traffic-camera.jpg

Disclosure forms filed with the state show about a dozen lobbyists registered to deal with the camera legislation on behalf of companies that provide the traffic cameras to municipalities.

(Thomas Ondrey, The Plain Dealer)

COLUMBUS, Ohio — A proposed statewide ban on most traffic enforcement cameras received bipartisan approval in the Ohio House last year, but the bill died in the Ohio Senate after attracting the attention of dozens of lobbyists working for camera supporters, Northeast Ohio Media Group has found.

Disclosure forms filed with the state show about a dozen lobbyists registered to deal with the camera legislation – House Bill 69 – on behalf of companies that provide the traffic cameras to municipalities. Another 25 people registered to lobby on behalf of local governments that use the cameras and law enforcement groups.

NEOMG examined the demise of the bill as part of its ongoing series "Follow the Money," which in past installments has looked at whether campaign contributions from special interests influence how state lawmakers vote.

In this case, however, records show there were comparatively few donations made by the major players opposed to HB 69, which included camera companies, law enforcement groups and local governments.

Since the bill was introduced in early 2013, pro-camera lobbyists and their immediate family members contributed more than $32,000 to legislative campaigns, according to campaign finance records kept by the Ohio Secretary of State's Office.

None of the four traffic camera companies that hired lobbyists made any campaign contributions during the period lawmakers considered the bill, records show. During that time, only one donation was made by a camera company executive: a $10,000 contribution to the Republican Senate Campaign Committee in October of 2013.

Supporters of HB 69 instead attributed the bill's cause of death to a massive lobbying effort by advocates such as Neil Clark, a former Senate staffer who is considered one of the most powerful lobbyists in the state.

"They had an army of attorneys and lobbyists," said state Rep. Dale Mallory, the Cincinnati Democrat who co-sponsored HB 69, in an interview. "And I know that they were effective – look at our legislation. Stopped it in its tracks."

Not so, said many senators, legislative staffers and lobbyists. Instead, they said, the bill died as a result of concerns about whether it would violate cities' home-rule powers and a desire to wait for the Ohio Supreme Court to rule on a related challenge to the cameras.

The following timeline shows significant dates in the life of HB 69, when interested parties made campaign contributions and when lobbyists registered to lobby on the bill.

Traffic-camera ban lobbying

Click the individual boxes to show details, or click the Show All button below to open the entire list. You can click individual boxes to close them.