the race.
Mahoning County Treasurer John Reardon (D-Youngstown) – Reardon
was another potential 6th congressional district candidate mentioned
in our May 12 Political Edge. However, he announced on June 3 that he
wouldn’t be a candidate for Congress next year. He will instead
seek the Democratic nomination for state auditor. The current auditor,
Republican Betty Montgomery, is, of course, planning to run for governor
rather than seek re-election. Reardon becomes the first announced candidate
of either party for auditor.
Subodh Chandra (D-Cleveland) – The Democrats also have their first
official candidate for attorney general in 2006. Chandra is a former
Cleveland Law Director, federal prosecutor, and litigator. He is currently
a Distinguished Practitioner in Residence at Case Western Reserve University
School of Law. Incumbent Attorney General Jim Petro is an announced
candidate for governor. Sen. Tim Grendell (R-Chesterland) is the only
Republican currently in the race.
Pete Draganic (R-Seven Hills) & Larry Bays (R-Wooster) – While
everyone knows that Jim Petro, Betty Montgomery, and Ken Blackwell are
on a collision course for the May 2006 GOP gubernatorial primary, most
are unaware there are also two other Republicans in that race. Pete
Draganic became the first official ’06 gubernatorial candidate
when he started his campaign last fall. Draganic is a self-employed
building contractor from Seven Hills in Cuyahoga County. The former
bounty hunter is a first-time political candidate. Larry Bays is an
even more unconventional candidate. Earlier this year the Wayne County
park commissioner, in an effort to raise money for his campaign, auctioned
his services off to the highest bidder on eBay. Bays promised to come
to the home or business of the winning bidder, anywhere in Ohio, and
work one, eight-hour day a month during his first year in office. His
services would include painting, cleaning or other “handy man jobs.”
The winning $900 bid was submitted by the Golden Palace, an online casino.
GOVERNOR
FILLS TENTH DISTRICT APPEALS COURT VACANCY
Earlier this month, Gov. Bob Taft appointed Franklin County Court of
Common Pleas Judge Alan Travis to fill a vacancy on the 10th District
Court of Appeals. Travis replaces Judge Cynthia Lazarus, who retired.
Prior to becoming a common pleas judge, Travis was Chief Counsel of
the Appellate Division of the Franklin County Prosecutor’s office.
The replacement of Lazarus, a Democrat, with Republican Travis leaves
the Democrats with just one judge on the eight-member 10th district
bench. Lazarus, who in the past has been mentioned as a possible Supreme
Court candidate, compiled a 53% pro-business score on our P.a.C.E. 2003
Business Evaluation of the Ohio 10th District Court of Appeals. Travis
must run for a full, six-year term in 2006.
ACT
II?
Largely due to the fact that Pres. Bush carried Ohio in 2004, liberal
billionaire George Soros didn’t get a positive return on the more
than $23 million investment he made in an effort to help Sen. John Kerry
claim the presidency. Rather than take his money and go home, though,
Soros is reportedly prepared to spend $30 million more helping elect
Democrats in 2006.
Much of his largesse will be directed, as it was last year, to a 527
group called Americans Coming Together, or ACT. The group was heavily
involved in Ohio in ’04, focusing on voter turnout and earning
praise from Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman, who credited ACT
with helping Kerry come within 119,000 votes of winning Ohio.
ACT plans to invest heavily in Ohio next year, and its comprehensive
plans for the next three years – leading up to the 2008 presidential
contest – involve a significant ongoing presence in the Buckeye
State. ACT is preparing to hire a full-time state director, and the
group will focus on developing an infrastructure to mobilize Democratic-leaning
voters in next year’s midterm election. The organization’s
CEO has called Ohio’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign “the most
important in the nation.”
COURT
TO JUDICIAL CANDIDATES: FEEL FREE TO SPEAK
Earlier this year, a North Dakota federal court ruled that provisions
of North Dakota’s Code of Judicial Conduct that forbid judicial
candidates from making “pledges or promises of conduct in office”
or statements that “commit or appear to commit” candidates
with respect to cases likely to come before the court violate the candidates’
First Amendment right to free speech. Canon 7 of Ohio’s Code of
Judicial Conduct encompasses these same provisions.
The decision in North Dakota goes even further than the 2002 U.S. Supreme
Court decision Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, which overturned
Minnesota’s rule prohibiting judicial candidates from announcing
their views on issues such as capital punishment, abortion, tort reform,
etc. It also mirrors a decision rendered by the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division last September involving
’04 Ohio Supreme Court candidate Judge William O’Neill. That
case also dealt with the same sections of Canon 7. (See Sept. 23, 2004
The Political Edge.)
The North Dakota case was brought by the North Dakota Family Alliance
in October after a North Dakota Judicial Ethics Advisory Board opinion
suggested candidates could run afoul of the Code of Judicial Conduct
if they completed the organization’s judicial candidate survey.
The survey asked for the views of judicial candidates on issues such
as abortion and same-sex marriage.
While most judicial candidates here in Ohio will likely continue to
speak cautiously while campaigning, their ability to invoke Canon 7
and decline to answer when asked their opinions or views on important
legal issues looks to be becoming increasingly more problematic.
|
