BY HOWARD WILKINSON
The Cincinnati Enquirer
A 22-year prohibition against laws that limit candidates' campaign spending will stay in place after the U.S. Supreme Court brushed aside a Cincinnati challenge Monday.
The court, without comment, refused to hear an appeal by the city of Cincinnati in defense of the 1995 ordinance that restricted spending in campaigns for city council.
The decision thwarts attempts by voting rights groups and two dozen state attorneys general to parlay the Cincinnati law into a national test case for spending limits.
It was a victory for John Kruse, the unsuccessful city council candidate in 1993 and 1995, who challenged the ordinance as an unconstitutional abridgement of First Amendment rights.
"I have to admit that, going in, I wasn't quite sure where all of this was going to go," Mr. Kruse said.
Mr. Kruse, a Republican, had won lower court rulings. But campaign finance reform advocates hoped the Supreme Court would use the Cincinnati law to review its landmark Buckley vs. Valeo case from 1976.
Leading the appeal for the city was the National Voting Rights Institute in Boston.
"It's disappointing, because this is the case we had hoped would convince the court to take another look at Buckley vs. Valeo," said lawyer John Bonifaz of the voting rights institute. "But we're sure that, some day, the court will take up the case and Cincinnati will have played a large role in that."
Mr. Bonifaz's group may have a second chance to convince the high court to revisit Buckley vs. Valeo with another Ohio case. The campaign-spending limits for Ohio judicial candidates set by the Ohio Supreme Court have been struck down by a federal appeals court. Mr. Bonifaz said the institute is preparing a petition asking the high court to hear the case.
Cincinnati's law was adopted by city council in 1995 on a 5-4 vote. It set a campaign spending limit for council candidates of three times a council member's salary, or about $140,000.
In recent council elections, many candidates have spent far more than that, with Republican incumbent Phil Heimlich setting the individual spending record in 1997 with $456,352.
Councilman Todd Portune, the Democrat who sponsored the spending limit legislation, said the law was an attempt to "level the playing field" for council candidates who did not have access to large amounts of money.
Mr. Kruse challenged the law in federal court here. Last year, U.S. District Herman Weber ruled in favor of Mr. Kruse before the case went to trial. The judge said the city had not shown any reason to overturn the Buckley vs. Valeo decision.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit here upheld Judge Weber's decision.
Some council members were ready this year to abandon the city's appeal of the case, saying it was a waste of taxpayers' money. But they relented after Mr. Bonifaz offered to petition the U.S. Supreme Court without charging legal fees to the city.
Campaign finance reform advocates around the country had high hopes the city might be able to persuade four of the nine justices to take up the case.
Friend-of-the-court briefs were filed on behalf of Cincinnati by attorneys general from 26 states and chief elections officers from 15 states.
But the justices did not accept the city's arguments that circumstances had changed since the 1976 ruling, and that candidates were being "priced out of the market" by escalating campaign costs.
The city will be responsible for paying the legal fees of Mr. Kruse. The federal court already has awarded Mr. Kruse's attorney $52,000 for legal work in the original case; and Mr. Kruse's attorneys are asking the court for $55,000 for their work at the appellate level.
Christopher Finney, an attorney for Mr. Kruse, said the attorneys would seek another $30,000 to $40,000 for fighting the city's petition to the Supreme Court.
"We've said since the very first day that the city's position was absolutely unsupportable under the law," Mr. Finney said. "It's a very gratifying result."
Mr. Portune said Monday was a "disappointing day for those of us who want to ring some sensibility into money and politics."
Council, at the same time it passed a spending limit law in 1995, restricted contributions to council candidates by individuals, political action committees and political parties.
That law was challenged in court by the Hamilton County Conservative Forum, but the case has yet to go to trial. Contribution limits, unlike spending limits, have been upheld by courts in the past.
