Get Active Subscribe Support Us

BOB AND HOPE TAFT ON DRUGS

Undermining the Ohio Campaign For a New Drug Policy That Promotes Treatment

A recent investigative report by a Washington, D.C., group accuses Ohio Governor Bob Taft and First Lady Hope Taft of trying to aggressively derail a constitutional initiative for a new state drug policy that promotes treatment.

While the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy statistics shows that as the "war on drugs" has intensified, the cost of illegal drugs has fallen, and the purity or strength -- depending on the drug -- has climbed steadily.  Meanwhile, new cartels form as fast as the old ones are taken down by the increasingly militarized effort.  If the apparent success rate doesn't raise enough questions already, a recent 43-page report by the Washington-based Institute for Policy Studies ( IPS ) begs to know, "What is the drug war really about?" As well as "What's going on in Ohio?"

This special investigative report by Daniel Forbes, "The Governor's Sub-rosa Plot to Subvert an Election in Ohio," is built on close reading of public documents generated by Bob and Hope Taft, among others, as part of their aggressive and well-funded campaign against a new drug policy initiative that would amend the Ohio constitution.  The initiative, which would essentially mandate treatment rather than probation for low-level drug offenders, is likely to be on the November ballot as Issue No.1.

The Forbes report says that Gov.  Taft and the First Lady "aggressively sought and received help from outside Ohio to plan and implement their campaign against the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative" and that "both state and U.S.  taxpayers have been underwriting the campaign." He also implicates several taxpayer-subsidized nonprofit groups, Florida and Michigan government officials, and White House and congressional staffers who have contributed to the Taft anti-initiative effort.

There's nothing wrong with elected officials making known their opinions on policy initiatives being brought to the public vote, but the report accuses the Tafts of blurring the lines between politics and policymaking, between the Governor's reelection campaign and what is purported to be an educational campaign waged through public service announcements.

"They may sincerely believe, in their paranoia, that this will lead to the legalization of drugs," says Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies director Ed Orlett, "but that is the farthest thing from our minds."

Orlett says the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative is targeted at abusers of crack cocaine and will have little effect on marijuana offenders because, according to Ohio law, possession of up to 100 grams of pot -- about 1.6 ounces -- is a misdemeanor with a maximum fine of $100.

"If those people asked for a court appearance" in lieu of simply paying the fine, Orlett says, "they would be considered for treatment.  But it's unlikely that anyone would request that if they could just pay the fine and be on their way."

Crack use, however, is a felony, and so treatment rather than incarceration for that offense could keep a lot of people out of prison.  Orlett notes that 65-70 percent of the 4,400 people who were sent to prison last year went in for possession, and that a disproportionately large number of African Americans end up serving time.  The initiative would save such offenders from a felony record.

The initiative is backed by three rich men -- billionaires George Soros and Peter Lewis and multimillionaire John Sperling -- who have financed drug reform initiatives for several years.  Orlett, a democrat who was a Dayton-area state rep from 1973 to 1985, hopes it will not only treat rather than punish, but also that it will save the state money.

"The second-largest department in the state, at almost $1 billion a year, is the correctional system," Orlett says.  "Sending nonviolent offenders to prison costs Ohio taxpayers $22,000 per year per inmate.  The Department of Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services acknowledges that treatment costs less than $4,000 per year."

To get the proposed amendment on the ballot, Orlett and company have to collect 335,000 signatures.  They have nearly met the requirement, though Orlett says they plan to collect a significantly larger number -- because in light of the Taft administration's opposition and the IPS report, they expect that the list will be carefully scrutinized in an effort to throw names out.

The IPS report says not only that the Tafts, their chief of staff Brian Hicks, and several high-ranking staff members have been working since last spring to defeat the ballot initiative, but also that the counter-initiative campaign has taken advantage of vast amounts of paid state time and spent state money, planned to access federal funds, and involved the supposedly nonpartisan Partnership for a Drug-Free America.  Working together, state, federal and PDFA strategists put together a 20-page "playbook" with two tasks: to keep the initiative off the ballot or, if it gets to the ballot, to defeat it.

Nonetheless, Ohio criminal justice chief Domingo Herraiz is quoted in the report as saying, "We had nothing to hide -- we had to determine the initiative's implications."

As aggressively as they seem to be campaigning against the initiative, the Taft administration does not want to talk about the Forbes report.  Indeed, Forbes depends heavily on public documents because Herraiz is the only member of the administration who would speak to him.  For this story, a request to speak with the governor was deferred to media relations man Joe Andrews, who did not return phone calls.  Instead, he directed this reporter to Kurt Steiner, spokesperson for Ohioans Against Unsafe Drug Laws -- a group that sprung up to oppose the issue.  But even Steiner passed the phone to Jenny Camper, a PR professional who says she doesn't have a history with the issue, but had worked with Steiner before, was available, and so was hired for the fight.

Camper says supporters of the bill who scrutinize the funding and collaborators involved in the counter-initiative campaign are only throwing up a smokescreen.  "They keep raising this, and I think they are trying to divert attention from issues of the campaign," she says.  "Governor Taft and Hope Taft both support our efforts.  Mrs.  Taft is our co-chair.  We interact with her frequently on this.  They can have an opinion on it.  To imply that they shouldn't analyze this is wrong.  They have to put time into it to understand it."

Camper says the amendment is specific in its regulations, but not in its finances.  It takes away judicial discretion to remove offenders from treatment if they distract their peers or if they seem not to take the program seriously.  Camper alleges that judges feel they need the "stick" that status quo sentencing guidelines provide -- six to 18 months -- to motivate offenders in current treatment programs.

"We've concluded by looking through the amendment and talking with people that it breaks down the balance between treatment and law enforcement to get offenders on a path to recovery."

Camper also points out that the initiative doesn't stipulate where its $19 million in startup funds and $38 million in annual operating costs would come from.  She disputes the claim that the initiative would save the state money.  Other critics claim that the specificity that drug law requires does not belong in the constitution.

Orlett, remaining true to either his political suspicions or to the strategy Camper suggests he is using, cautions people who may think of dropping checks in Taft's campaign coffers.

"I would suggest that political contributors be careful how they make their checks out," he says.  "And be sure what the money is going to be used for."