Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Meacham: Political Violence in America Linked to Deep Questions of Identity and Inclusion

"Who is an American? Who deserves to be included in ‘We the people" - Jon Meacham

AI generated illustration

Meacham: Political Violence in America Linked to Deep Questions of Identity and Inclusion

In a sobering segment aired on CBS Sunday Morning, Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Jon Meacham addressed the escalating wave of political violence in the United States and its implications for the future of American democracy. Speaking with journalist Robert Costa, Meacham reflected on the recent assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk and a string of violent incidents targeting political figures and institutions.

"We do not want to be in a place where, because you disagree with someone, you pick up a gun. That is not what the country can be. And if it is, then it's something different. It's not the America we want," he said.

Keep ReadingShow less
Two speech bubbles overlapping each other.

Political outrage is rising—but dismissing the other side’s anger deepens division. Learn why taking outrage seriously can bridge America’s partisan divide.

Getty Images, Richard Drury

Taking Outrage Seriously: Understanding the Moral Signals Behind Political Anger

Over the last several weeks, the Trump administration has deployed the National Guard to the nation’s capital to crack down on crime. While those on the right have long been aghast by rioting and disorder in our cities, pressing for greater military intervention to curtail it, progressive residents of D.C. have tirelessly protested the recent militarization of the city.

This recent flashpoint is a microcosm of the reciprocal outrage at the heart of contemporary American public life. From social media posts to street protests to everyday conversations about "the other side," we're witnessing unprecedented levels of political outrage. And as polarization has increased, we’ve stopped even considering the other political party’s concerns, responding instead with amusement and delight. Schadenfreude, or pleasure at someone else’s pain, is now more common than solidarity or empathy across party lines.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Constitution and the American flag
"We don't need to tear down the Constitution. We need to breathe new life into it, reclaiming it as a living promise rather than allowing it to become a weapon in partisan warfare," writes Dr. Paul Zeitz.
alancrosthwaite/iStock/Getty Images

The Hidden Hinge of History: A Refreshing Look at the Constitution on Its Day

Constitution Day is September 17. In his Constitution Day Conversation with Fulcrum Contributor Rick LaRue, leading constitutional scholar and advisor Richard Albert places the document in a refreshing as well as reflective light. He teaches at the University of Texas at Austin, is a prolific author, and actively serves the field’s participants around the world, from students to governments. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Rick LaRue: Before tackling some contemporary challenges, a background question: In the main, constitutions shape governance and protect rights. The U.S. Constitution originally focused on the former and has mostly advanced the latter through amendments. How does this compare internationally?

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

U.S. President Donald Trump takes the stage during a reception for Republican members of the House of Representatives in the East Room of the White House on July 22, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump thanked GOP lawmakers for passing the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

Just the Facts: Impact of the Big Beautiful Bill on Health Care

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What are the new Medicaid work requirements, and are they more lenient or more restrictive than what previously existed?

Keep ReadingShow less