Campaign-finance plan a good start but time is needed for debate

Mayor Andrew J. Ginther and Columbus City Council President Shannon Hardin are right to want limits on campaign contributions to municipal candidates.

Their proposal is welcome because there are no limits now. This multifaceted plan also would create needed reporting requirements, audits, disclosure of so-called “dark-money” spending, tax credits and other measures.

Each of these issues deserves careful and thorough review, and interested parties need time to study them and make recommendations for change.

That is why The Dispatch is concerned over Hardin’s stated intent to hold a council vote on the proposal yet this month. That’s way too soon. The perception of a rush job on ethics-related legislation would rob the mayor and council of the presumption of good faith.

So far, Ginther and Hardin deserve credit for a proposal that reflects months of research and aims not only to limit the size of contributions but provide greater transparency of expenditures.

The plan would link annual contribution limits for municipal candidates to state limits, which are adjusted every two years for inflation. At present, candidates for statewide and state legislative offices can receive individual contributions up to $12,707.79 per election period.

State representatives, for example, can receive $12,707.79 for the primary election period and another $12,707.79 for the general election period within their two-year election cycle. That means an individual contributor can give up to $25,415.58 to a candidate for the Ohio House of Representatives during a two-year period.

The Ginther-Hardin plan would establish a $12,707.79 annual contribution limit for candidates running for mayor, city council, city attorney and city auditor. Candidates for those offices, all of which have four-year terms, could receive $25,415.58 within two years, or $50,831.16 within four years, per donor.

Critics of the plan, including Common Cause Ohio, consider the limits too high. They note that Cleveland restricts individual donations to $5,000 per year, while Cincinnati has a $1,100 limit.

The Dispatch long has considered effective, enforceable reporting requirements more important than any specific contribution limits. Because of the high stakes associated with public policymaking, money always has and always will flow to campaign activity. And artificially low contribution limits only encourage deceptive and creative campaign-finance workarounds.

At present, the most deceptive and pernicious type of campaign spending is the explosion of unreported dark-money operations through tax-exempt 501(c)(4) organizations.

Fortunately, the proposed ordinance would require anyone running ads to immediately disclose contributors, expenditures and debt. Ginther’s research shows that provision is supported by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in September to let stand a lower court ruling forcing disclosure of the identities of dark-money donors.

The ordinance also would require auditing of campaign-finance filings, create a system to investigate alleged violations and allow municipal tax credits of $50 per individual and $100 for joint filers.

Making campaign finance more accountable and transparent at the federal, state or local level is a never-ending challenge.

The Ginther-Harden plan is an important step along the way. Allowing for plenty of due diligence and public debate will only enhance its credibility and its chances of success.