Who's responsible for this ad?

The Republican State Leadership Committee’s “Judicial Fairness Initiative” is responsible for this ad. In 2014, RSLC created its Judicial Fairness Initiative (JFI) to support the election of conservative judges to state courts. Since then, Ohio has routinely been one of RSLC-JFI’s target states. The group claims it has spent $29 million in state supreme court races across the country, and reporting shows upwards of $3 million of that has been in Ohio, including a $2 million ad buy in the 2022 Ohio Supreme Court races. 

As 527 PACs, the Republican State Leadership Committee and the Judicial Fairness Initiative can accept unlimited contributions from corporations, dark money groups, and billionaires, but they must disclose their donors in federal filings. RSLC-JFI itself is fully funded via RSLC, so it is impossible to know for certain who is underwriting RSLC’s judicial ads, but there are indications as to some of the funders. 

The Republican State Leadership Committee’s largest donor in recent years is the Concord Fund (also known as JCN or Judicial Crisis Network), a 501(c)(4) tied to the right-wing judicial activist who helms a $1.6 billion trust, Leonard Leo. An investigation in 2022 found that nonprofits connected to Leo spent over $31 million targeting judicial seats in 42 states between 2010 and 2022. The Concord Fund provided an additional $1 million to RSLC on September 11, 2024.

The Republican State Leadership Committee frequently transfers large sums to the Judicial Fairness Initiative shortly after receiving similarly sized contributions from the Concord Fund. RSLC-JFI then typically reserves ad time and creates ads about a month before the general election. In some cases, the group has launched an ad campaign just days before voters head to the polls, scorching opponents of RSLC-JFI’s who cannot themselves raise enough money—and have little time—to counter such last-minute attacks designed to aid the group’s preferred candidates. Such big spending in a short period often exceeds what the judicial candidates themselves raise during their entire election campaigns.

Other notable Republican State Leadership Committee funders include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Charles Koch’s Koch Industries. Of RSLC’s many corporate donors, a handful are based in Ohio. Marathon Petroleum appears to have given more to RSLC than any other Ohioan entity, having given RSLC more than $1 million since 2022, and more than $2.2 million since 2016. Elevance Health, formerly Anthem Inc., has given RSLC more than $600,000 since 2022. American Electric Power Service Corp., which continues to benefit from the corrupt nuclear bailout legislation, HB 6, has given RSLC $215,000 since 2019. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, which was originally created by and maintains a partnership with the Ohio Farm Bureau, a group that has spent some of its own funds backing right-wing judicial candidates, has given RSLC at least $335,000 since 2016. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce also gave RSLC a one-time donation of $200,000 in 2016. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Farm Bureau, and other entities have endorsed all three Republican candidates this cycle. A business front group tied to the Ohio Chamber, Ohioans for a Healthy Economy, is running similar ads in the race.

Discussion and Analysis

Context provided by Jessica Dickinson, Outreach and Engagement Manager, Ohio Fair Courts Alliance

The ad opines that Justices Donnelly and Stewart lack a commitment to public safety and references their vote in a 2022 Ohio Supreme Court case as an example, and implies that Judge Forbes is just along for the ride. Using a “soft on crime” narrative against an opponent is a common tactic in all types of political ads, including those for judges.

It should be noted that in July, the Ohio Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Melody Stewart.

The ad both raises fears, and directly blames the candidates for crime. 

The ad makes reference to the following case:

DuBose v. McGuffey, 168 Ohio St.3d 1, 2022-Ohio-8

In a 4-3 decision, with Justices Donnelly and Stewart as part of the majority, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld a decision by an intermediate state appellate court to reduce the bail of a criminal defendant from $1,500,000 to $500,000, deeming the $1.5 million excessive.  

The State of Ohio appealed on the grounds that trial courts should be permitted to consider public safety concerns when setting bail amounts. The Ohio Supreme Court disagreed and reiterated that the sole purpose of bail is to ensure a person’s attendance in court. Under Ohio Criminal Rule. 46, a trial court may not impose bail that violates the constitutional prohibition against bail in an amount higher than an amount reasonably calculated to ensure the accused’s presence in court. 

The current law, changed as a result of a 2022 legislatively referred constitutional amendment, allows for prosecutors to ask judges to detain suspects that they deem criminal if public safety is a concern.