THE POLITICAL EDGE FEBRUARY 1999 TERM LIMITS AND CANDIDATE IDENTIFICATION TO BE FEATURED AT OCC ANNUAL MEETING The effects of term limits across the country and what businesses can do to deal with them will be the focus of one of the morning break-out sessions at the 1999 Ohio Chamber Annual Meeting, March 16-17. One of the panelists will be Charles Mahtesian, a staff writer for Governing Magazine and the author of the August 1998 article "Bench Press," which highlighted the P.a.C.E. Business Evaluation of the Supreme Court. Mahtesian will discuss the changes in state legislatures from Arkansas to Michigan due to term limits. Also on the panel will be Ray Byers, Ohio Government Affairs Director for Ford Motor Company, to discuss the ways Ford is encouraging employees to get involved in public service. P.a.C.E. Director Chip McConville will moderate the session and provide an assessment of the term limit exodus in Ohio. If you have not registered for the Ohio Chamber Annual Meeting, do so now! E-mail OCC Program Manager Lauren Grimmet at lgrimmett@ohiochamber.com or call (614)228-4201. We look forward to seeing our P.a.C.E. supporters there! EARLY SIDE EFFECT OF TERM LIMITS: LESS POWER TO THE PEOPLE Didn't term limit backers tell us term limits were supposed to return power to the voters? While they may ultimately return some power to voters, early indications are they're doing just the opposite. That's because many term-limited legislators are bailing out early, opting not to serve out the entire term to which they were elected. And when there's a vacant legislative seat to fill, the voters don't get to decide who fills it, the members of the legislature do. Article II, Section 11 of the Ohio Constitution provides that "A vacancy in the Senate or in the House of RepresentativesÉshall be filled by election by the members of the Senate or the members of the House of Representatives, as the case may be, who are affiliated with the same political party as the person last elected by the electors to the seat which has become vacant." This means that voters get no say in determining the appointee. In addition, the appointed incumbent gets to run with the all of the advantages of incumbency: increased name recognition, better fundraising ability, and the chance to tout legislative accomplishments. Legislation has been introduced to amend the Ohio Constitution and provide for special elections in lieu of appointments. By providing for further participation in the electoral process, special elections would afford the business community the opportunity to elect more pro-business candidates, but would also afford other interest groups - such as labor unions, trial attorneys, etc. - the same opportunity to elect their candidates. However, the prospect of this legislation passing is slim. It is unlikely that the General Assembly would willingly relinquish its power to determine such appointments. At the beginning of 1999, there were 49 members of the House and seven members of the Senate beginning their final term. Already, six of these legislators have resigned to accept other positions, both within and outside of government. Many more such departures are expected. P.a.C.E. is already preparing for this new trend, as we are presently in the process of compiling a list of interested or potential candidates in all of the districts that are currently represented by term-limited legislators. This emphasis on early candidate identification will ensure that future legislators - whether appointed or elected - are strong on key business issues and that the business community remains poised for political and policy victories in the next millennium. If you are a in a district where there will be a vacancy in 2000 - if not earlier - you are encouraged to start thinking about potential candidates, both Democrats and Republicans, who have worked well with the business community and who may have an interest in representing the community at the Statehouse. Please call us if you are aware of such candidates who are emerging right now. EMBOLDENED AFL-CIO TARGETS OHIO, MIDWESTERN STATES FOR MASSIVE POLITICAL EFFORT IN 2000 Bolstered by what it considered to be a successful political effort in 1998, the AFL-CIO earlier this month unveiled plans to spend as much as $46 million - money which will come from members' dues without their express consent - to effect the outcome of the 2000 elections. This effort will primarily be an expansion of the union's efforts in 1998, when it focused on grassroots mobilization and education of union households. Ohio is one of six states - Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin being the others - that, due to its significant union membership and importance in the presidential contest, will be an AFL-CIO target in 2000. According to 1997 figures, Ohio had the fifth-highest number of unionized employees - a total of about 931,000, or about 19% of the stateÕs workforce - in the country. Components of the new AFL-CIO plan include a massive voter registration drive, a get-out-the-vote effort aimed at union households and perceived allies in African-American and other minority communities, and extensive political operations in about 35 congressional districts. Though most of the money will supposedly be spent on these kinds of "ground warfare" activities, an "air" element comprised of issue ads is also probable. Leading up to the 1998 elections, the unions comprising the AFL-CIO claim to have registered half a million union workers and members of their families to vote, sent more than 9.5 million pieces of mail to union households, and made 5.5 million personal get-out-the-vote phone calls. Another aspect of the recently announced campaign is a continued emphasis on the union's "2000 in 2000" effort, whereby it hopes to have 2000 highly-trained union-member candidates running for public office at various levels in 2000. The union alleges to have had 600 union-member candidates in 1998. Though the concentrated efforts of unions had a negligible effect on the outcomes of campaigns in Ohio in 1998, this new plan is cause for concern. There are several reasons why the business community in Ohio needs to take it seriously and to be at least as aggressive in countering it. First and foremost, we all know that term-limits will create a bevy of open seats. This should result in many more competitive General Assembly races than in recent years and thus, more opportunities for groups who are well-organized to have an impact. Labor's plan demonstrates their intention to be well-organized. Second, a majority of the term-limited legislators are solid, pro-business legislators. Simple math shows that the business community will be forced primarily to play defense, giving the unions an opportunity to go on offense. Third, the potential candidacies of union-members from the "2000 in 2000" effort may influence Democratic candidate recruitment strategy. The business community must seek out and encourage candidates who understand the challenges of running a business in order to maintain the strong levels of support for pro-business legislation in the Ohio General Assembly that we have seen the last four years. Finally, if unions are successful in achieving their voter registration and mobilization goals, a heavy union turnout on Election Day - on top of the typically larger Democrat turnout in presidential election years - could spell the difference in close elections. FOLLOW-UPS: PAYCHECK PROTECTION While the movement to protect union workers from mandatory paycheck deductions for political activities lost considerable momentum after the disastrous defeat of California's Proposition 226 in the 1998 primary election, some activity on this issue continues in various places around the country. In South Dakota, a bill to require prior written authorization of political paycheck deductions (HB 1293) passed the House by a vote of 36 to 32. This action came after a vote of the full House was required to remove the bill from committee and place it on the floor calendar. According to sources in South Dakota, a tough battle is expected in the state senate, where labor union lobbyists will redouble their efforts. If the bill wins passage is the senate, Governor William Janklow, a Republican, is expected to sign it. In Florida, the state elections commission ruled in early February that public employee unions may not deduct PAC funds from worker paychecks under Florida elections law. According to Americans for Tax Reform, "The Commission found that the deduction of political funds from public employee paychecks amounted to a violation of the state's law banning the 'solicitation or acceptance' of campaign contributions in a government building." The formal, written opinion on this decision is expected in six to eight weeks. In 1995, Ohio passed Senate Bill 8, which included a provision similar to Florida's law. The statute, which prevented public employers from administering political deductions, was challenged in both state and federal courts. The state lawsuit, U.A.W Local 1112 v. Philomena, was decided last year when the 10th District Court of Appeals found section 3599.031 unconstitutional, and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to hear the case. In the federal matter, Toledo Area AFL-CIO v Pizza, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the ban on public employer administration of paycheck deductions may, in fact, be permissible. It its opinion, the 6th Circuit cited the state decision and stated that only the U.S. Supreme Court could resolve the conflict. Since the deadline for appeals has passed, paycheck protection for government employees remains in limbo in Ohio. INITIATIVE PETITIONS In November, The Political Edge brought you a report about the rise of public financing concepts such as the ones passed in Arizona and Massachusetts by voter referendum. With this and other potential ballot issues in mind, we will wait to see how a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding ballot access affects referendum campaigns. In Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., the court struck down state requirements in Colorado that required petition circulators to be registered voters and wear name badges indicating whether they were paid or volunteer circulators. The Court also invalidated a requirement that initiative supporters file monthly statements naming paid circulators and disclosing how much they were paid. Victoria Buckley, Colorado's secretary of state, argued that these regulations were needed in the face of the growing business enterprise of using paid petition circulators to get issues placed on the ballot. With circulators paid at a per-signature rate that usually starts at one dollar, some in Colorado worried that wealthy interests could buy ballot access for referenda using out-of-state consultants and circulators. The American Constitutional Law Foundation, led by Bill Orr, characterized the ruling as a win for the little guy. "This is a huge victory for the people of America who are frustrated with the government," he said. "It re-empowers the people who are supposed to be using the initiative process all along: the moms and dads and volunteers." The ruling did uphold certain restrictions put into place to ensure grass-roots support, including a minimum signature requirement, and a disclaimer in "plain English" describing the petition language to potential signers. Paid circulators have become almost a necessity to get an issue on the statewide ballot in Ohio, unless the issue is placed on the ballot by a supermajority vote of the General Assembly. It will be interesting to see if this decision gets legislative attention at the Statehouse.