TAFT UPSETS ISSUE 1 BACKERS

Advocates Threatening To Use Their Campaign Money Against Governor

Frustrated backers of State Issue 1 are strongly considering shifting their
campaign cash to ads that would bloody Gov. Bob Taft.

The three wealthy businessmen supporting Issue 1 - the
drug-treatment-in-lieu-of-incarceration constitutional amendment on the
Nov. 5 ballot - are mulling over the idea of going after Taft, according
to Bill Zimmerman, head of California's Campaign for New Drug Policies,
architects of the Ohio issue.

"We have not received fair treatment in Ohio," Zimmerman said yesterday.
"We've done initiatives all over the country and have not run into this
kind of corruption . . . orchestrated by the governor personally or by
people representing the governor.

"If we're going to make progress in Ohio," Zimmerman continued, "and we
can't do it through the initiative process, we may have to shift our focus
and deal with the people running state government."

Taft's supporters hotly dispute the accusations of corruption against the
governor. Taft, along with his wife, Hope, has actively opposed Issue 1,
rallying opposition and raising money. No elections complaints have been
filed against Taft or Issue 1 opponents.

But Zimmerman said Issue 1 might "become a tar baby for Bob Taft." A
decision on the ads will be made after tonight's first debate between Taft
and Democrat Timothy F. Hagan, he said.

Earlier this month, Issue 1 supporters complained about what they charged
is unfair ballot language, manipulated by Taft and the Republicans, and
said they might pull the plug on a TV ad blitz considered critical to
passing the issue.

The ballot language includes the total cost of the drug treatment, $247
million over seven years. Issue 1 backers did not object to the language
initially when it was approved by the bipartisan Ohio Ballot Board.

The Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies has roughly $1.5 million remaining
of its budget, Zimmerman confirmed. But the backers would not be limited to
that amount in purchasing television commercial time for an anti-Taft effort.

"I would recommend buying everything that's for sale," Zimmerman said.

Issue 1 is backed primarily by George Soros, Peter B. Lewis of Progressive
Insurance in Mayfield Heights, and John Spurling -- wealthy businessmen,
philanthropists and drug-law reform advocates.

According to Taft campaign spokesman Orest Holubec, when the governor was
informed of the Issue 1 development, he said, "These 21 days are going to
be very interesting." Taft was referring to the time remaining before the
Nov. 5 election.

Holubec suggested the money shift could signal a deal between the Issue 1
backers and Hagan's campaign.

"We suspect this drug issue is a first step toward drug legalization. We
know our opponent supports legalization of marijuana for medicinal
purposes. We wonder what kind of a deal was cut between our opponent and
this campaign."

Hagan backed decriminalization of the medicinal use of marijuana in a
questionnaire by Project Vote Smart.

Hagan spokesman Gerald J. Austin said he was unaware of the independent
committee money idea.

"I have no idea whether this would be helpful or harmful," Austin said.
"They're not consulting with us. I don't know what they're going to say.
This is a strange season."

Issue 1, if approved by Ohio voters, would amend the state constitution to
require judges to give non-violent, first- and second-time drug-possession
offenders the option of treatment instead of incarceration.

Curt Mayhew, campaign finance administrator for Ohio Secretary of State J.
Kenneth Blackwell, said the Issue 1 backers have two options:

* Form a political action committee to expressly advocate Taft's defeat or
Hagan's election. That would limit contributions to $5,000 per individual
and require filing campaign finance reports.

* Set up an educational committee that could neither expressly advocate nor
oppose Taft or any candidate. The committee could accept unlimited
contributions by the trio of Issue 1 backers, make unlimited expenditures,
and would not have to report their contributions or expenditures.

While an educational committee would have limitations, it would have
considerable flexibility, too.

Two years ago, Citizens for a Strong Ohio -- a group sponsored by the Ohio
Chamber of Commerce -- bankrolled a blistering series of TV ads attacking
Justice Alice Robie Resnick of the Ohio Supreme Court, a Democrat. Resnick
weathered the storm, however, and won re-election.