Reveal Issue 2 donors’ names
Those with nothing to hide, don’t
The Dispatch strongly opposes Issue 2, an overly simplistic ballot measure to impose an unworkable cap on what the state can pay for prescription drugs, but the campaign to defeat the issue took a wrong turn by hiding the identity of its financial backers.
They did so by taking advantage of permissive federal and state laws that allow deep pockets to heavily influence elections from behind a curtain of anonymity.
Ohioans Against the Deceptive Rx Ballot Issue received $15.8 million in contributions from a nonprofit, limitedliability company of the same name, campaign-finance filings show. That LLC disclosed a single donor: the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). That’s the international trade association representing drug makers.
But who, exactly, within the giant PhRMA gave that money? Which drug companies? Voters weighing the merits of the ballot issue should know, but they can’t, because federal law allows LLCs, such as the anti-Issue 2 group, and nonprofits organized under Section 501(c) of the tax code, such as PhRMA, to support political causes without naming individual donors.
The anti-Issue 2 group contends it’s not hiding anything significant: Everyone knows PhRMA represents drug companies. And it’s true that claiming PhRMA as a donor isn’t exactly sugarcoating the matter; the drug industry, as a group, has been widely criticized for jacking up prices of life-saving drugs and aggressively — and, according the Ohio attorney general’s lawsuit, deceptively — marketing highly addictive opioids to doctors and the public.
The pro-Issue 2 campaign can hardly claim the high road here, either. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation of Los Angeles contributed nearly all the $3.6 million given to the pro-Issue 2 campaign. The foundation money comes from operating funds and donations to the organization, which also were not disclosed in its campaign-finance filing.
But the opposition campaign loses faith with voters by shielding its donors from accountability. More worrisome, this sets a path for future political campaigns in Ohio to do the same.
It’s referred to as “dark money,” and its use in national campaigns has exploded since a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions loosened restrictions on who can give money to political campaigns. Until now, the tactic hadn’t been used in an Ohio campaign.
Whereas well-known “super PACs” must disclose their donors, those donors often don’t have to report where they, in turn, got their money.
The 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door for corporations and unions to make unlimited campaign contributions to political groups (though not to candidates or political parties). The nonprofit, tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c) of the tax code are the perfect vehicle for big donors to engage in political activities while concealing their identities.
LLCs such as the anti-Issue 2 group can take the secrecy a step further, because laws in many states allow them to be formed with minimal information about their founders or purpose — often to make a single large donation, after which they’re dissolved. Indeed, Issue 2 backers have filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission alleging Issue 2 opponents engaged in an illegal scheme to avoid Ohio’s campaignfinance disclosure laws.
Regardless of the eventual ruling, such secrecy removes accountability, perverts the political process and needlessly sews doubt about otherwise valid arguments. Worse, it sets a trend in Ohio for future opaque campaign financing — and the politics of destruction it feeds.