By Carl Weiser
Enquirer Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON - Ohio is the national poster child for supreme court elections dominated by big money and special interests, a coalition of watchdog groups said Thursday.

Winning a seat on the court now costs $1.85 million. More TV ads aired in Ohio in the last supreme court election - 13,105 - than in eight other states combined. About a third of those ads were from groups whose fund-raising is kept secret.

"The extreme amount of big money in this year's judicial elections will only reduce public trust in the judicial system," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who joined the groups at a news conference here.

In 2002, two Republicans running in Ohio far out-raised their opponents, outspent them on TV ads, and won their elections. Business groups supplied most of the campaign money for the two winners, Evelyn Stratton and Maureen O'Connor.

"America's supreme court elections could be degenerating into a succession of political auctions fed by big money and led by special interests," said the report from Justice at Stake, a partnership of more than 40 legal and citizen groups. "The 2002 campaign secured Ohio's reputation as a poster child."

Thomas J. Moyer, Ohio Supreme Court chief justice, said the report shows the need for a reform bill making its way through the General Assembly. Passed by the state Senate last week, it would require any group that airs an ad about an Ohio Supreme Court candidate to disclose contributors in the same manner that candidates must make public who has donated to their campaigns.

Donations don't buy or corrupt judges, he said. He has often ruled against his contributors.

But he acknowledged the perception that money influences judges. If the court's decisions are to be respected as fair and unbiased, that perception has to be addressed, he said.

"To me, that's fundamental," Moyer said.

A poll released Thursday found that 72 percent of Americans believed campaign contributions influence judges' decisions. The poll surveyed 1,204 adults in March and had a 2.9-percentage-point margin of error.

Eight in 10 said they supported forcing groups that air TV ads in judicial races to disclose who paid for them.

The report noted that Ohio's high court races now attract fund-raising techniques common to political races, including bundling - multiple contributions from a single industry or interest group delivered en masse to a candidate. It said more than 200 employees of Cincinnati Financial Corp. combined to donate $96,663 to the two Republicans in 2002.

Scott Gilliam, director of government affairs for Cincinnati Insurance, part of Cincinnati Financial, said employees gave without corporate pressure.

"We have many employees who in their daily jobs working for an insurance company in Ohio see the impact the Supreme Court has on our policyholders every day," Gilliam said. "They see the impact of court decisions and many of them chose on their own to become voluntarily involved in those elections."

While donors don't buy decisions, Moyer said, they do support judges who share their philosophies.

The court now has five Republicans and two Democrats. They are endorsed and nominated in partisan primaries but run in the fall on an officially non-partisan ballot. Terms are six years.

Four, including Moyer, are on the ballot this fall. Ohio is one of 29 states that will elect supreme court justices this year.

Ana Radelat of Ganntet News Service contributed to this report.