Judicial candidates are limited by the canons of ethics in directly responding to negative advertising. Political parties commonly support candidates and issues, usually to gain or maintain control of executive, legislative and judicial offices. Parties or organizations that invest in the less specific ads need not disclose the source of their money. The Dispatch has argued consistently that efforts to limit campaign spending are futile. Time and again, this newspaper has advocated removing all donor limits and requiring full and timely disclosure of the sources of all contributions.
Money is money.
But for the limits on hard money, there would be no need for soft money. Disclosure is another matter. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Buckley vs. Valeo, approved mandatory disclosure of campaign- related expenses. But, the high court also carved out an exception for anonymous contributions in McIntyre vs. Ohio Elections Commission, a case that originated after a Westerville woman, Margaret McIntyre, was fined for distributing unsigned leaflets in an effort to defeat a 1988 school tax levy. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that Ohio law prohibiting the distribution of anonymous campaign literature effectively abridged freedom of speech.