Former Speaker of the Ohio House Larry Householder asked a federal judge to toss out a case against him that prosecutors have called the largest probe of public corruption in state history.
In a motion filed late Tuesday evening, lawyers for Householder argued that there was no “quid pro quo,” or explicit favor-for-a-favor agreement, between utility giant FirstEnergy Corp. and Householder.
Without an “explicit” quid pro quo, Householder argued, a prosecution would be targeting conduct that is not only legal but “in a very real sense unavoidable so long as election campaigns are financed by private contributions.”
Instead of law enforcement, Householder argued the prosecutors were just using the law here to impose their standards of policymaking and good government on the state.
In June 2020, federal prosecutors accused Householder of accepting $60 million from FirstEnergy, through a web of nonprofits he secretly controlled, to ensure the passage of House Bill 6.
The legislation provided FirstEnergy ratepayer funded bailouts for nuclear plants owned at the time by a company subsidiary, ratepayer-funded protections against drops in energy revenues, and a host of other provisions favorable to the company. It was worth an estimated $1.3 billion to FirstEnergy.
Householder, a political adviser, and three lobbyists were accused of using the money to elect a slate of candidates who elected Householder as speaker; to engineer passage of the bill; and for personal enrichment.
Last summer, FirstEnergy entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with prosecutors in which it admitted to using the nonprofit to “conceal payments for the benefit of public officials and in return for official action.” The agreement also accused Sam Randazzo, just before accepting a gubernatorial appointment as Ohio’s top utility regulator, of accepting a $4.3 million bribe from the company. Randazzo has not been charged with a crime and has publicly declared his innocence.
The motion filed Tuesday doesn’t address the two pleas of guilt (one of which came from a longtime Householder adviser) or FirstEnergy’s admission. However, according to Householder, the accusations against him fail to show a relationship joining the alleged conspirators or any sort of cohesive goal. READ MORE
Ohio GOP lawmakers target ‘big tech censorship’
Ohio House Republicans are trying to ban so-called “big tech censorship” within state lines. The move comes as a response to social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook suspending or removing the accounts of prominent conservatives who violate their terms of service. Tuesday, opponents of the measure got a chance to speak before the House Civil Justice committee.
Rep. Al Cutrona, R-Canfield, first announced the idea last August, as a series of bullet-pointed policy positions. But his proposal saw some significant revisions in the drafting process. Most notable, is the legislation’s enforcement mechanism. Initially, Cutrona envisioned users filing complaints with the attorney general’s office which would be responsible for bringing civil actions. But the legislation he filed with Rep. Scott Wiggam, R-Wayne County, HB 441, takes a page out of Texas’s abortion playbook instead.
Similar to the Texas bill, HB 441 bars government officials from enforcing its provisions, in favor of giving individuals the right to sue. This reliance on private parties rather than public officials is meant to circumvent potential lawsuits that would keep the law from taking effect.
Steve DelBianco heads up a tech industry trade association called NetChoice, and he warned that approach won’t protect the bill in the long run. DelBianco explained his organization has already successfully challenged similar measures in Florida and Texas.
“That will make it harder to get an injunction as NetChoice did in Florida in Texas. But in my humble opinion, I think that was a change that was too clever by half,” DelBianco said, “because private lawsuits will run into the very same constitutional problems as the state did before in Texas.” READ MORE
