Ohio Elections Commission warns moving enforcement to counties could fragment campaign‑finance enforcement

The Ohio Elections Commission urged the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee to preserve a central, independent enforcement body for campaign‑finance matters and warned that a House proposal shifting authority to county boards and the secretary of state could produce a patchwork of enforcement and added costs.

"Instead of one statewide decision‑making body, there could be 89 separate applications of Ohio’s campaign finance laws," Phil Richter, executive director of the Ohio Elections Commission, told senators. Richter said the current statutory structure provides a bipartisan, nonpartisan panel to hear complaints and issue consistent rulings; by contrast, the House approach could create different interpretations in each county.

Richter described operational and budget risks tied to current budget language: he said the version he reviewed provides no funding for the commission beginning July 1 and would require the commission to continue operating for six months without an appropriation. He warned this could amount to an unfunded mandate for county boards that would be expected to assume enforcement duties.

Richter described the commission’s current composition and caseload history: the commission employs one staff member alongside the executive director, has seven full commission members plus three alternates, and has handled more than 23,000 cases since its inception. He said the commission typically processes roughly 600–800 complaints annually, many of which come as referrals from county boards of elections. He explained the commission’s administrative process: notices are sent 45–60 days before hearings to give respondents chance to reply.

Senators pressed on whether local boards could handle expedited enforcement during election season and whether funding or administrative support had been provided in House language; Richter said he was not aware of funding arrangements to implement the county model and that the proposed change could impose new expenses and conflicts of interest on boards whose primary duty is to run elections.

Richter also discussed specific complaint types the commission handles, including disclaimer issues for signs and campaign materials, and noted that the commission has limited authority over false‑statement claims after courts found some related statutes unconstitutional. Richter asked the Senate to consider the potential for disparate outcomes and the loss of centralized advice and records if the commission’s authority is moved. The committee asked questions but did not vote on the matter at the hearing.