ReportWire

Tag: Citizens Not Politicians

  • A Look at the Money Being Spent on the Campaigns For and Against Ohio Issue 1

    A Look at the Money Being Spent on the Campaigns For and Against Ohio Issue 1

    click to enlarge

    Ohio Capital Journal

    Left, a Vote Yes sign in favor of the constitutional amendment that would remove politicians from the redistricting process in favor of a citizen commission. Right, a No sign against the proposal.

    Ohio Issue 1 seeks to replace politicians on the Ohio Redistricting Commission with a commission made up of citizens. Campaign finance filings detail the many millions being spent in the fight over the proposed anti-gerrymandering reform.

    Issue 1 would replace the current Ohio Redistricting Commission made up of four lawmakers and three statewide elected officials with a 15 member Citizen’s Commission, made up of five Democrats, Republicans, and independents each.

    Elected officials, lobbyists and political consultants would be banned from joining, and four retired judges — two Democrats and two Republicans — would narrow down the list, pick six applicants, and those six would select the remaining nine.

    Once chosen, commission members would have to abide by a set of rules, including crafting districts that comply with federal laws, crafting maps that correspond to statewide election results, and keeping communities with shared “ethnic, racial, social, cultural, geographic, environmental, socioeconomic or historic,” identities together. 

    The amendment also mandates the commission hold a series of public meetings on redistricting throughout the map drawing process, including five public meetings across the state for initial input on how maps should be drawn, and five public meetings after draft maps are released.

    The candidates, the ballot measures, and the tools you need to cast your vote.

    Citizens Not Politicians is the campaign for Issue 1. Since filing their ballot initiative last August, the group has raised $39,476,270.23, with $15 million of that coming from supporters in Washington D.C. and $7 million from Ohioans. 

    According to their pre-general election campaign finance filings — covering activity up to Oct. 16 — Citizens Not Politicians has spent $37 million to pass Issue 1, with $25 million going to advertising. 

    Comparatively, Ohio Works Inc., the campaign opposing Issue 1, which has received the backing of the Ohio Republican Party and allied organizations, has raised $5.6 million since August, and spent $4.5 million on TV and print advertising. 

    Of the money in Ohio Works’s chest, $2.7 million came from Ohio donors, and $2.1 million came from allies in Washington D.C.

    “Yes on 1 has the momentum headed into the final stretch of the campaign,” said retired Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, in an interview with the Columbus Dispatch. “This report shows that Ohioans are ready to place an explicit ban on gerrymandering in the Ohio Constitution and put citizens not politicians in charge of drawing legislative maps, which we will accomplish by voting Yes on Issue 1.”

    When asked about their campaign finance totals, Ohio Works spokesman Matt Dole replied, “We knew we were going to be outspent. We’re an Ohio-powered campaign. We still feel confident about Election Day.”

    But who are the dark money groups, mega donors, and interest groups supporting these campaigns? The Ohio Capital Journal read their reports, and broke it down. 

    Ohio Works

    The anti-Issue 1 group’s biggest contributors are as follows: 

    – American Jobs and Growth: $1,750,000
    Based in Washington D.C. American Jobs and Growth is a 501(c)(4) dark money group. 2022 IRS filings for the group show $4,775,959 in revenue, and it is currently spending $700,000 on advertising opposing Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. The same entity gave $50,000 to oppose legalizing marijuana in Ohio, and spent over $1 million supporting Republican candidates in Ohio in 2022. American Job and Growth have received $225,000 from The Leadership Action Fund Inc, a tax exempt Delaware corporation named in a complaint by the Campaign Legal Center for violating campaign finance law. The Revitalization Project — another dark money group — gave $100,000, and, according to their 2022 IRS filing, $690,000 in grants.

    – Ohioans for a Healthy Economy: $1,000,000
    Based in Columbus, Ohioans for a Healthy Economy is an independent expenditure group connected to the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, with the group’s Super PAC and the chamber sharing an address, as shown in Federal Election Commission filings. The group’s Super PAC has run campaign ads opposing Democratic candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court, and accepted $500,000 in donations from a PAC affiliated with Illinois billionaire Richard Ulhein.

    – American Action Network: $400,000
    Operating out of Washington D.C. the American Action Network is an advocacy organization that supports Republicans running for Congress. Founded in 2010 by Republican strategists to advance conservative ideals, the network has a total revenue of $46,157,056, according to their latest IRS filing, spending millions on “television advertising, direct mail, automated phone calls, digital advocacy, public opinion surveys, and grants to allied organizations.”

    – Ohio Manufacturers Association: $300,000

    – 55 Green Meadows:$250,000
    The political advocacy arm of the Ohio nursing home industry, the group reported revenue in the amount of $945,000 in their latest IRS filing. An Ohio Capital Journal investigation found that the nursing home industry spent $6.1 million on state politics from 2016 to 2020, with 55 Green Meadows contributing $3.4 million to an array of other dark money groups in the same time period. The group also gave $100,00 to oppose Ohio’s Issue 1 abortion amendment, and $135,000 to Generation Now, the dark money group associated with the FirstEnergy bribery scandal.

    – Ohio Oil & Gas Association:$200,000
    A trade group representing producers of crude oil and natural gas in Ohio, their Board of Trustees includes individuals from several oil and gas companies, including Ariel Corporation, Infinity Natural Resources, and others. These businesses have prospered from the pro-natural gas policies supported by Republican leadership in the statehouse.

    Multiple campaigns for Republican Congresspeople also donated to Ohio Works, including Jim Jordan ($250,000), House Majority Leader Steve Scalise ($100,000) and Majority Whip Tom Emmer($100,000) among others.

    Individual donors to Ohio Works were largely affluent individuals with a history of supporting conservative causes. Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam own the Haslam Sports Group, with Halsam’s personal net worth is estimated at $8.5 billion. The couple each contributed $50,000, bringing their donation to $100,000 total.

    Federal Election Commission records show the two have made $2 million in political donations, largely to Republican candidates and efforts, in the 2024 election cycle. 

    Out-of-state, Texas-based investment analyst Kenneth Lawrence Fisher also gave $100,000 to Ohio Works. 

    Citizens Not Politicians

    The pro-Issue 1 campaign’s biggest contributors are as follows:

    – Article IV: $9.95 million
    A  liberal non-profit based in Arlington, Virginia, Article IV advocates for ranked choice voting and independent redistricting commissions of the kind Issue 1 would create. Article IV also donated millions to support a ranked choice voting initiative that was proposed in Missouri during the 2022 midterm election. IRS filings from 2022 display thousand-dollar donations given by Article IV to ranked choice voting groups in several states, including New Mexico, Oregon, and Utah.

    – Sixteen Thirty Fund: $6.7 million
    A liberal dark money group based in Washington D.C., the Sixteen Thirty Fund previously donated $5.3 million to Ohio’s reproductive rights amendment campaign. Founded in 2009, the fund is among the most influential left-wing dark money operations in the United States. The organization spent $196 million in 2022 supporting various causes, ranging from sponsoring state ballot measures to bolstering Democratic campaigns, and funneled more than $400 million in the 2020 election cycle. The latest filings show the Sixteen Thirty Fund’s total revenue is $191,659,154, though their donors are undisclosed. The fund is part of a network of liberal dark money groups — such as the Hopewell Fund, and New Venture Fund — overseen by Arabella Advisors, a consulting nonprofit founded by ex-Clinton appointee Eric Kessler. Documented donors include billionaires George Soros, Pierre Omidyar, and Hansjorg Wyss.

    -Our American Future Foundation: $2.45 million
    A 501(c)(3) charity, Our American Future Foundation had a total revenue of $11,185,907 in their latest IRS filing. Created in November of 2022, the foundation was incorporated by Ezra Reese, the political law chair of powerful Democratic law firm the Elias Law Group. Most recently, the group ran a fellowship that trained Democratic congressional candidates.

    – Ohio Education Association: $2.07 million

    – Ohio Progressive Collaborative: $2 million

    – Tides Foundation: $2 million
    Created in 1976 by liberal activist Drummond Pike, the foundation currently manages $1.4 billion in assets. Receiving at least $3.5 million from liberal billionaire George Soros, the foundation expressed support for Occupy Wall Street, and delivered millions in grants to several charities and activist groups, as shown in their IRS report. Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation — the nonprofit that advances and supports the black lives matter movement — sued Tides, alleging that they mismanaged $33 million in funds earmarked for BLM

    The most recognizable individual donor for Citizens Not Politicians is director Steven Spielberg, who, with his wife Kate Capshaw, contributed $100,000 to the campaign. 

    Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

    Zurie Pope, Ohio Capital Journal

    Source link

  • Anti-Gerrymandering Amendment Supporters Sue Ohio Ballot Board Over Ballot Language

    Anti-Gerrymandering Amendment Supporters Sue Ohio Ballot Board Over Ballot Language

    click to enlarge

    (Photo by Susan Tebben, OCJ.)

    Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose talks to reporters.

    As promised, supporters of an anti-gerrymandering amendment have asked the Ohio Supreme Court to intervene regarding language the Ohio Ballot Board approved for the November ballot, saying the language violates the Ohio Constitution.

    A brief filed Monday with the state’s highest court cites constitutional provisions that dictate the way in which titles and language can appear on Ohio ballots, according to the court document written by attorneys for Citizens Not Politicians, the authoring group for the redistricting reform.

    “This November, Ohio voters will be asked to consider a proposed constitutional amendment that will remove redistricting power from politicians and entrust it to a citizens’ redistricting commission,” attorney Don McTigue wrote. “The politicians are fighting back with an absolute fusillade of falsehoods.”

    McTigue called the language approved by the board “what may be the most biased, inaccurate, deceptive and unconstitutional ballot language ever adopted by the Ohio Ballot Board.”

    The board approved the language that will be the summary for the newly minted Issue 1 in a 3-2 vote at its Aug. 16 meeting, with Republican Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose, Republican state Sen. Theresa Gavarone, and citizen member William N. Morgan voting in favor of the language.

    The proposed amendment would replace the current Ohio Redistricting Commission made up of politicians including the governor, secretary of state, auditor and two lawmakers from each party, with a 15-member citizens commission made up of equal numbers of Republican, Democratic, and independent citizens with no elected positions or political ties.

    According to the ballot language approved by the split board – which LaRose, the ballot board chairman, said at the meeting he wrote with the help of his staff – the redistricting initiative would “repeal constitutional protections against gerrymandering” and “eliminate the longstanding ability of Ohio citizens to hold their representatives accountable for establishing fair state legislative and congressional districts.”

    In a last minute change to the LaRose language made during the board meeting, Gavarone replaced the word “manipulate” in a paragraph about changing the districts lines, so that it instead states the new commission is required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts, a change supported in the meeting by LaRose and fellow board member William Morgan.

    “This gets it entirely backward,” McTigue countered in the Citizens Not Politicians court brief. “In fact, the amendment would ‘ban partisan gerrymandering and prohibit the use of redistricting plans that favor one political party and disfavor others.’”

    McTigue said the language of the summary includes “numerous fatal flaws” and includes “campaign rhetoric designed to persuade – not impartial, factual information meant to inform voters.”

    Citizens Not Politicians wasted no time after the Ohio Ballot Board approved the LaRose-written language to pledge a challenge to the language in court, with former Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor calling the approval and the lead-up to it “one grotesque abuse of power after another from politicians desperate to protect the current system that only benefits themselves and their lobbyist friends.”

    “Secretary of State Frank LaRose voted seven times for maps that courts ruled were unconstitutional, and this week he violates the constitution with objectively false ballot language,” O’Connor said in a statement.

    LaRose was a member of the Ohio Redistricting Commission when it passed six Statehouse district maps and two congressional maps over the two years the group worked. Among those maps, five Statehouse maps and both congressional maps were ruled unconstitutionally partisan gerrymanders by the Ohio Supreme Court.

    Ohio law requires ballot titles to be a “true and impartial statement of the measures in such language that the ballot title shall not be likely to create prejudice for or against the measure.”

    The language that goes before voters is also regulated by Ohio law, with the constitution stating the full text of the amendment is not required, but the language used can not “mislead, deceive or defraud the voters.”

    “Whether the amendment is good policy is for Ohioans to decide – not the Ballot Board – and is not before the court,” McTigue wrote in Monday’s briefing. “The Ballot Board’s duty is clear, the legal standards well-defined and the ballot title and language before the court flagrantly violate those standards.”

    The state supreme court faced a similar case in August of last year, when supporters of the reproductive rights amendment on the ballot last November sued to challenge another summary written by LaRose and staffers that they said was deceptive.

    Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights asked the Ohio Supreme Court to order the ballot board to use the full text of the amendment, or to “correct blatant inaccuracies” and use “language that fully, accurately and impartially describes the amendment’s scope and effects.”

    The Ohio Supreme Court ordered the ballot board to tweak only one of many issues the advocates pointed to, a paragraph in which the ballot board said “the citizens of the state of Ohio” rather than “the state of Ohio.”

    Nevertheless, the abortion amendment passed with 57% of the vote.

    No matter what redistricting ballot language appears on this year’s election ballot, the full text of the amendment itself remains the same language authored by Citizens Not Politicians and supported by more than 535,000 Ohio voters who participated in a signature campaign that allowed the measure to appear on the November general election ballot. The ballot board’s summary does not change the actual anti-gerrymandering amendment being proposed.

    Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

    Susan Tebben, The Ohio Capital Journal

    Source link