Senator Faber Introduces Legislation To Limit Campaign Contributions From Gambling Interests

by admin on September 25, 2009

Following up on a commitment made as part of the state budget bill, I recently introduced Senate Bill 170, priority legislation that would limit to $500 the amount those involved in the gambling industry may contribute to political campaigns. The legislation is needed to ensure the appropriate protections are in place in light of the Governor’s executive order which authorized video lottery terminals to be installed at Ohio horseracing tracks.

The Governor’s executive order provided a new market for gambling in Ohio and created a potential windfall for a set number of people. We want to ensure that the profits are not used to double-down and gain undue influence over those who regulate gambling and the political process as a whole.

Under SB170, the principals and key employees of entities that are licensed, applying for a license or otherwise authorized to operate video lottery terminals in Ohio could not contribute more than $500 per cycle to campaign committees, political action committees, political contributing entities, legislative campaign funds, political parties or to any person making disbursements to pay the direct costs of producing or airing electioneering communications in a primary or general election period. This includes all elected officials in Ohio.

Recognizing the complexity in changing campaign finance laws, in drafting SB170, I looked to the experiences of other states in attempting to limit the influence of gambling interests. For example, the Pennsylvania Legislature had initially passed legislation to ban outright campaign contributions from gambling interests, but it was struck down by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In its decision, the Court indicated that more narrowly-tailored legislation that would limit contributions would survive a constitutional challenge. Though courts in other states, including Louisiana and New Jersey, have sustained an outright ban, I feel that a limit rather than a ban would be more likely to survive a First Amendment challenge and achieve the state’s compelling interest in limiting corruption.

Previous post:

Next post: