BY MICHAEL HAWTHORNE
Enquirer Columbus Bureau
COLUMBUS -- Raising the issue of First Amendment rights in political advertising, Republican Bob Taft's campaign for governor today will fight in two courts to get a controversial TV spot back on the air.
In the one courtroom, Judge John Connor of Franklin County Common Pleas Court is to hold a full hearing on a temporary restraining order he granted Saturday in response to a fraud complaint filed by Democrat Lee Fisher.
Mr. Taft's lawyers also will be across town seeking to have the Ohio Supreme Court remove Judge Connor from the case.
In a pair of motions filed Monday, the Taft campaign contends the judge's decision was an unconstitutional restraint of free speech and argues he did not have the authority to order the ad pulled from the airwaves. At issue is an ad that uses a partial quote from a newspaper article to state that Mr. Taft did not raise taxes as a Hamilton County commissioner. Before issuing his order, Judge Connor said the ad is misleading.
"This is a clear violation of the First Amendment," said Jack Chester, one of Mr. Taft's attorneys. "This dispute should go back to the (Ohio) Elections Commission, where it belongs."
For Mr. Fisher's attorney, Jennifer Brunner, the case is about fraud, not free-speech rights. "Our research indicates there is no protection from a lie," she said.
Absent from the Taft campaign's complaint is any discussion of campaign contributions from jurists involved in the case.
Taft campaign manager Brian Hicks said Sunday the campaign's lawyers would seek to force Judge Connor to step down because his campaign committee bought a $125 ticket to a Fisher fund-raiser. The contribution was prominently featured during the weekend on TV reports about the dispute.
However, the Taft campaign stepped back after reviewing campaign finance reports that show Justice Deborah Cook gave Mr. Taft's political fund the maximum contribution allowed under Ohio law: $2,500 on Aug. 28. Justice Alice Robie Resnick gave $200 to the Fisher campaign on Sept. 28.
Both campaigns now say they don't plan to make an issue of the contributions.
"It's clear that Mr. Taft is operating in Wonderland," said Alan Melamed, Mr. Fisher's campaign chairman. "But we aren't going to play their hypocritical game."
In the disputed ad, Mr. Taft attacks Mr. Fisher's proposal to deduct an additional 15 percentage points off a homeowner's property tax bill, up to $275 annually. The state already pays 12.5 percent of the property tax on owner-occupied housing.
The ad also rebuts a claim in a Fisher ad that Hamilton County's property taxes jumped 46 percent during the time Mr. Taft served as a county commissioner. And it assails Mr. Fisher's 1983 vote as a state senator for an income tax increase.
Mr. Fisher's campaign argues the ad intentionally misleads voters by using an incomplete quote from a Cleveland Plain Dealer article, which actually questioned the accuracy and completeness of the claims made in Mr. Taft's ad.
The ad says Mr. Taft "never raised property taxes." As the Plain Dealer front page is displayed, an announcer says, "It says right on the front page of the Plain Dealer, "Taft didn't raise the taxes. . . .' "
Missing are words at the beginning and end of the sentence. The full text reads, "But Taft didn't raise the taxes himself." The article also explains that Mr. Taft voted to put 14 property tax increases on the ballot, 13 of which were approved.
Mr. Taft campaigned for some of the tax increases but argues it was up to the people to decide whether they were raised.
"There isn't a legal scholar outside of this one judge who believes this case has any merit," said Brett Buerck, Mr. Taft's campaign spokesman.
The Fisher campaign's complaint is unusual because it alleges a violation of common fraud and not of the state's election laws. Such complaints usually are heard by an administrative panel, the Ohio Elections Commission. But the Fisher campaign said traversing the normal route could have dragged on past the Nov. 3 election.
"By then, the damage could have been irreparable," Ms. Brunner said. "We decided we didn't have any other choice."
An expert on campaign ads said, ultimately, the truth of the ads won't be the issue in a court of law.
"I would be very surprised if the restraining order could stick," said Bruce Gronbeck, professor of communication studies at the University of Iowa. "The First Amendment has always stopped these type of complaints cold."
As the campaigns battle over the ad in court, the Fisher campaign picked up some unlikely support from a pair of conservative anti-tax groups.
Scott Pullins, executive director of the National Taxpayers' Union of Ohio, called Mr. Taft's defense "ludicrous."
"Maybe he should go give legal advice to Bill Clinton," Mr. Pullins said.
"For Bob Taft to say, "I wasn't voting to increase taxes, I was just voting to let the people decide' is a ridiculous and cowardly statement to make," Mr. Pullins added. "It would be like Lee Fisher saying, "I didn't vote for the 90 percent income tax increase, I just voted to let the governor decide whether it became law.' "
Mr. Taft made similar arguments in 1990 before he abandoned a bid for governor.
In a press release, his campaign assailed the eventual Republican nominee, George Voinovich, for supporting nine local, state and federal tax increases while mayor of Cleveland. "When George Voinovich says "no new taxes,' hold on to your wallet," the release declared.
Asked about the comment, Mr. Buerck said, "Something that happened in 1990 is irrelevant to this discussion."
Meanwhile, the Buckeye Institute, a Dayton-based conservative think tank, said the property tax cuts proposed by Mr. Fisher would boost the state economy.
While cautioning that its report was not an endorsement, the institute estimated the plan would have a ripple effect, increasing retail sales by $1.4 billion and increasing disposable income $2 billion between 1999 and 2003.
