Saturday, May 20, 2000
TV ads called loophole
Study: 'Soft money' aids campaigns
By Howard Wilkinson
The Cincinnati Enquirer
With the use of millions in “soft money” TV ads, political parties have turned the rules governing spending in Congressional races into a “sham,” according to a major new study.
And some of the most egregious examples of how political parties have skirted legal definitions governing campaign finance laws have occurred in Ohio campaigns, according to a study by the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
Brennan Center researchers studied 1998 television advertising in 50 U.S. Senate and House races around the country, looking at what was spent by candidates' campaign committees, the politi cal parties and independent groups.
Included in the survey was the U.S. Senate race in Ohio, where Republican George Voinovich defeated Democrat Mary Boyle; the 1st Congressional District race in which Republican incumbent Steve Chabot was re-elected over Democrat Roxanne Qualls; and the 6th Congressional District, where Democratic incumbent Ted Strickland of Lucasville was re-elected over Republican Nancy Hollister.
The Brennan Center study found that millions were spent by the parties and in
terest groups on so-called issue ads paid for by “soft money” — political money that can be raised and spent without reporting where it came from.
Under federal rules, “soft money” can be spent on ads that focus on issues and do not advocate the re-election or defeat of any candidate.
But what the Brennan Center study found was what most political professionals have known all along — that most “issue ads” are just thinly veiled campaign ads aimed at electing specific candidates.
“These are the kind of ads that pretend they are not about candidates, but they really are,” said Josh Rosenkranz, president of the Brennan Center.
Mr. Rosenkranz said the study found that two-thirds of the “issue ads” are paid for by political parties and all those ads mention specific candidates.
What those ads do not do is use specific phrases outlined in a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court decision — the so-called “magic words” such as “elect” or “vote for” or “defeat.”
“They don't use the magic words, so they don't have to report where the money for the ads comes from,” Mr. Rosenkranz said. “It's a great big loophole, and both political parties run right through it.”
The Brennan Center study showed that of 2,100 campaign commercials aired about 300,000 times in 1998 and paid for by congressional campaigns, political parties and outside groups, only 4 percent actually used the “magic words” that the Supreme Court said differentiates “electioneering” ads from “issue” ads.
Ohio Republican Party Chairman Bob Bennett said expenditures by the political parties “are not the problem, because we have to report the money we take in.”
“I'm telling you, the U.S. Supreme Court says we can do it, so I don't see how anybody can say we're using a loophole,” Mr. Bennett said. “There is no loophole.”
Next week, officials of the Brennan Center, which has been involved in court cases defending campaign contribution limit laws, will hold a press conference in Washington, D.C., outlining its recommendations on how Congress and the Federal Elections Commission can close the loopholes it says allow soft money “issue ads.”
The study showed that in many races around the country, political party “issue ads” dominated some congressional campaigns, including the 6th District of Ohio.
In that race, more than half of the 2,340 ads aired for Ms. Hollister were paid for by the Republican party and outside interest groups. Mr. Strickland's campaign benefited from 376 ads — about 27 percent of the campaign total — paid for by outside interest groups.
The Chabot-Qualls campaign had relatively little “soft money” help from the political parties. Approximately 10 percent of the $869,603 spent on TV on behalf of Mr. Chabot came from the Republican Party; Ms. Qualls had no such help from the Democratic Party.
Ms. Boyle was outspent 3-1 by Mr. Voinovich in Ohio's U.S. Senate campaign that year. The underdog Democrat got substantial party support — 20 percent of the spending on TV on her behalf came from the Democratic party.
Colon cancer vaccine ready to test
Student graduates in hospital
Again: A fatal crash and a stricken school
Taft signs ban on some late-term abortions
'Average Joe' robs Clermont bank
Fairfield official indicted on fraud
Findlay project gets $250,000 gift
Petition dispute a lesson in civics
RAMSEY: School funding is one hot potato
Slain police officers honored at memorial service
'Son of Beast' closed for third weekend
TV ads called loophole
Ky. to see Bush, Gore often
N.Ky. primary is one-office race
Other candidates on ballot, like it or not
Appeal rejected in Officer Partin's death
Newport looks at race book
Schools look for new chief
Schools to move off tainted site
Cancer report led to probe
Get to it
May Festival gets off to glorious start
Pig Parade: Sow's It Goin' . . . Cincinnati!
Suspect in fatal DUI returns to Mexico
Teen faces weapons charge
Teen held on suspicion of poisoning drinks
Tristate Digest
Around the Commonwealth
Covington teachers get raises
Dozens charged after wild party
Fairfield schools hire new athletic director
Girl, 14, suspended for threatening letter
Man guilty of raping girl, 11
Middletown will survey residents about parks
Mission: To bring Hamilton business
Orchestra listens to critics of new name
OSU strike appears ended
Phys ed shunted aside in curriculum changes
S. Lebanon man pleads guilty in Jan. shooting
School digs up the past
Senate hopeful wants divorce of religion, politics
Sibling bus drivers retiring
Slaying still juvenile case, Wehrung lawyers say
Software maker heads to Deerfield
