BY HOWARD WILKINSON
The Cincinnati Enquirer
This fall, Cincinnati may find itself in the center of the national debate over campaign finance reform, after all.
A few weeks ago, it appeared that a majority on Cincinnati City Council was ready to drop the appeal of the city's 1995 campaign spending ordinance, which had been struck down as unconstitutional at the federal trial court and appeals court levels.
Campaign finance reform advocates around the country were looking at the Cincinnati case as the one that would give the U.S. Supreme Court an opportunity to strike down its 1976 Buckley vs. Valeo decision, in which it said candidates could not be restricted in how much money they spend.
But at Wednesday's city council meeting, a six-member majority of the nine-member council voted to go ahead with the appeal.
The next step is to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
Reform advocates were buoyed by the decision, while opponents like Republican Councilman Charles Winburn, who wanted to withdraw the appeal, called it a "continuing waste of money in a case we can't win."
But lawyer John Bonifaz of the Boston-based National Voting Rights Institute, who is handling the city's case, said the city "has the right to make its case."
At issue is the 1995 ordinance, adopted by council, that barred council candidates from spending more than three times a council member's salary -- or about $140,000 -- to get elected.
John Kruse, twice an unsuccessful Republican council candidate, filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court here challenging the law, saying it violated Buckley vs. Valeo.
U.S. District Court Judge Herman Weber agreed and ruled in favor of Mr. Kruse without letting the case go to trial.
Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Judge Weber.
Mr. Bonifaz asked the full panel of 15 appeals court judges to order the case re-heard, but not one of them wanted to do that.
At first, Mr. Winburn thought he had the support of four council members -- Republicans Phil Heimlich and Jeanette Cissell, along with Democrats Dwight Tillery and Minette Cooper -- to withdraw the city's appeal.
He said that carrying the case to the Supreme Court would end up costing the city hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
By the end of May, the city had spent about $48,000 of the $80,000 budgeted for attorneys' fees and about $16,000 of the $30,000 budgeted for other expenses.
But Mr. Bonifaz told council recently that he would donate his legal services for the rest of the case, although the city could be liable for the other side's legal fees if it ultimately lost the case.
Mrs. Cooper and Mr. Tillery ended up voting to continue the case, and now, Mr. Bonifaz plans to petition the U.S. Supreme Court by mid-September.
If four of nine justices agree to accept the case, it will be heard this fall.
Mr. Bonifaz said he will ask the Supreme Court to send the case back to trial in U.S. District Court here.
Buckley vs. Valeo, he said, "did not completely shut the door on campaign spending limits. It left the door open, if there are new facts and circumstances that would justify limits.
"We plan to argue that because of the costs of campaigning in Cincinnati and the fact that a few candidates can dominate the airwaves, there are new circumstances that did not exist 22 years ago," Mr. Bonifaz said.
If the city's petition to the Supreme Court is rejected, it is the end of the case.
Christopher Finney, a lawyer for Mr. Kruse, thinks there is almost "no chance" the city will be successful in defending the law.
"It's a case they are going to lose, but if they want to try, bring 'em on," Mr. Finney said.
