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

Typing on a computer
person using laptop

America Needs a Digital Equity Policy, Not Just Tech Innovation

The United States invests billions in artificial intelligence research and development‚ semiconductor fabrication‚ and next-generation connectivity. Yet millions of Americans cannot consistently access the internet or afford the devices needed to submit an online application for social services or a job application․ This is not an oversight․ It is a policy choice that is costing the country dearly․

Connectivity is a floor, not a ceiling:

Keep ReadingShow less
The election voting process, bidding, hands raised up with papers

Confidence in U.S. elections has fallen to 55% ahead of the 2026 midterms. The real risk isn't who wins — it's whether the loser accepts it.

Svetlana Shamshurina/Getty Images

The Real Test of the 2026 Midterms Comes After the Vote

Less than three months before Americans vote in the 2026 midterms, a federal judge on August 11 blocked the U.S. Postal Service from implementing part of President Donald Trump’s executive order tightening mail-in voting rules. The ruling came amid an intensifying fight over how November’s elections will be administered. That fight underscores a deeper problem: the real question in American politics is no longer simply who wins the next election, but whether large numbers of people will still accept the result when their side loses.

Elections in the United States were supposed to settle arguments. One side wins, the other accepts defeat, and the country moves on. That quiet agreement is under growing pressure as the midterms approach. Control of Congress still matters, but beneath that contest lies a more consequential question: if the outcome goes against one of the two major political camps, will that camp still trust the process that declared it the loser?

Keep ReadingShow less
 Unrecognizable doctor prescribing pharmacy to patient.

After a 30-year decline, U.S. abortions are rising again. Texas data suggests bans may shift where abortions happen — not whether they do.

Natalia Gdovskaia/Getty Images

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice: Bridging the Gap

Introduction

We have spent decades arguing about abortion policy on ideological grounds. I think we now have an opportunity to step back, look at what actually happened, and ask a more fundamental question: What policies actually reduce the number of abortions?

I believe that is a question on which pro-life and pro-choice people should be able to agree. Whatever our differences about abortion itself, surely, we can agree that fewer abortions would be a good outcome.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less