Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

In wake of scandal, bipartisan push in Ohio for money-in-politics transparency

Ohio statehouse, dark money

More than two dozen legislators have already signed on to the donor disclosure measure.

traveler1116/Getty Images

Days after the speaker of the Ohio House was charged with racketeering, colleagues from both parties are lining up to bolster the state's donor disclosure laws.

By Thursday, 22 majority Republicans and five Democrats in the General Assembly had signed on to a measure requiring political advocacy groups to begin naming the original sources of their funds and file disclosure reports with the state.

The bill's prospects are not certain. Still, it's an unusual level of bipartisan collaboration — at either the state or federal level, and especially in an election year — to bolster regulation of campaign finances in hope of controlling the secretive influence of special interests over campaigns and then governing. Good governance groups see mandating this sort of sunshine as essential to the running of a clean democracy.


Had such transparency been in place, the allegedly corrupt way Republican Speaker Larry Householder benefitted from tens of millions in dark money would have been revealed much sooner — if not warded off from the outset.

Householder was removed from the speakership two weeks ago after he and four of his allies were charged in federal court with a bribery scheme that prosecutors describe as probably the biggest instance of public corruption in the state's history.

The group was accused of accepting $60 million in payments from FirstEnergy Solutions over the past three years as donations to a dark money group called Generation Now, created to help Householder win and hold the gavel in Columbus. In return, prosecutors allege, the speaker pushed to enact a $1.3 billion bailout for two of the company's nuclear power plants.

"Now more than ever, Ohioans have seen first-hand how dark money can influence the decisions that impact our lives," said Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Ohio's top elections official. "I'm hopeful that this legislation will be a positive first-step towards finding the solutions necessary to get voters the transparency they deserve."

The bill was introduced in the state House last week by Democrat Jessica Miranda and Republican Gayle Manning. The companion Senate bill is sponsored by Manning's son, Republican Nathan Manning.

No votes have been scheduled, and both chambers are dark for all but one day until the middle of next month. If enacted, the measure would take effect next year and:

  • Require groups spending to support or oppose ballot referendums or initiatives to register with the state.
  • Align state law with the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United decision by allowing corporations to make independent expenditures and requiring spending and contribution reports.
  • Mandate nonprofits that spend politically to file campaign finance reports.
  • Give the secretary of state subpoena power to look at bank records and other related documents.
  • Require federal political action committees spending in Ohio to file reports with the state.

The legislation is modeled after a bill, proposed by Republican Lt. Gov. Jon Husted when he was a state senator, that died a decade ago. "Ohio would be in a much better place today" had it passed, Husted said, adding he hopes "enough lessons have been learned" in the intervening years to change its prospects.

"This is the first step to rein in the wild west of dark money spending we've seen in Ohio over the last decade or longer," Miranda said. "Corruption has tainted our statehouse for far too long. We're seeing the sowing of all that right now more than ever."


Read More

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

A woman sifts through the rubble in her house in the Beryanak District after it was damaged by missile attacks two days before, on March 15, 2026, in Tehran, Iran.

(Photo by Majid Saeedi/Getty Images)

Is the U.S. at "War" with Iran?

This question is not an exercise in double-talk. It is critical to understand the power that our Constitution grants exclusively to Congress, and the power that resides in the President as Commander-in-Chief of the military.

The Constitution clearly states that Congress has the power to declare war. The President does not have that power. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 recognizes that distribution of power by saying that a President can only introduce military force into an existing or imminent hostility if Congress has declared war or specifically authorized the President to use military force, or there is a national emergency created by an attack on the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less
Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs
person sitting while using laptop computer and green stethoscope near

Healthcare Jobs Surge Mask a Productivity Crisis—and Rising Costs

Healthcare and social assistance professions added 693,000 jobs in 2025. Without those gains, the U.S. economy would have lost roughly 570,000 jobs.

At first glance, these numbers suggest that healthcare is a growth engine in an otherwise slowing labor market. But a closer look reveals something more troubling for patients and healthcare professionals.

Keep ReadingShow less
A large group of people is depicted while invisible systems actively scan and analyze individuals within the crowd

Anthropic’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over a Pentagon “supply-chain risk” label raises major constitutional questions about AI policy, corporate speech, and political retaliation.

Getty Images, Flavio Coelho

Anthropic Sues Trump Over ‘Unlawful’ AI Retaliation

Anthropic’s dispute with the Trump administration is no longer just about AI policy; it has escalated into a constitutional test of whether American companies can uphold their values against political retaliation. After the administration labeled Anthropic a “supply‑chain risk”, a designation historically reserved for foreign adversaries, and ordered federal agencies to cease using its technology, the company did not yield. Instead, Anthropic filed two lawsuits: one in the Northern District of California and another in the D.C. Circuit, each challenging different aspects of the government’s actions and calling them “unprecedented and unlawful.”

The Pentagon has now formally issued the supply‑chain risk designation, triggering immediate cancellations of federal contracts and jeopardizing “hundreds of millions of dollars” in near‑term revenue. Anthropic’s filings describe the losses as “unrecoverable,” with reputational damage compounding the financial harm. Yet even as the government blacklists the company, the Pentagon continues using Claude in classified systems because the model is deeply embedded in wartime workflows. This contradiction underscores the political nature of the designation: a tool deemed too “dangerous” to be used by federal agencies is simultaneously indispensable in active military operations.

Keep ReadingShow less