Blind justice has company

Justice may be blind, but the Ohio Elections Commission is deaf and dumb as well.
If that sounds a bit harsh, consider the case at hand.
Anyone in Ohio who owned a TV set last fall saw the commercials aimed at Supreme Court Justice Alice Robie Resnick, who was running for re-election. The ads featured a model in "Goldfinger" paint portraying the traditional image of Blind Justice. She wore a blindfold and held a scale in one hand a sword in the other.
While a narrator talked about how Justice Resnick changed her vote after receiving a campaign contribution, money was piled onto the scale and Lady Justice peaked out from under her blindfold long enough to use her sword to balance the scales against the weight of the cash.
No gags: We're not suggesting that the people who ran the ad couldn't do so. This is America, land of blind justice and free speech. At issue is whether the ads were subject to Ohio election laws, which require that political campaigns keep records of their donors.
In this case, all the public knows about the anti-Resnick campaign is that it was mounted by citizens for a Strong Ohio, which was set up by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.
It is worth noting that Resnick came under fire from the chamber and other business organizations for her rulings in workers compensation, insurance, tort reform and school funding cases. In the race between Resnick and her challenger, Terrence O'Donnell, there was no question which candidate was favored by traditional business interests.
Despite the expensive campaign, Resnick won by a comfortable margin.
The issue: After the election, Common Cause of Ohio asked the Ohio Elections Commission to slap lady justice's hand. Three Democrats agreed. Three Republicans disagreed, and they were joined by the independent member, Norton Webster.
Incredibly, the commission found that because such specific words as "vote for" or "defeat" were not used, the ads were not designed to affect the outcome of the election. They were, the commission found, issued-oriented.
The election commission might as well pack up its bags and go home. It has abdicated its responsibility to assure that election campaigns in the state are run according to the common-sense rules that are in place. If there is a choice between making an above-board contribution to a candidate's campaign or supporting a shadow fund that only a handful of people will know about, which course will many special interests take?
Let's hope the courts remove the election commission's blindfold. If not, the General Assembly should do so.