Who's responsible for this ad?

Ohioans for a Healthy Economy Action Fund (OHE Action) is a super PAC organized in July 2018 that backs Republican judicial candidates. The super PAC ran ads during the 2018, 2020, and 2022 elections. OHE Action is affiliated with Ohioans for a Healthy Economy, Inc. (OHE), a 501(c)(4) that is affiliated with the Ohio Chamber of Commerce. OHE’s treasurer, Matthew J. Yuskewich is also listed on the Ohio Chamber PAC’s filings with the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). OHE was registered in 2017 by Langdon Law, LLC.

According to FEC filings, OHE Action has three funders this cycle:

• OHE Action received $500,000 from Fair Courts America (FCA) on August 18, 2024. Fair Courts America is a super PAC project of Restoration of America, a non-profit tied to and funded by right-wing billionaire Richard Uihlein. FCA is largely funded by Uihlein, but has also received large contributions from other billionaires like Timothy Mellon and Ron Cameron.
• OHE Action received $500,000 from its c4, Ohioans for a Healthy Economy, in December 2023, obscuring the true source of these funds.
• OHE Action received $200,000 from David and Geraldine “Ginger” Warner in May and June of this year. David Warner previously led Hunt Development Corp., a national real estate firm, and Ginger Warner is a retired attorney who was appointed to the University of Cincinnati Board of Trustees by Governor John Kasich in 2012. The Warners are active contributors to Republican campaigns in Ohio and nationally. 
• OHE Action received $25,000 from James and Susan “Dee” Haslam on June 5, 2024. James Haslam is the billionaire owner of the Cleveland Browns and heir to Pilot Flying J, the largest truck stop chain in the U.S., which they recently sold. The Haslams also contributed $100,000 to OHE Action in August 2022. The Haslams are major backers of Donald Trump.

As a 501(c)(4), Ohioans for a Healthy Economy’s funders are more opaque. In 2022, Ohioans for a Healthy Economy (OHE) raised $2.8 million and it took in $1.3 million. Some of OHE’s known funders that year include:

• Ohio Chamber of Commerce: $100,000
  • See more below
• American Property Casualty Insurance Association
  • American Property Casualty Insurance Association (APCI) is an Illinois-based 501(c)(6) trade association representing over 1,200 insurance companies.
• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA): $75,000
  • PhRMA is a 501(c)6) trade association representing the American Pharmaceutical industry. The group has a long history of lobbying and funding right-wing dark money organizations. 
• 55 Green Meadows: $50,000
  • 55 Green Meadows is a 501(c)(4) associated with the Ohio Health Care Association, representing the nursing home industry. 
• One Ohio United: $50,000
  • One Ohio United is a 501(c)(4) dark money group
• Ohio Hospital Association: $30,000
  • The Ohio Hospital Association is a 501(c)(6) trade association representing Ohio hospitals and health care providers. OHA’s PAC has contributed primarily to Republican campaigns and committees in 2024.

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce is a 501(c)(6) trade association that has long sought to influence who sits on the Ohio Supreme Court. For decades the group and its corporate backers have spent heavily to elect judges who would be friendly to their pro-corporate, anti-consumer agenda. In 2022, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce had just over $7 million in revenue, including $4 million in membership dues, and ended the year with over $27 million in total assets. The Ohio Chamber has 11 lobbyists registered in the state. 

Ohioans for a Healthy Economy appears to be the latest iteration of a string of affiliates that the Ohio Chamber has deployed to aid in its efforts to stack the court with judges who are business-friendly. In past years the Ohio Chamber has deployed other front groups that launched misleading attack ads against judicial candidates. The Chamber’s influence over the court has also been evident in other ways as well. As far back as the mid-1990’s, the state Chamber issued ratings purportedly evaluating justices’ records on whether their rulings were “pro-business.” 

In 2000, the Ohio Chamber spent heavily in a failed campaign to oust Justice Alice Robie Resnick, (who was also a target of outside spending from the U.S. Chamber), largely via a front group it created called Citizens for a Strong Ohio (CSO). The funding behind the group’s attack ads was not disclosed. CSO faced a series of complaints with the Ohio Elections Commissions, which eventually concluded that CSO’s ads were “express advocacy.” For years the group sought to hide who was funding its ads in the state supreme court contest. It disclosed who bankrolled ads in the 2002 and 2004 elections, but refused to release the funders from the 2000 election for years, eventually doing so after it faced the threat of $25,000 in fines a day. Those funders included the Chamber, American Insurance Association, Nationwide Insurance, Enron, AT&T, and other corporate interests.

Later, the Chamber formed a new affiliate called Partnership for Ohio’s Future (POF) which it deployed to run ads in Ohio Supreme Court elections. In 2010, POF backed two Republican candidates for the state’s highest court, spending $1.6 million. POF was also a top spending in Ohio elections, including $2.7 million in the 2008 cycle and nearly $1 million in the 2006 cycle. 

In October 2010, POF faced a complaint with the Ohio Election Commission that accused the group of illegally coordinating with Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and the U.S. Chamber. The complaint was eventually dismissed. In 2012 Charles Koch’s Freedom Partners gave POF $500,000.

Discussion and Analysis

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

This political ad’s name “We Aren’t Safe” makes it clear that they plan to prey on voters’ fears. A deep, male voice is used to convey urgency and gravity. The image of a person in a prison jumpsuit being led away by guards and the image of a distressed looking child suggests that the candidates don’t care about public safety, or the safety of your children.

The ad cites an article and two cases to feed voters’ fears. Most ads attempt to connect emotionally with viewers, but these ads often fail to provide the full picture. 

The article identifies an Ohio Supreme Court case that Justices Donnelly and Stewart ruled on. The other case cited in the ad targets a case that Stewart heard when she sat on the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals.

Newspaper article & first case cited:

• A man’s bond was reduced, but then police say they found guns and drugs in his home, Cincinnati Enquirer, May 25, 2022 
• DuBose v. McGuffey, 168 Ohio St.3d 1, 2022-Ohio-8

At the time of the article, the Ohio Supreme Court was within the bounds of law when reducing the accused’s bond. The law at the time regarding conditions of bail stated “public safety is not a consideration with respect to the financial conditions of bail.” 

It wasn’t until November 2022 that the procedure for setting bail changed as a result of a legislatively referred constitutional amendment, approved by voters in November 2022. The current law requires courts to consider multiple factors when setting bail, including public safety. 

Justice Joe Deters, then Hamilton County Prosecutor, opposed the ruling in DuBose v. McGuffey, and was part of a group who advocated for the above-mentioned change to the state constitution. The ad uses this article and case as examples because Justices Michael Donnelly and Melody Stewart ruled as part of the majority.

Second case cited: State v. Johnson, 2016-Ohio-1536

The ad puts the name of the case on the screen in white, blurry letters, making it difficult for viewers to see the case, and therefore difficult to look up. 

The ad is correct in that Justice Melody Stewart, then a judge on the Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeal, ruled as part of a three-judge panel to reverse the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences and modified the defendant’s sentence from fifty years to twenty-five years. However, the ad fails to provide the appeals court’s rationale: “the trial court erred by imposing consecutive sentences that are contrary to law and not supported by the record.” 

This ad only paints Judge Forbes guilty by association and fails to provide any citations connected to her rulings. 

The political advertisement concludes with name-calling. The ad both stokes fears, and directly blames the candidates for crime: “with these three radicals, criminals are let loose and we aren’t safe.”

The common political ad buzzword “radicals” suggests that rather than serving the public interest and fairly interpreting the law. Painting the three Democratic candidates for justice as a threat to public safety may be an effective campaign tool but the attack is not directly connected to the goals of Ohioans for a Healthy Economy.