UPDATED 05/22/2012 - CONGRESSMAN JIM RENACCI DOING HIS BEST TO BECOME "INCREDIBLE IN TERMS OF SUAREZ CONNECTED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS?"

UPDATE:  MAY 22, 2012

News broke yesterday that the 16th District Congressman Jim Renacci's campaign (as well as Republican Josh Mandel's campaign for the U.S. Senate versus Democratic incumbent Sherrod Brown)  has been contacted by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) asking about campaign contributions received by the campaign from employees of the Jackson Township/North Canton-based Suarez Corporation Industries.

Up through December 31, 2012, the 16th District includes all of Stark County.

With the new Congress, it will include only the north central/northwest portions of Stark because of constitutionally mandated decennial redistricting except that someone (?) prevailed on the Ohio Apportionment Board (controlled by Republicans) to spike southward out of the heart of the Stark County portion of the district (Jackson, Lawrence and Lake Townships) to include Timken Company facilities located in the core of Canton.

Timken family members and executive employees were prolific contributors to Renacci in 2010 when he defeated Democratic incumbent John Boccieri for re-election.

Ohio lost two congressional seats due to a loss of population in the 2010 census and as a consequence Republican Renacci is matched up in the Republican designed redistricting plan against Democrat Betty Sutton who currently represents the 13th Congressional District.

Although the "new" 16th is an enhanced Republican index district,  the fact that he is running against an incumbent Democrat puts his re-election in question.

So, even though there is no suggestion that the Renacci campaign did anything wrong, the Renacci folks have to be a tad unhappy that the matter is being looked into as the campaign is about to ratchet up to full bore.

According to a Cleveland Plain Dealer report (LINK):

Employees of the firm have given the Wadsworth Republican's campaign more than $80,000 during the past election cycle, and have been his biggest source of campaign cash, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

The story as originally reported last August by The Toledo Blade seems to carry the implication (which has Suarez denied) that it was a coordinated effort by Suarez to get around federal campaign finance limits.

From the Blade:

Campaign finance experts told The Blade for an article published Friday that the donations raised questions. Federal campaign finance law prohibits a donor from contributing in someone else's name, especially if it's an attempt to get around the $5,000 giving limit. Similarly, election law prohibits a corporation from using bonuses or other methods of reimbursing employees for their contributions.

Mr. Suarez said that's not what happened.

While the Renacci campaign says that it believes that there were no improper donations, it seems obvious to the SCPR that the campaign has to be nervous that the DOJ is even looking into the matter.

Campaign manager James Slepian had the following to say to the folks at the Plain Dealer:

To our knowledge, no contributions made by any donor to our campaign were made improperly.  However, if we find out that any contributions, either made in the past or in the future were not made properly and in full accordance with the law, they will be returned immediately.

The "if we find out" language is appears to the SCPR to be failsafe language designed to blunt a priori any criticism that the campaign demonstrated incredible naivety should the FBI inquiry lead to an eventual finding of impropriety.

Should the FBI perusal fail to produce official allegations of donor wrongdoing, Renacci still has to be concerned with the public perception factor.

It will be interesting to see what the campaign of Congresswoman Betty Sutton makes of the DOJ inquiry in its campaign literature.

The Renacci/Sutton square off has the potential to be a cliffhanger.

Could the inquiry in and of itself coupled with the Renacci campaign "uncritical" mind (especially if it is not resolved with a finding of no wrongdoing by November or, at the very least, a finding that a full blown investigation is not merited) be enough in terms of giving birth to a negative public perception factor so as to give Sutton the edge in a very close election?

ORIGINAL BLOG (published on August 23, 2012)

Congressman Jim Renacci would not have missed the "coming out party" of May 10, 2011 for Ben Suarez and his relocation of local operations (Jackson Township) to the former Hoover complex being rehabbed and repopulated by Stu Lichter of IRG.

According to a Toledo Blade article of August 20th, Renacci's campaign committee had just been the recipient of some $100,000 in contributions from Suarez and a number of his employees including a number of their spouses.

A sampling of the contributions (gathered by the SCPR from the FEC website) includes the following:

The implication of the Blade piece (which Suarez denied) was that it was a coordinated effort by Suarez to get around federal campaign finance limits.

From the Blade:

Campaign finance experts told The Blade for an article published Friday that the donations raised questions. Federal campaign finance law prohibits a donor from contributing in someone else's name, especially if it's an attempt to get around the $5,000 giving limit. Similarly, election law prohibits a corporation from using bonuses or other methods of reimbursing employees for their contributions.

Mr. Suarez said that's not what happened.

One would think that many constituents of Congressman Renacci would be skeptical of the Suarez denial.

A concern for the Renacci campaign - again, one would think - is a public perception of the implication suggested by the Blade piece,  the Suarez denial notwithstanding.

But apparently not.  Again, from The Blade:

The campaigns of Mr. Renacci and Mr. Mandel [also a recipient of such contributions] said Thursday they had no reason to believe the contributions were questionable.

Well, the Ohio Democratic Party sees reason to believe the contributions were questionable.  Its comments to The Blade were specific to the Mandel contributions, however, it stands to reason that if the ODP thinks the following of Mandel contributions, then its view undoubtedly extends to the Renacci contributions, to wit:

"Frankly, all of this smells worse than milk that's been left in a refrigerator for more than 90 days and it's extremely troubling that Josh Mandel's immediate reaction has been to try and sweep this under the rug."

It looks like to the SCPR that the Renacci campaign so "gaga" over the $100,000 that it is choosing to plug its nostrils and smell what many 16th Congressional District may be smelling when the matter is likely to be brought up again and again in the 2012 congressional elections.

To the typical 16th District voter, Renacci's "'sweep ... under the rug'" may be the beginning of a credibility problem.

And it it is a close election, public perceptions can make a difference.

Another problem for Renacci may be that as a contributor in his own right, Suarez's comment to The Blade that "They [his employees] feel [U.S. Sen.] Sherrod Brown is a radical communist.'" may not set all that well with many 16th District voters.

Agree or disagree with Brown, but a "radical communist?"

If nothing else, one would think that Renacci would disassociate himself from such a ridiculous viewpoint no matter how many campaign dollars flowed from the source of the opinion.

If not, he will have to defend not doing so on the 2012 campaign trail.