toledoblade.com --

WHILE on one level, the "Coingate" scandal is about the greed and ethically questionable behavior of a few individuals, on a larger scale the scandal gives us an opportunity to think of possible solutions to two broader issues in politics today: campaign finance reform and gerrymandering.

The current system used to fund campaigns at both the state and national level is clearly broken, and Coingate illustrates this well.

The access and, in essence, the considerations that Tom Noe allegedly received in exchange for large campaign contributions likely goes on, albeit to a lesser extent, every day on both sides of the aisle and in every setting of government.

I believe that it is impossible for elected officials or candidates in our current campaign funding system to remain true to their constituents due to their connection to campaign funding sources.

While Coingate is an extreme example of the damaging effects of money on sound public policy judgments, in order to significantly reduce the possibility of more Coingates in the future, serious campaign funding reform is needed.

Sadly, the Ohio Legislature just recently passed a Republican led "Campaign Finance Reform Bill" that raises the contribution limits 400 percent and allows wealthy Ohioans to give up to $10,000 per election cycle to an individual candidate or a Political Action Committee.

So in essence, this measure gives the Tom Noes of the world 400 percent more influence in the political decisions of Ohio's government.

In the wake of Coingate, this bill should be repealed and a clean election system implemented in which the public would fund candidates who agree to limit their spending and reject private contributions.

The public benefits by lowering the costs of campaigns, allowing the legislature to concentrate on legislating instead of incessant fund raising, leveling the playing field for new candidates, and reducing the influence of special interests and the wealthy on policy making.

Arizona and Maine have already implemented this system and it is now needed in Ohio to restore the public's trust in our elected officials.

The Coingate saga also illuminates the corrosiveness of gerrymandering on the political process.

Simply stated, gerrymandering describes the deliberate rearrangement of the boundaries of legislative districts to influence the outcome of elections.

Historically, both major political parties have used gerrymandering to tilt the playing field to their advantage when they are in power, but since the Republicans have taken control of the executive branch of state government in Ohio, they have systematically undertaken a plan to carve out as many Republican districts as they possibly can on both the state and federal level.

This has led, in part, to one-party rule in a state that is split down the middle between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to presidential voting.

While Democrat John Kerry received nearly half of Ohioans' votes in 2004, the state GOP kept control of about two-thirds of the congressional and state legislative seats, ensuring one-party dominance for at several more political cycles.

When one party is in total control of all aspects of state government, legislatures are less responsive to constituents and the checks and balances simply do not exist to prevent Coingates from occurring.

Various plans exist throughout the county to eliminate partisan politics from the redistricting process.

In Iowa, for example, as a matter of law the legislature must adhere to certain principles when it draws district lines.

The goals include creating compact districts, maintaining consistency with other political jurisdictions, and preserving "communities of interest" among voters. Iowa also prohibits mapmakers from using party registration or party performance data when they draw district lines, to avoid partisan gerrymandering.

If Ohio's political atmosphere becomes competitive and the big money interests take a back seat to the needs of the people, legislatures in both parties would be beholden to their constituents' interest instead of the interests of Tom Noe.

This would ensure a stronger representative democracy and a stronger state for all of us.

Ben Konop is a Toledo attorney and was an unsuccessful candidate for Congress in 2004. He will teach about the American political process at Bluffton University in the fall.

Permanent Link