Husted wants corporate funds disclosed

Mar 16, 2010 — The Columbus Dispatch

Jim Siegel

Mar. 16, 2010 (McClatchy-Tribune Regional News delivered by Newstex) -- If unions and corporations can spend unlimited amounts of money trying to influence elections in Ohio, state legislators say they at least should do it in the open.

Sen. Jon Husted, a Kettering Republican and candidate for secretary of state, yesterday proposed new disclosure requirements to deal with a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited cash to help elect or defeat candidates. A week earlier, House Democrats introduced their own plan.

"While the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions have the right to free speech, we should take steps to ensure there is proper disclosure of these expenditures," Husted said. The court "did not rule that they had a right to anonymous free speech."

Ohio was one of 24 states with at least some restrictions on corporate donations. Lawmakers in many of those states are scrambling to respond to the court ruling, which opens the potential for a huge influx of money into state elections, where corporations and unions can spend limitless amounts on independent television ads and mailings.

The concern is that business and labor entities will use tricks to hide the source of contributions -- such as donating all money to a small "front" corporation that runs the ads.

Once Ohio is within 90 days of an election, Husted's proposal would require corporations and unions to disclose their activity weekly. It also requires a union or business to disclose its donors, and it would ban contributions by foreign-owned corporations.

To have a full impact on the November election, legislation must be passed by late May or early June.

Last week, House Democrats also called for more disclosure and would require governing boards to approve any campaign spending. They went a step further by proposing a ban on contributions from corporations that do business with the state.

Rep. Jay Goyal, D-Mansfield, said the high court did not address businesses that engage in government functions, but Husted doubts such a ban would stand up in court.

"I don't think the court is going to say that my First Amendment rights are limited based on who I do business with," Husted said. "That would be a surefire way to get our campaign law thrown out."

Maryellen O'Shaughnessy, the presumptive Democratic nominee for secretary of state, said she also supports more transparency. "Now, more than ever, we must do everything in our power to shed more light on who is spending money in the political process," she said.

O'Shaughnessy said she supports ideas proposed by Democrats, including Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, such as giving shareholders a voice in whether money is spent on elections, requiring CEOs to appear in campaign ads, and banning spending by companies that do business with the state.

jsiegel@dispatch.com

Newstex ID: KRTB-0147-42965458