Ohio Chamber of Commerce - Governmental Affairs

THE POLITICAL EDGE
JULY 1999

1999 P.a.C.E. VOTING RECORD: GOOD NEWS SO FAR
By now, the first P.a.C.E. Voting Record is on its way to all Ohio Chamber of Commerce members. The results show a very pro-business voting pattern in the General Assembly, with the highest average results for the House and Senate since P.a.C.E. began to monitor votes in 1993. Democrats and Republicans alike have had very high scores this session on a range of issues. The business community has reason to be pleased from the new voting record results. Not one bill opposed by the Chamber has passed so far this session.

This should not imply, however, that there has been universal agreement on issues affecting business. The motivation behind some voting patterns this session is as much political as it is pro-business. There was widespread disagreement on whether tort liability for health insurers and employers would become a part of House Bill 4, the "Patient Protection Act," and amendments to include liability in the bill were offered on the floor of both houses. Rather than voting on the substance of these amendments, both the House and Senate disposed of them through tabling motions, which simply remove the amendments from consideration. This procedural move shields members from the potential fallout of voting on the measure, but it takes away the pro-business/anti-business contrast the P.a.C.E. Voting Record seeks to provide.

Given the usual tendency of the General Assembly to avoid more controversial legislation during election years, this session may turn out to be a record-breaker for P.a.C.E. Voting Record scores. At the same time, certain pro-business bills that could cause contention may have to wait for the next session, when the agenda will be far less certain -- given the influx of new lawmakers from term-limit open seats.

WHAT'S GOING ON IN THEIR HEADS?
Many observers of the Ohio Supreme Court have asked this question in relation to some of the verdicts that have been issued in recent years, but a recently-completed P.a.C.E. study takes a more analytical view of the thinking that occurs on important business decisions at the court. P.a.C.E. examined the "voting patterns" of the justices on the significant business cases that have been included in the last two Business Evaluations of the Ohio Supreme Court. The results provide us with some insight into the affinities certain justices have for the opinions of other justices -- and the justices who are most likely to disagree on business issues.

COOK
most likely to rule with Moyer (91% of cases)
least likely to rule with Pfeifer (46% of cases)

DOUGLAS
most likely to rule with Sweeney (87% of cases)
least likely to rule with Cook (52% of cases)

MOYER
most likely to rule with Cook (91% of cases)
least likely to rule with Pfeifer (54% of cases)

PFEIFER
most likely to rule with Resnick (76% of cases)
least likely to rule with Cook (46% of cases)

RESNICK
most likely to rule with Sweeney (86% of cases)
least likely to rule with Cook (50% of cases)

STRATTON
most likely to rule with Cook or Moyer (84% of cases - tie)
least likely to rule with Resnick (58% of cases)

SWEENEY
most likely to rule with Douglas (87% of cases)
least likely to rule with Cook (51% of cases)

There are a few inferences we can make from these numbers. First, the percentages seem to portray Justice Cook as a lightning rod -- other members of the court tend to strongly agree with her or strongly disagree on business issues. Second, partisanship means little in terms of who many justices vote with. There are strong voting affinities between Justices Sweeney (D) and Douglas (R), and between Justices Pfeifer (R) and Resnick (D). At the same time Justices Moyer and Cook are more likely not to vote with their fellow Republican, Justice Pfeifer. Third, these numbers bear out the assertion that Justice Pfeifer is truly the swing vote on the Ohio Supreme Court. His highest voting affinity of 76 percent with Justice Resnick is the lowest of the high scores for any justice. This tends to statistically confirm his "maverick" image.

CANDIDATE "SURFACING" SEMINAR FINDS NEW TALENT
If the turnout at the recent candidate surfacing seminar is any indication, there will be no shortage of candidates to compete for legislative seats soon to become vacant because of term limits. Over 60 potential candidates, campaign managers and spouses attended the late-June seminar sponsored by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Farm Bureau, NFIB/Ohio and Nationwide Insurance.

Participants spent the day reflecting on the realities of entering a political race: the demands it makes on one's time and personal life, the obstacles one faces in raising money and working toward party endorsements, and the tough calls one must make in assessing the competition and when to run. While not all of the seminar attendees were interested in a run for the Ohio General Assembly, there were a substantial number who have set their sights on the Statehouse, and it afforded P.a.C.E. staff with a chance to meet them and gather information about their campaigns.

These candidates will be among the candidates and potential candidates we will begin to profile soon in The Political Edge. In addition, the Ohio Chamber, Farm Bureau, NFIB and Nationwide will be working together this fall to sponsor an intensive two-day campaign school for candidates. This program will feature intensive media training and a campaign simulation. Watch The Political Edge for more details.

NEW P.a.C.E. COURT EVALUATIONS IN PROGRESS
Since 1995, P.a.C.E.'s Business Evaluation of the Ohio Supreme Court has set the standard for judicial evaluation at the state level. This initial evaluation and its subsequent update in 1997 have spurred considerable interest within the business community for more active participation in judicial politics. Now, P.a.C.E. is working on new, expanded judicial evaluations and an update of the Ohio Supreme Court evaluation from 1999.

For the first time, P.a.C.E. is undertaking a review of the twelve courts of appeals around Ohio, including all 66 judges, many of whom will be the Ohio Supreme Court justices of the future! To date, 5 of the 12 districts are complete and two more districts are being evaluated. When complete, the court of appeals evaluation will help to cast some light on how business fares at the intermediate level of justice in Ohio.

We welcome your input, particularly in cases involving the Ohio Supreme Court. If your business or industry has had important issues decided by the Ohio Supreme Court in the last two years, we would like to look at the case for possible inclusion in the court evaluation. Please contact Chip McConville or Keith Lake at (614) 228-4201 to add cases to the list being examined.

COLUMBUS MAYOR'S RACE A HIGHLIGHT FOR NOVEMBER
According to June estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, Columbus has grown to the fifteenth-largest city in the nation. But in terms of political interest for 1999, the Columbus mayor's race is one of the most important races in the country for the national political party organizations. If this seems a bit surprising, allow us to explain how the mayor's office Republicans have held for 28 years has become so high profile.

First and foremost, many of the larger cities won't elect a mayor again until 2001. Included on this list are New York, Los Angeles, Houston, and Detroit. Add to the list cities that decided their mayoral elections in the spring: Chicago, San Antonio, Dallas, and Jacksonville. San Diego and San Jose elect their mayors in even numbered years. This narrows the pool of potential races very quickly.

The one remaining mega-city electing a mayor in November is Philadelphia and it is practically a one-party state. The last Republican to win the mayor's race in Philly accomplished the feat in 1947, and the last Republican to come close was a fellow by the name of Arlen Specter, who lost by about 9,000 votes in 1967.

As a result, Columbus and Indianapolis are the two main second-tier cities electing mayors this year, and both are competitive because the incumbent mayors are stepping down. Interestingly, the party situations in each contest are reversed. In Columbus, the mayor's office is the last stronghold for Republicans. Democrats control council 6-1 and the other elected city offices. The beleaguered Ohio Democratic Party would love to get control of the mayor's office as a potential launch pad for a statewide candidate.

In Indianapolis, which has a unified city-county government, Republicans control both the council and the mayor's office, but political observers there say Democrats have a chance to make serious inroads on council and perhaps a shot at a majority for the first time since the "unigov" concept was adopted. The beleaguered Indiana Republican Party would love to demonstrate that it can again make a difference after suffering numerous setbacks in state elections in 1998. At any rate, expect Columbus especially -- and the Midwest generally -- to be a political hot spot this fall.

ONLY IN CALIFORNIA!
California's reputation for government by referendum continues to grow as campaign finance and reapportionment reformers got clearance from California's secretary of state to circulate petitions on four very similar initiatives involving changes to the election laws. The first three involve constitutional amendments, while the fourth makes only statutory changes.

The first would create a commission of retired judges to draw congressional and state legislative districts, while limiting statewide officials' pay increases and legislators' per diems. The second would require the legislature to fix new district boundaries by a two-thirds majority vote. The third creates the commission of retired judges to draw districts without imposing the limits on elected officials' compensation. The fourth proposal limits the fundraising period for candidates.

All four initiatives also include language to ban corporate contributions, establish contribution limits, set up limited public financing in exchange for candidates' compliance with spending limits and require ballot pamphlets to list top contributors supporting and opposing ballot issues.

Exactly what strategy motivated the circulation of four substantially similar measures of this nature remains to be seen, but if more than one is put on the ballot, it will inevitably result in some really confused voters. The proponents of these measures have until October 18 to collect 670,816 signatures apiece for the constitutional amendment proposals, and 419,260 signatures for the statutory language proposal.

While confusing, these proposals don't even approach the level of oddity of a proposed constitutional amendment pending at the California statehouse. According to the Los Angeles Times, the Assembly's Elections Committee has recommended a proposal to allow voters to repeal term limits district by district! While the future of this proposal is uncertain, it is symptomatic of the attempts by term-limited legislators to repeal term limits in many states. In California, as in Ohio, polling shows term limits remain popular with voters.

U.S. SUPREME COURT TO HEAR CONTRIBUTION LIMIT CHALLENGE
When the U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes this fall, one of the cases on its docket that could have the most far-reaching implications is Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC. The Court is being asked to consider whether or not the state of Missouri's limits on the amount an individual may contribute to a candidate for a Missouri state office is unconstitutional.

This will be the first time since it gave us the landmark 1976 Buckley v. Valeo ruling that the Court will consider the constitutionality of contribution limits. In Buckley, the Court essentially ruled that candidate spending limits are tantamount to limits on the First Amendment right to free-speech and are therefore unconstitutional, but that reasonable contribution limits are allowable if they further a legitimate governmental interest in stemming corruption.

The Shrink PAC case was brought by Bevis Schock, the creator of the Shrink Missouri Government PAC. In 1998, a personal friend of Schock's who was employed full-time and unable to devote significant time to campaigning wanted to run for State Auditor. To compensate, their strategy was to raise a significant amount of money in a short period of time in order to launch a media blitz the last three days of the campaign. However, Missouri law prohibited them from accepting more than $1,075 from individuals. So they brought suit against the state seeking to invalidate the contribution limits.

Schock lost his case at the U.S. district court level, but was successful at the appeals level. Several federal courts have invalidated low contribution limits on the grounds that they prevent candidates from waging effective campaigns. But Shrink PAC represents the first time a federal court has ruled a limit higher than the federal contribution limit of $1,000 unconstitutional.

The case may ultimately boil down to the dual questions of 1) how much money is enough to wage an effective campaign and 2) what standard of proof is necessary to demonstrate corruption or the appearance of corruption sufficient to justify contribution limits?

Though Shrink PAC gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to invalidate existing individual contribution limits, it may also impact other campaign finance limitations, including contribution limits to PACs. In addition, a ruling by the Court declaring individual contribution limits unconstitutional would likely severely hamper the various efforts throughout the country at the state and municipal levels to impose lower contribution limits.