|
NARROW
GOP WIN IN PORTMAN SPECIAL
REVERBERATES ACROSS COUNTRY
In Tuesday’s special election to choose a successor to former Congressman
and current U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman, former State Rep.
Jean Schmidt (R-Loveland) defeated personal injury lawyer and Iraq war
veteran Paul Hackett (D-Indian Hill). That Schmidt won wasn’t a
surprise. What was a surprise was her narrow margin of victory. In a
district that re-elected Portman last year with 72% of the vote and
gave 63% of its vote to Pres. George W. Bush, Schmidt beat Hackett by
just 52%-48%.
The closeness of the race has Democrats in Ohio and in Washington, D.C.,
and liberals in the “Blogosphere” crowing. Though their candidate
ultimately lost, he easily won the expectations game, and they believe
his showing underscores GOP vulnerabilities in Ohio and nationally that
could work in their favor in next year’s mid-term elections. Republicans
have a different take and, at the end of the day, still hold the seat.
Charlie Cook, publisher of the Cook Political Report, a non-partisan
newsletter that analyzes congressional elections and political trends,
previewed this race in his most recent column. He suggested that the
victory margin in this race would provide some early insight into how
damaging the current Tom Noe/Bureau of Workers’ Compensation scandal
might be to Ohio Republicans generally next year. Cook’s conclusion
was that if Schmidt’s victory margin was ten points or more, then
“there is not much of an anti-GOP wind in Ohio.” If her margin
was between six and nine points, “there is a wind, but certainly
no hurricane.” But a Schmidt win of five points or fewer would
be “a very serious warning sign for Ohio Republicans that something
is very, very wrong.”
Schmidt’s four-point win, by Cook’s analysis, indicates something
is very, very wrong for Ohio Republicans.
That, of course, is why Ohio Democrats are gleeful. If an unpopular
Republican governor, a slow-to-rebound economy, and the natural political
life cycle – since 1994, Republicans have controlled all five statewide
constitutional offices, a majority of both houses of the General Assembly,
and a majority on the Ohio Supreme Court – weren’t enough
reason already for them to be optimistic about their chances in ‘06,
now they have “Coingate,” too.
Though Schmidt couldn’t be linked to the BWC matter directly, she
could be linked to Gov. Bob Taft, and Hackett took every opportunity
he had to tie the two together. In fact, he frequently referred to her
as a “rubber stamp” for the Governor’s policies and reportedly
mentioned Schmidt and Taft together in the same sentence a dozen times
during their last debate.
National Democrats are upbeat following the race, too. They contend
that the outcome in Ohio yesterday is a harbinger of things to come
and demonstrates discontent with both the President and the Republican
Congress and flagging support for the war in Iraq. Hackett’s near-upset
has them thinking that 2006 might be their version of 1994, when a national
GOP surge gave Republicans control of Congress.
Republicans, on the other hand, are calling the results an anomaly and
caution not to read too much into the outcome of one special election
held 15 months before the next relevant general election. After all,
it was just last year that Democrats were trumpeting wins in special
elections in Kentucky and South Dakota as possible precursors to recapturing
a U.S. House majority in November.
The GOP also points out that the makeup of the electorate in special
elections is different from that of a normal election, and that less
than 25 percent of registered voters turned out for Tuesday’s election.
By comparison, turnout in last year’s general election exceeded
70 percent.
In addition, Republicans vehemently dispute that the results of this
election represent a weakening of support for Pres. Bush, given that
Hackett himself, in his main TV commercial, featured footage of the
President. They claim Hackett only did as well as he did because he
presented himself to voters as a conservative.
While it is possible the Schmidt-Hackett race heralds a gloomy election
scenario for Republicans in 2006, it’s also possible that the race
simply pitted a strong Democrat – respected for his military service
and with enthusiastic supporters motivated to go vote – against
a Republican that couldn’t inspire the usual GOP base to go to
the polls.
Whether you choose to believe the Democrat or Republican conclusions
regarding this race, the real winners were the left-leaning blogs. Liberal
political activists across the Internet – they call themselves
the “netroots” – focused on the Hackett candidacy early
on and created true grassroots interest in the race. Their constant
focus on the race got Hackett mentioned regularly on liberal talk radio
programs aired on Air America, and their July 19 “Blogosphere Day”
fundraising project claims to have raised at least $120,000 from small
donors across the country for the Hackett campaign. These successes
translated into even more interest on the part of the blogging community
– in effect creating a self-perpetuating cycle.
Democrats in D.C. were forced to take notice, and they ultimately made
the race a priority, sending in national heavyweights like Jim Carville,
former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland, and Ohio icon and former U.S. Sen. John
Glenn to help spur local attention and interest and assist with fundraising.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee even weighed in with
a significant TV buy the week before the election. This involvement
generated an even greater sense of optimism about the race – and
even more online buzz. Finally, many of the online activists reportedly
made the trip to Ohio to participate in extensive get-out-the-vote activities
the weekend preceding the election.
And the liberal bloggers aren’t above claiming victory for the
Hackett showing, either. DEMbloggers.com even bragged the day after
the election that “because of everyone that donated money, time,
and their efforts we proved the establishment wrong and we proved that
we could be competitive in every district in America.”
Despite the blogs’ clear impact on this race, generating significant
interest and support for one candidate running in an isolated, atypical
campaign does not prove Democrats can “be competitive in every
district.” After all, the timing of this election allowed liberals
to focus on Hackett’s campaign with an intensity it won’t
be possible to duplicate when a host of other races are competing for
attention at the same time. What the blogs’ involvement does show,
however, is the potential of the Internet in politics.
As for Jean Schmidt, she’ll soon be sworn in as a member of Congress,
but her weak performance will only increase speculation – which
had been ongoing even before the election – that she’ll face
a primary challenge next May.
For Paul Hackett, this was probably his best shot at winning a seat
in Congress. He’d have a much more difficult time coming this close
in a regular November general election. A rematch with Schmidt in 2006
may even be impossible, given that Hackett expects to return to Iraq
next year with his Marines reserve unit. However, a performance like
his likely makes him a strong potential candidate for a race on more
politically-neutral territory. A future bid for something like Hamilton
County commissioner is not out of the question.
LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS SUES STATE
SEEKING ELECTION SYSTEM CHANGES
In the latest effort to combat perceived problems with Ohio’s administration
of the 2004 presidential elections, the League of Women Voters last
week filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court against the State
of Ohio. The League believes the state has engaged in “30 years
of dysfunctional election administration.”
The lawsuit alleges that the Secretary of State, the Governor and their
predecessors have “through a pattern of maladministration…
deprived… citizens of Ohio of their fundamental Constitutional
right to vote.” They suggest that voting deficiencies began in
1971 and continue today, though the list of supposed deficiencies outlined
in the lawsuit includes several of the oft-repeated charges from the
2004 election, such as long lines at some polling locations and the
mishandling of provisional ballots.
In its lawsuit, the League is being represented by multiple attorneys,
including attorneys from the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law, the People for the American Way Foundation, and the National
Voting Rights Institute. A pre-trial conference with attorneys for both
the plaintiffs and defendants has been set for August 30.
CAMPAIGN
FINANCE REPORTS PROVIDE FIRST GLIMPSE INTO ‘06
Last December, the General Assembly passed a comprehensive campaign
finance reform bill, the most often stated purpose for which was the
need for better disclosure. One of the new disclosure-related provisions
was a requirement that candidates and political action committees file
a semi-annual statement of contributions and expenditures in non-election
years. Previously, only an annual report was required.
The first semi-annual reports under the new law were filed last Friday,
and cover financial activity from one month after last year’s election
through the end of June 2005. These reports provide an early glimpse
into the fundraising strengths of candidates running statewide in 2006.
Below are the significant figures for all current statewide candidates
that filed a report:
At this point,
the most telling numbers involve the five gubernatorial candidates.
Both Democrats raised roughly the same amount, and even though Michael
Coleman announced his candidacy three months before Ted Strickland,
they both opened their campaign accounts around the same time.
Both also nearly equaled the fundraising totals of two of the three
GOP candidates and outraised the other. Although Coleman and Strickland
currently trail all three Republicans in amounts on hand, the fact they
raised almost as much as their GOP counterparts is significant, as Democrat
candidates in recent statewide elections have been plagued by their
inability to compete financially.
As for the Republicans, Ken Blackwell’s fundraising appears to
have begun to match his presumptive status as the GOP frontrunner. He
was the leading fundraiser in the state over this period, and though
he still faces a 3-to-1 disadvantage in cash-on-hand as compared with
Jim Petro, the gap has narrowed considerably. At the end of the last
reporting period Petro had a nearly 10-to-1 advantage. Betty Montgomery
posted the weakest fundraising numbers, though recent polling shows
that, of the three GOP candidates, she has both the highest name recognition
and highest favorable rating among Republican voters.
The fields clearly aren’t set yet for the other offices, but initial
fundraising strength is being demonstrated by GOP candidate for auditor
Mary Taylor and Democrat attorney general candidate Subodh Chandra.
Outside of the gubernatorial candidates, appointed Republican Treasurer
Jeannette Bradley raised more than any other candidate and had the largest
balance – results not surprising given that she is the lone incumbent
running for the same seat. Jim Trakas, a Republican running for secretary
of state, brought in a decent amount but spent even more, leaving him
with barely $1,000 on hand.
The semi-annual reports also shed some light on one other campaign that
many around the Statehouse political scene are following. Sen. Lynn
Wachtmann (R-Napoleon) is term-limited, and all three state representatives
in his district – Reps. Steve Buehrer (R-Delta), Mike Gilb (R-Findlay),
and Jim Hoops (R-Napoleon) – are planning to seek the GOP nomination
to succeed him. The 1st Senate district is heavily Republican territory
in northwestern Ohio.
Though having the most money doesn’t necessarily equate to being
the strongest candidate or guarantee a win, financial resources are
clearly a key element in any successful campaign. In the race to succeed
Wachtmann, Buehrer has jumped out to an early fundraising lead. He has
collected almost $125,000 so far this year, giving him just over $203,000
on hand. That’s more than twice as much as Hoops and close to five
times more than Gilb currently have in the bank. Hoops received contributions
totaling $48,735 and now has $97,269 available, while Gilb brought in
$42,508 and has a total cash balance of $43,161.
AFL-CIO
BREAKUP CONCERNS DEMOCRATS
In the last issue of The Political Edge, we discussed the cracks that
were appearing within the AFL-CIO. Since that time, the cracks have
become a full-fledged break. Three major unions – the Service Employees
International Union, the Teamsters, and the United Food and Commercial
Workers – have officially disaffiliated with the AFL-CIO. These
three unions represent 4.6 million members, or approximately 35% of
the 13 million member AFL-CIO.
These three unions have joined together, along with four others that
remain affiliated with the AFL-CIO, to form the Change to Win Coalition.
The results of this split will be felt most significantly in two areas,
both impacting business: organizing and politics.
On the organizing front, one of Change to Win’s stated objectives
is simply to organize more workers. In response, the AFL-CIO is also
said to be beefing up its organizing efforts. This emphasis on organizing
could have both positive and negative ramifications for the two groups.
On the negative side, it could be costly, as both groups will be spending
resources when only one was previously, and they lose the benefit of
some economies of scale. In addition, it is possible that, with the
AFL-CIO no longer in a position to referee disputes, unions will raid
other unions for members, thus creating further animosity without resulting
in an increase in the number of organized employees.
Nonetheless, organizing activity is expected to intensify – a favorable
outcome if successful. In particular, increased activity is anticipated
in states considered to be “battleground” states politically.
In many of these states, slight increases in raw numbers of union members
would translate into a more significant increase in union density and
a correspondingly greater ability to impact elections.
Other political implications of a divided labor movement have Democrats
– traditional recipients of big labor’s financial and manpower
largesse – worried. While the Change to Win members listed frustration
with the AFL-CIO’s penchant for spending increasingly more money
and attention on politics in support of unsuccessful Democrat candidates
as one of their reasons for disaffiliating, they aren’t going to
abandon political involvement. Though both groups will likely be major
financial players in Democratic politics, the potential concerns stem
from how other political activities may be affected.
One of the biggest political consequences, at least in the short term,
may be the fact that the AFL-CIO can no longer legally involve the disaffiliated
unions’ members in their coordinated get-out-the-vote activities
– activities that are the centerpiece of typical AFL-CIO grassroots
efforts. Another concern voiced by Democrats is that the two labor groups
might endorse opposing candidates in an effort to differentiate and
one-up each other, thus resulting in a divided labor movement.
P.a.C.E.
VOTING RECORD: FEW VOTES, BUT A RANGE OF SCORES
In July, the Ohio Chamber published our first P.a.C.E. Voting Record
for the 126th General Assembly. Because much of the first six months
of 2005 were spent dealing with the budget and tax reform, little time
was left for consideration of other business priorities.
Of all the bills on which the Ohio Chamber adopted an “oppose”
or “support” position, just four in the Senate and three in
the House even made it to the floor for a vote. Nonetheless, voting
record scores in both chambers varied widely. In the Senate, 21 lawmakers
posted perfect 100 percent scores, but there were also several with
scores of just 50 percent. In the House, the scores ranged from a low
of 33 percent to a high of 100 percent. Seven legislators voted with
the Ohio Chamber just 33 percent of the time.
The closest vote of 2005 so far was the Senate vote on S.B. 7, a package
of workers’ compensation reforms sponsored by Sen. Gary Cates (R-West
Chester). It passed 21-11.
S.B. 7 is the Ohio Chamber’s top legislative priority for this
session. The bill is designed to make Ohio’s workers’ compensation
system more predictable and more in line with the systems in other states
and will go a long way toward reducing overall premium costs and keeping
our system competitive. Unfortunately, the politics of the BWC matter
resulted in the bill not getting to the House floor for a vote prior
to the legislature’s summer recess.
To check out up-to-date voting record scores online, visit www.OhioBusinessVotes.org.
|
