Marty Schladen, Ohio Capital Journal

This $600 million gift shows how two-faced Ohio's GOP really is

It might seem like ancient history in Ohio. But it was only two years ago that Republican leaders were trying to make it almost impossible for voters in the highly gerrymandered state to amend the Ohio Constitution.

They issued dire warnings that wealthy “out-of-state special interests” would take control of the Ohio government if the state didn’t make it a lot harder to get amendments, such as those guaranteeing abortion and marijuana rights, into the founding document. The attempt went down in flames, and possibly down the memory hole.

Just two years later, Republican supermajorities in the Ohio legislature passed — and Republican Gov. Mike DeWine signed — a budget that gives the out-of-state billionaires who own the poorly run Cleveland Browns $600 million for a new stadium.

The budget DeWine signed on June 30 gives the Haslam Sports Group $600 million from the state’s unclaimed property fund. It pays the Browns owners to abandon their current downtown location and build a new stadium 16 miles away in Brook Park.

Famously burned once by a wealthy owner abandoning the city, Cleveland’s city government is in court fighting the move. And Ohioans with unclaimed property are suing to block the funding method DeWine approved.

Republican officials face a backlash over lavishing money on a team run so ineptly that in 2022 it guaranteed $230 million and traded three first-round draft picks to obtain DeShaun Watson — a quarterback facing numerous accusations of sexual misconduct. Watson served an 11-game suspension with the Browns, and when he finally did take the field, he sucked.

Last year, the team performed abysmally, winning just three games. And its owners, Dee and Jimmy Haslam, seem not to be doing their Republican benefactors any favors with the public.

Just three days after after receiving their controversial $600 million gift from the state, the Haslams bought a $25 million mansion in North Palm Beach, Fla., the Akron Beacon Journal reported.

The Cleveland Plain Dealer on Monday reported that it truly is a gift that the Tennessee truck-stop moguls are getting. The family — which is worth an estimated $14.4 billiondoesn’t have to repay a dime of the money it will receive from Ohio’s unclaimed funds, the paper reported.

Haslam Sports Group didn’t respond to a request for comment.

The gift to the Tennessee billionaires came as part of an Ohio budget that is seen as generally favoring the wealthy in a state where more than a quarter of the populace — 3 million people — are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid.

DeWine’s press secretary was asked about the message the Haslams sent with their purchase of a 5,600 square-foot mansion just 72 hours after receiving a $600 million gift from the taxpayers of Ohio. Had the governor effectively allowed out-of-state billionaires to use Ohioans’ money to buy a waterfront palace 1,000 miles from the nearest point in the state?

“We will not be offering comment on this,” Dan Tierney, DeWine’s press secretary, responded. “As you know, this issue is in active litigation.”

Just two years ago, Republican leaders were saying that Ohio’s government needed to be protected from such powerful, out-of-state interests.

They were pushing an amendment to the state constitution that would have raised the minimum share of votes to pass future amendments from 50% to 60% — a huge additional burden. It would also have raised the signature-gathering requirements just to get an amendment on the ballot so high as to make it all but impossible, critics said.

The proposed amendment contained a provision that sounded technical, but was logistically daunting. Instead of having to gather verified signatures of 5% or registered voters in half of Ohio counties, they would have had to gather them in all 88, no matter how remote and spread out their populations were.

Making voter-initiated amendments virtually impossible would have concentrated even more power in the hands of Ohio’s gerrymandered legislature, which would have been able to pass laws and initiate amendments the way it always had.

Critics said that would only make a bad thing worse. In recent years, the gerrymandered body has had an impressive track record when it comes to corruption, some of it the centerpiece of a major new HBO documentary about the corrupting influence of dark money on American politics.

Undeterred, Republican leaders called a special election for August 2023 in which the public would vote on a measure that would effectively lock them out of the state constitution.

Abortion-rights and marijuana-legalization amendments were likely to be on the November ballot. But Secretary of State Frank LaRose claimed the August measure wasn’t aimed at blocking them.

“This is about empowering the people of Ohio to protect their constitution from out-of-state special interests that want to try to buy their way into our state’s founding document,” he said in July 2023.

LaRose’s office didn’t respond when asked whether the secretary had any objection to giving the Haslams — out-of-state-billionaires — $600 million in public money just as they bought a Florida mansion.

As it happened, campaigns on both sides of the amendment issue were mostly funded by out-of-state sources.

The effort to make it harder to amend the Ohio Constitution failed by a 14-point margin. The abortion-rights and recreational-marijuana amendments passed by similar margins three months later.

The Haslams were hoping for a different outcome. In June 2023, the Knoxville, Tenn., family gave $50,000 to Protect Our Constitution, according to records at the Ohio Secretary of State’s office. That was a group aimed at making citizen-led amendments much more difficult, if not impossible.

The Haslams were also among the biggest contributors to a separate effort aimed at keeping the current crop of Ohio Republicans in power, regardless of what voters want.

Highly gerrymandered Republican supermajorities in the General Assembly have been accused of ignoring voters’ wishes. For example in 2019, they passed harsh abortion restrictions that took effect when the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022. The following year, Ohio voters passed a constitutional amendment outlawing the restrictions by nearly a 15-point margin.

There are two anti-gerrymandering amendments in the Ohio Constitution. But, refusing to give up their gerrymandered supermajorities, DeWine, LaRose and other Republicans on the Ohio Redistricting Commission ignored seven orders from a bipartisan majority of the Ohio Supreme Court to draw more equitable maps.

The idea behind such amendments is to draw congressional and state legislative districts that are competitive. That way, candidates have to listen to voters at least as much as they do party leaders and their wealthy donors.

After she aged off of the court last year, former Republican Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor led an effort to pass an anti-gerrymandering amendment that she said couldn’t be ignored.

The Haslams were against it. They contributed $100,000 to Ohio Works, a group dedicated to stopping O’Connor’s anti-gerrymandering effort.

Their side won by seven percentage points on a night when Republican Donald Trump won Ohio by 11. Anti-gerrymandering advocates were sent back to the drawing board.

Then, perhaps not coincidentally, the Haslams contributed $120,000 to Ohio’s Republican legislative leaders in the months before they voted to give the out-of-state billionaires a $600 million gift of the state’s money.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

'Blatantly illegal': Two officials push back against new Trump plan

Two Democratic antitrust commissioners fighting in court for their jobs this week blasted Trump’s attempt to fire them. In a court filing, they said the move would destabilize the economy and “brush aside a century of precedent.”

The Federal Trade Commission is one of two federal agencies tasked with enforcing antitrust law. In the past several years it has sued huge health care conglomerates, as well as big tech companies like Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta.

It also blocked the merger of grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons. So the FTC might not be terribly popular in some corporate boardrooms these days. Anticompetitive practices by giant players are thought to have resulted in lower wages and higher prices for consumers.

The other federal antitrust watchdog, the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, has roots going back to 1903. But that department is overseen by the Attorney General, a presidential appointee.

In 1914, Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission Act creating an antitrust watchdog that is more insulated from politics. It provided for a minimum number of appointees from each party, provided them with seven-year terms and allowed reappointment. Crucially, presidents can only remove them for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Despite that, news broke in March that Trump was trying to fire commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, both Democratic appointees. Trump was doing so without alleging any of the deficiencies required by the law to allow for their dismissal.

In a social media post, Bedoya said Trump was trying to do a favor for his ultra-rich supporters.

“Now, the president wants the FTC to be a lapdog for his golfing buddies,” Bedoya wrote.

Trump has also tried to remove commissioners from independent agencies such as the Federal Election Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protections Board and the National Transportation Safety Board. Critics, including Slaughter and Bedoya, said that undermining such independent agencies would undermine faith in and the stability of the national economy.

In a court brief justifying the FTC firings, Trump’s lawyers wrote that following the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act would improperly limit the president’s authority.

“An order requiring the president to reinstate officials he has chosen to remove from office would be an extraordinary intrusion on the president’s exclusive authority to exercise control over the executive branch,” the filing said, according to Newsweek.

Lawyers for the Democratic FTC commissioners said that’s a gross misreading of the law and history.

Trump is asking the court “to brush aside a century of precedent in favor of an untenable reading of (the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Seila Law v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) that ignores broad swaths of that opinion, misconstrues the FTC’s authority, side-steps much of U.S. history, and would overturn several Supreme Court decisions and invalidate two-dozen statutes adopted and adhered to by nearly every President and Congress over the last 150 years,” Bedoya and Slaughter’s lawyers said in a court filing.

Late last month, a Trump ally, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, made another move that critics said was intended to protect the president’s wealthy supporters — particularly Elon Musk, the world’s richest man — from antitrust enforcement. From his perch as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jordan tried to insert in a spending bill a measure that would move the FTC’s personnel and funding to the Justice Department.

However, it wouldn’t have moved the FTC’s unique enforcement powers along with them. Jordan later withdrew the measure.

The Democratic FTC commissioners are fighting in court to stop Trump’s attempt to fire them, calling it “blatantly illegal.” They and lawyers for the president are asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to decide the case on an expedited basis.

In a written statement, a lawyer for a firm representing the Democratic commissioners, Clarick, Gueron, Reisbaum, said Trump is ignoring past decisions of the judiciary.

“… it’s undisputed that his attempted firings violate the plain language of the FTC Act, and the President’s claim to inherent executive authority to fire FTC Commissioners defies 90 years of Supreme Court precedent,” the lawyer, Aaron Crowell, said.

A lawyer for another group representing Slaughter and Bedoya, Protect Democracy, said Trump is trying to ignore not only the courts, but Congress as well. And in so doing, the president threatens to destabilize the U.S. economy, said the lawyer, Amit Agarwal.

“Congress had good reasons for protecting regulators from at-will removal, not the least of which is that agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve need to have the ability to make critical decisions with integrity and to apply the law without fear or favor,”Agarwal said. “When the Supreme Court settled this dispute nine decades ago, it decided in favor of Congress’s right to protect the public interest. We hope the courts do so again.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

Jim Jordan silent after critics hurl accusations of corruption on behalf of billionaires

U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio wanted to slip a sweeping measure into a spending bill that would gut the Federal Trade Commission. Critics say it’s no coincidence that the FTC is suing mammoth health care conglomerates and tech giants like Amazon.

Jordan is chairman of the powerful House Judiciary Committee. Last week, it released a version of a bill that included tax cuts, federal spending cuts and more spending at the border.

It also contained provisions that would give Trump sweeping new powers to gut government regulations. It would also transfer funds and personnel currently controlled by the FTC to the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department — without the FTC’s unique enforcement authority going with them.

The measure was abruptly nixed, but it would have effectively killed antitrust powers Congress created more than a century ago.

The FTC history

Amid abuses to consumers by big corporations, the Federal Trade Commission Act was passed in 1914. Antitrust enforcement by the Department of Justice dates back further, to 1903.

But the Justice Department is overseen by the attorney general, a presidential appointee. Attorneys general traditionally have had a high degree of independence, but Trump is said to be politicizing the Justice Department at a breakneck pace.

The FTC was created in part to be more independent. It’s governed by commissioners from both parties who are appointed to fixed terms that can be renewed.

Earlier this year, Trump tried to fire the two Democratic commissioners, but they say the move was illegal, and they’re fighting it in court. Antitrust advocates said Trump was doing that as a favor to his billionaire supporters such as Elon Musk.

The two Democratic commissioners, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, acted to block the Kroger-Albertson’s mega-merger, and they voted to sue Amazon, saying it is “illegally maintaining monopoly power.”

Under Jordan’s leadership, the Judiciary Committee in 2023 attacked the FTC on behalf of Musk. He’s the world’s richest man, whom Trump is allowing to make deep cuts to federal programs for the elderly, veterans, the poor, and agencies that promote science and health.

“THE WEAPONIZATION OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION: AN AGENCY’S OVERREACH TO HARASS ELON MUSK’S TWITTER,” read the all-caps title of the Jordan-led committee’s report.

A year earlier, the FTC had charged Twitter with using deceptively gathered data from users to target ads at them. If true, it would be added to the fact that an unofficial, Musk-run entity is now collecting much more sensitive government data. It’s raised concerns among several federal judges who said such collections invite abuse and likely violate the law.

“One of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency lieutenants working in the Social Security Administration has been pushing dubious claims about noncitizens voting, apparently using access to data that court records suggest (the so-called Department of Government Efficiency) isn’t supposed to have,” NPR reported earlier this month.

The proposal from Jordan to gut the FTC could have halted major initiatives to regulate giant health conglomerates that own powerful pharmacy middlemen, said Bedoya, one of the commissioners Trump is trying to fire.

Jordan’s office didn’t respond to a request for comment on this story.

PBMs

Each of the three conglomerates — UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health and Cigna-Express Scripts — is among the 15 largest corporations in the United States. Each owns a top-ten health insurer and each owns a pharmacy middleman known as a pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM.

Combined, the PBMs control nearly 80% of the insured drug transactions in the United States. They decide which drugs are covered and use that power to extract rebates from drugmakers. They also determine varying reimbursements to pharmacies — including ones owned by their parent companies as well as the pharmacies with which they compete. Critics — including four-fifths of state attorneys general — say they have a conflict of interest under the arrangement, and that they abuse it.

Last October, the FTC sued the conglomerates, saying they used their dominance in multiple parts of the marketplace to illegally jack up the price of insulin — a drug millions of diabetics need to survive.

The lawsuit comes after the agency in 2022 undertook a major investigation of the health conglomerates. In January, it released an interim report accusing the PBMs of using their dominance to instigate wild price hikes and possibly steer business to affiliated pharmacies.

Politico recently reported that Jordan said his move to consolidate the FTC into the Justice Department was meant to “address the cost of over-regulation.”

“Part of our jurisdiction in Judiciary deals with regulatory concerns and so we are looking at … spending and costs associated with certain regulations. That’s why that language is written the way it was,” Politico reported him as saying.

Many businesses facing regulation — and their advocates in government — have long focused only on the costs. But government regulation can also protect health, safety, the environment, economic stability and competition. Some researchers have said regulation can always be smarter, but its benefits far outweigh the costs.

In a social media post last week, Bedoya, the FTC commissioner, said Jordan’s proposed changes to the agency served another agenda.

“This will gut the FTC,” Bedoya wrote. “FTC is trying to finish a study that already showed how pharmacy middlemen mark up cancer drugs by up to 4,000%. It’s also suing them for allegedly competing to raise insulin prices. If this passes I have no idea what’ll happen to that study and lawsuit.”

Bedoya added, “Take the lawsuit. The draft bill purports to transfer FTC lawyers and lawsuits to DOJ — but it doesn’t transfer the laws that FTC enforces, or authority to enforce those laws. Look (at) page 98 — employees, assets, funding — but no authorities.”

Bedoya also said that when it created the FTC, Congress meant to augment the government’s antitrust powers. Jordan’s changes would remove the government’s ability to police “unfair methods of competition,” Bedoya said, implying that Jordan was trying to slash the government’s power to police wealthy corporations in an era when the political influence of the mega-rich is exploding and the wealth gap is yawning.

“The purpose behind the FTC’s creation in 1914 was to supplement the existing enforcement mechanism (and enforcement gap created by) the Department of Justice,” Bedoya said on X. “When FTC was created in 1914, it alone was authorized to stop something called ‘unfair methods of competition.’ DOJ did not get this” under Jordan’s proposal.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

'Create fear and division': Republican's 'chaos agent' argument blasted as 'just silly'

It had been considered settled law: If a person is born in Ohio or anywhere else in the United States to anybody other than a foreign diplomat or a member of an invading army, that baby is a U.S. citizen. Period.

But now Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and some other Republican attorneys general are in court defending President Donald Trump’s executive order claiming that “birthright citizenship” doesn’t extend to children of the undocumented.

Trump also claims the power to unilaterally deny citizenship to babies of those with “lawful but temporary” presence in the United States.

The arguments made by Trump, Yost, and the other attorneys general are “just silly,” a Cleveland immigration attorney said. And she added that they further endanger some of the most vulnerable.

Trump issued the executive order on his first day in office. It claims that the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution doesn’t guarantee citizenship to babies born to undocumented immigrants or those with temporary status, such as holders of student or visitors’ visas.

The order directed federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents to those babies. The courts blocked enforcement of the order a few weeks later. Trump is appealing the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Trump wants Supreme Court to let him mostly carry out birthright citizenship order

On March 20, Yost took to X to defend the president’s stance.

“Birthright citizenship in the United States is limited by the Constitution to those persons who are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'” he wrote. “Those words must mean something, and they mean *at least* this: it doesn’t include those who are here illegally.”

Unsettling

Yost is running in the 2026 governor’s race, and he’s shown sympathy with some of Trump’s extreme statements about immigrants as he has.

Trump and now-Vice President J.D. Vance last summer repeated the lie that Haitian immigrants in Springfield were stealing neighbors’ pets and eating them. That prompted dozens of bomb threats to elementary schools and other public buildings in the small Ohio city, which Vance was then representing in the U.S. Senate.

Yost, Ohio’s top law-enforcement officer, piled on, criticizing the news media for taking the word of the Springfield police chief over rumors as they assessed whether the racist claims were true.

Now Yost is backing Trump’s claims about birthright citizenship.

The right is embedded in the 14th Amendment, which was ratified 1868 in the wake of the Civil War. Its main purpose was to safeguard the rights of newly freed slaves and repudiate the 1857 Supreme Court decision Dred Scott v Sandford.

That decision held that slaves and former slaves were not citizens and therefore could not sue in the federal courts. It is widely regarded as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever rendered — largely because it was rooted in racist dogma.

Blacks “had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit,” Chief Justice Roger Taney wrote in the decision.

The ruling was a key factor in provoking a civil war that killed more than 35,000 Ohioans. After it was over, the Constitution was amended to expand citizenship rights and ensure that the forces of racism could not trample them.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” the first section of the amendment says. “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

“Some dumb campaign promise”

A century-and-a-half later, Trump is trying to narrow the application of those rights by presidential decree.

Yost and 16 other Republican attorneys general signed on with Iowa AG Brenna Bird in a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Trump’s executive order. While the 14th Amendment was intended to expand citizenship rights, the brief seeks to limit them.

“This case is not about whether birthright citizenship is guaranteed under our Constitution,” the brief says. “It is. Instead, the proper framing of this case asks where the limits of birthright citizenship end.”

Regardless of the merits of that claim, the brief ignores an even more fundamental issue — whether the president has the power to unilaterally declare the courts’ long-running interpretation of the U.S. Constitution null and void, said Heather Prendergast, a Cleveland immigration attorney.

“The whole thing seems so silly to me,” she said. “It’s a joke. (Trump) made some dumb campaign promise that he really doesn’t have the authority to produce. Then he says on day one, ‘Here’s an executive order doing something I can’t do, but I’ve convinced myself is possible.'”

She added, “This is not something the president has the authority to do via executive order. Our government has three branches. If they wanted to change the rules regarding birthright citizenship, it would require an act of Congress, a constitutional amendment. The president doesn’t make the laws. He executes the laws. He doesn’t just get to say, ‘Today this is how we’re going to interpret birthright citizenship.'”

Third judge blocks Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship

In a January interview with Harvard Law Today, law school Professor Gerald Newman said much the same thing.

“The president of the United States has no authority to change citizenship rules at all,” he said.

Who is subject?

Yost’s office didn’t respond to a series of questions for this story other than to refer to the friend-of-the-court brief.

In it, Yost and his colleagues don’t address one extreme aspect of Trump’s executive order — that the children of people legally here on temporary visas aren’t automatically citizens under the 14th Amendment.

They instead argue that those rights don’t extend to the children of undocumented immigrants. To support this argument, they claim that undocumented immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States as required by the 14th Amendment.

“The Constitution never required every person who happened to be born on United States soil to be a citizen,” the Republican AGs’ brief says. “Nor is that the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'”

Never mind that in 1868 the United States had open borders, so the concept of being undocumented would have been alien to those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment.

Writing in January, Alex Nowrasteh of the libertarian Cato Institute said arguments such as the one in the AGs’ brief misstate what the 14th Amendment says. The concept of birthright citizenship predates it in U.S. jurisprudence, and even goes back to 17th century English common law, he said.

Nowrasteh quoted U.S. Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan who introduced the 14th Amendment. In a statement defending it, Howard said birthright citizenship extended to everybody, but “will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers” who have diplomatic immunity.

Trump and his supporters might try to torture that sentence into meaning undocumented immigrants and the babies of foreign diplomats are not entitled to birthright citizenship. But Nowrasteh said that goes against what Howard was plainly saying.

“Howard was describing the families of ambassadors as being foreigners and aliens,” Nowrasteh wrote.

Case in point

Even after Congress began restricting who could become a citizen merely by coming here, the Supreme Court ruled that being born in the United States made one a citizen with two exceptions — being born to a foreign diplomat or to a member of an invading force.

The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 placed a 10-year ban on Chinese immigration and prohibited Chinese who had already entered from getting citizenship. The legislation is considered highly racist because it singles out one ethnicity and it arose out of concern over the ethnic composition of the United States. Trump’s attempted Muslim bans have faced similar criticism.

Despite the Chinese Exclusion Act, the Supreme Court in 1898 ruled in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark that children born on U.S. soil to non-diplomat Chinese parents are citizens.

As a young man in 1895, Wong Kim Ark visited China and was denied reentry to the United States. He took the matter to court and three years later, the justices ruled 6-2 that the 14th Amendment made him a citizen.

“The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States,” Justice Horace Gray wrote for the majority. “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.”

In their brief, Yost and his colleagues claim that immigration laws passed after the 14th Amendment was ratified limit its scope.

“… Wong Kim Ark repeatedly emphasized that its facts involved lawful, permanent United States residents... ” the brief says. “Even its holding stressed the importance of lawful residence: ‘so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here’… Wong Kim Ark did not address children born to illegal immigrants or birth tourists.”

However, that statement seems to ignore the plain language of the Supreme Court ruling — that Congress can’t pass laws that shrink the rights provided by the 14th Amendment.

“The acts of Congress known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, the earliest of which was passed some fourteen years after the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, cannot control its meaning or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions,” it said.

In other words, statutes passed by Congress can’t trump the Constitution.

“The 1898 Supreme Court decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark established that the US-born children of immigrants were and remained citizens even if there were changes in law that would not have allowed them or their parents to legally immigrate here or naturalize,” wrote Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute.

Shaky justification

Prendergast, the Cleveland immigration lawyer, also questioned a key justification Yost and the Republican AGs gave in their attempt to limit birthright citizenship.

The brief said it was important to remove incentives for undocumented people to come to the United States with the sole purpose of having citizen children. That implies that having citizen babies would make it easier for their parents to stay. And that ignores that it’s much, much harder than most people think for undocumented parents to get permanent residency, Prendergast said.

“They act like somehow, birthright citizenship is a real draw; that people can come over here, have babies and somehow the babies themselves are going to acquire legal status for them,” Predergast said. “But a child can’t petition for their parents (to have permanent-resident status) until they’re 21 years old.”

She added that if the parents are in the United States without documents, they’re subject to more requirements when the child finally turns 21. In the vast majority of cases, they have to return to their home countries, go to a consulate, apply, and then wait 10 years.

Politicians’ talk of a border ‘invasion’ is speech that experts say has gotten people killed

“It’s a complicated process,” Predergast said.

The brief onto which Yost signed also echoes Trump’s claim that crossings at the southern border amount to an “invasion.” Despite their claims, Trump, Yost and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott have never shown that the typically peaceful southern border has been crossed in recent decades by hostile tanks or helicopters as part of a coordinated military force.

Yost’s office didn’t respond when asked if he was worried that such inflammatory rhetoric would result in another racist massacre like the one that happened in 2019. Spun up on racist rhetoric, 21-year-old Patrick Crusius, drove 600 miles from the Dallas area to an El Paso Walmart and started shooting every Hispanic-looking person he saw. In a manifesto he posted just before he murdered 23 and wounded 22, he wrote, “This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

Prendergast said the friend-of-the-court brief the Ohio attorney general joined isn’t a serious legal effort — it’s just more toxic politics.

“I don’t think most people take it seriously,” she said. “It’s a chaos agent, meant to create fear and division.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

'Hate and fear are powerful': Pro-Trump disruptors vastly outnumbered at red state protest

More than 1,000 from across Ohio turned out Saturday to protest outside a Columbus Tesla dealership. Among other objections, they were protesting the sweeping powers President Donald Trump has given the world’s richest man and the way that man is using them.

A much smaller number — fewer than 50 — came out to show their support for Trump and Tesla founder Elon Musk, who holds an unofficial position in Trump’s administration.

There have been weekly protests outside the dealership in the Easton shopping development and in other cities since Trump took office in January. By Saturday, warm weather and rumors that the Proud Boys would come out in support of Trump and Musk swelled the ranks of those who wanted to protest the billionaires. Similar protests were held across the United States and around the world.

Police separated demonstrators and counter-demonstrators. But both groups were peaceful, and in some instances talked seriously with each other.

People protesting Trump and Musk lined both sides of the street and wound around the corner. They expressed anger over many of the actions of the new administration, including its heavy-handed treatment of immigrants, its decimation of antitrust and consumer-protection watchdogs, and its perceived abandonment of Ukraine.

But the major target of the protests was Musk and the power Trump has given him.

Musk wasn’t elected and he hasn’t been confirmed by the U.S. Senate. But as he runs the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency,” he’s tried to hack away at government programs, many of which benefit the poor and average Americans.

For example, Musk is trying to fire 80,000 people from the Department of Veterans Affairs, he axed a program that pays farmers for produce for food pantries, and he’s trying to lay off tens of thousands at such agencies as the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education. As he has, Musk’s unofficial agency has committed a series of blunders that have left many to question his competence. Even so, Musk has become even richer under the new administration.

Protesters held signs with a picture of Musk doing a now-infamous gesture mirroring a Nazi salute in January. Some noted that Musk’s own companies get millions a day in government subsidies as he targets what he sees as waste in other programs.

“We don’t want no swasticars,” went one chant that took jabs at Musk’s electric car and rocket companies. “Take a one-way trip to Mars.”

Peggy Kissel of Westerville said she was protesting because she felt like she needed to do something.

“I don’t feel like we have a say in what’s happening because Congress and the courts haven’t been able to stand up to the things that are happening,” she said as cars drove past, honking in support.

A man who helped organize the counter-protest declined to identify himself except to call himself “Patriot Dad.” He said he came out to defend the Tesla dealership after acts of vandalism and the discovery of incendiary devices in other cities.

“There actually are Americans who care about protecting an American company and American workers,” he said. “I thought maybe we should create a shield or create a wall around a building that is clearly a target for domestic terrorism right now.”

Asked about the cuts Musk and Trump are making, the man said, “Most of us who voted for Donald Trump knew what Elon Musk was going to be doing when he got in there. Quite honestly Trump has all the authority he needs to go in and create efficiencies and that’s what Elon Musk is doing.”

Many of those who were protesting the new administration were adamant that Trump is abusing his power.

Miriam Scudder said she’s traveled to several foreign countries, including in Africa. She said she’s worried that Americans don’t appreciate the rights Trump and Musk are trying to erode.

“We have a certain privilege here in the United States that I don’t see in other countries,” she said. “I don’t think we really appreciate how much we have here and I feel like we’re throwing it away. I feel like we’re the spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum because of something we can’t agree on. No. 1 is immigration because hate and fear are powerful things.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

'I'm mad as hell': 1,400 fired up Ohioans bash Trump — and their own U.S. senators

An enthusiastic crowd of about 1,400 Ohioans on Saturday packed the Valley Dale Ballroom to say their federal officials aren’t representing them — and that they’re not standing up to President Donald Trump as he allows the world’s richest man to slash federal programs.

The event, staged by Indivisible Central Ohio, was facetiously called a town hall.

Chairs were placed on the stage for U.S. Sens. Bernie Moreno and Jon Husted, both Republicans. They sat empty, and organizers said the senators’ offices didn’t even bother to say they wouldn’t be coming.

Instead, organizers asked the questions they would have put to the senators to the AI program Chat GPT. The program said that the massive layoffs and cuts to federal programs would cost Ohio jobs, harm university research and stunt the biomedical sector.

Mia Lewis, an organizer, urged the crowd to turn out regularly to protest what’s happening.

“This is an unprecedented moment in our country. This shit is not normal,” she said of an administration that regularly attacks the judiciary, and allows an unelected, unconfirmed Elon Musk hack wildly at the federal government. “Just two people standing on a highway is not the same thing as 50 people being there every day.”

Members of the audience held signs that said things like “Nobody elected Putin,” “Nobody elected Musk,” and other things that aren’t publishable by a general-audiences news organization.

Moreno and Husted weren’t the only ones to be mocked for their absence. Joyce Beatty, a Democrat and longtime congresswoman from Columbus, begged off, citing a “prior commitment.” An unfortunate constituent was regularly heckled as she tried to read in first person a letter Beatty had sent.

When the constituent read a passage implying Beatty was present, a man yelled out, “You’re not here!” The crowd laughed.

Arnold Scott summed up the general tenor.

“As an ex-federal employee and a union member, I’m mad as hell,” he said. “How about these billionaires pay their taxes? When they cut employees at the various agencies, actually what they’re doing is cutting the services that the taxpayers are paying for. When they cut the VA, they’re cutting veterans. You stand there and say you support the veterans, but then you cut the veterans. When you cut them, that translates into it taking longer for them to receive the services that they’re entitled to.”

Scott said an Ohio federal worker lost her job and complained to one of the Ohio senators. “What do you want me to do?” Scott claimed the senator responded.

Then Scott turned to the two empty chairs and said, “Mr. Senator, what we want you to do… we want you to do your job.”

That brought the crowd to its feet to chant “Do your job!”

Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” is cutting resources the VA, the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the Social Security Administration, the Park Service and much more.

Catherine Duffy told the crowd that buried in that list is a cut that is deeply damaging to Ohio’s poor and its farmers. Musk’s supposed agency axed $1 billion nationally for overstressed food banks to buy directly from farmers.

“Every dollar we don’t have is produce we don’t grow,” Duffy said.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

Two Trump firings 'an illegal and outrageous affront to the American people': watchdogs

Antitrust watchdogs are blasting President Donald Trump’s attempt on Tuesday to remove two Democratic-appointed members of the Federal Trade Commission.

Trump’s attempted firing of commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter are illegal usurpations of congressional authority, they say, and raise serious questions about whether Trump is doing the bidding of big corporations the commission was created to police.

The White House confirmed the firings to Reuters, which first reported the news.

Slaughter and Bedoya reportedly plan to sue to reverse the firings. But on Wednesday, their bios were removed from the section of the FTC website dedicated to current commissioners.

Andrew Ferguson, a former aide to U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., whom Trump appointed to chair the commission, acquiesced in Trump’s move. Ferguson posted on X that he had “no doubts about (Trump’s) constitutional authority to remove commissioners, which is necessary to ensure democratic accountability of our government.”

The firings are another instance in which Trump has tried to undercut the power of independent federal agencies. In the case of the FTC, it was created by Congress in 1914, its members are confirmed by the Senate, and despite Ferguson’s claim, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935 ruled unanimously that presidents aren’t allowed to remove commissioners without showing good cause.

Feds allege sweeping scheme to raise customer costs for insulin

Also raising concern is that Trump is removing commissioners who have acted aggressively to enforce antitrust law after a 40-year hiatus under Republican and Democratic administrations.

Bedoya and Slaughter have voted with the Commission to sue health conglomerates over allegations that they are illegally raising the cost of insulin, they acted to block the Kroger-Albertson’s mega-merger, and they voted to sue Amazon, saying it is “illegally maintaining monopoly power.”

Stacy Mitchell, co-executive director of the Institute for Local Self Reliance, said the firings appear to be Trump’s way of paying back to the big tech billionaires who have paid him millions.

“By violating the FTC’s independence and attempting to gut this crucial law-enforcement agency, President Trump is fulfilling the wishes of the Big Tech oligarchs and other powerful corporations who financed and backed his campaign,” Mitchell said in a statement. “This is a corrupt bid to allow dominant corporations to prey on American consumers, workers, and small businesses with impunity.”

In December, Mitchell told the Capital Journal that decades of non-enforcement of antitrust laws — including the 1936 Robinson Patman Act — facilitated the rise of big box stores, food deserts, and inflating grocery prices. Frustration over rising consumer costs contributed to Trump’s Nov. 5 victory, she said.

In her statement Tuesday, Mitchell said his attempted firing of Bedoya and Slaughter breaks faith with a public that is seeking relief from the squeeze of corporate consolidation.

“President Trump’s attempt to fire two members of the Federal Trade Commission is an illegal and outrageous affront to the American people,” she said. “Congress established the Commission as an independent agency in order to ensure its effectiveness in upholding the law and protecting Americans from concentrated corporate power and abuse.”

In a 2022 interview with the Capital Journal, Bedoya, then a new commissioner, said his research had convinced him that the goal of antitrust law is fairness to everyday Americans.

“Read why Congress passed these laws and you cannot read those debates and not understand that antitrust was intended to ensure fairness for small business and rural America,” he said. “Now is a critical time to remember that and make sure we’re being true to the original purpose of those laws.”

On Tuesday, he said his firing was illegal, and he said Trump was putting the interests of his rich friends over those of the American people.

“The FTC is an independent agency founded 111 years ago to fight fraudsters and monopolists. Our staff is unafraid of the (former drug exec and securities fraudster) Martin Shkrelis and (Amazon founder) Jeff Bezos of the world. They take them to court and win,” Bedoya wrote on X. “Now, the president wants the FTC to be a lapdog for his golfing buddies.”

Bedoya added that with Slaughter and former Chair Lina Khan, “I spent my time at the FTC fighting for small town grocers and pharmacists and for people in Indian country going hungry because food was too expensive. I fought for workers getting screwed on pay and benefits and overtime. I fought for their right to organize. I fought tech companies who think they can track you and your kids every hour of every day so they can pocket their next billion.”

Bedoya asked, “Who will the FTC work for? Will it work for the billionaires? Or will it work for you?”

Another antitrust activist, Nidhi Hegde, executive director of the American Economic Liberties Project, called on Congress to step in and defend its prerogative.

“Independent agencies like the FTC exist to enforce the law as written by Congress and protect the public interest — not to be gutted at the whim of a president,” she said in a statement. “The president’s demand is illegal and void, and must not be accepted by Commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter. If the Trump administration continues to pursue this unconstitutional path, it is time for Congress to step in to defend the law and the authority of these two commissioners.”

The attempted firings are another move by the nascent Trump administration that could be seen as placing the interests of the rich and powerful over those of American consumers.

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, is working with Trump in an unofficial capacity to slash government agencies on claims that he wants efficiency. One of the first agencies to fall under Musk’s ax was the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has recovered tens of billions for consumers from payday lenders, big banks charging duplicate fees, and other predatory businesses. Tellingly, perhaps, the agency is also investigating potentially anticompetitive practices by big tech companies.

The attempt to shut down the consumer protection bureau is held up in court. But Musk, who owns several big tech companies, in February took to social media to crow, “CFPB RIP,” the New York Times reported.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

'False and bigoted conspiracy theory': Behind the language in Trump's presidential orders

When it comes to talking about immigrants, the word “invasion” is both explosive and inaccurate, experts and human rights advocates say. Yet with Donald Trump back in the White House, it’s showing up on official orders and other communications — and it’s being echoed by Ohio politicians.

Just in the waning weeks of January, Trump issued two executive orders using the language — “Guaranteeing the States Protection Against Invasion” and “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.”

On Thursday, more than 80 civil and human rights organizations sent a letter to congressional leaders calling on them to reject what the groups said was a “false and bigoted conspiracy theory.”

As at times past, numbers of migrants spiked at the U.S.-Mexico border at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic and severely strained resources. That led certain politicians on the right — including Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and now-Ohio U.S. Sen. Bernie Moreno — to claim it was an invasion even though migrants weren’t driving tanks, carrying machine guns, or even functioning as an organized group. They don’t even committed crime at rates as high as native-born Americans

“Immigration policy is an important topic that demands congressional discussion and debate,” the groups’ letter to Republican and Democratic congressional leaders said. “We implore Senate and House leadership not to support or fund efforts that are led by a fictional and dangerous conspiracy theory purporting an ‘invasion.’ Congress should not provide the justification for continued attacks on our democracy.”

In Texas, Abbott has tried to portray what has happened at the border as a military invasion as he seeks to take border-security responsibilities into his own hands. Such powers have traditionally been reserved for the federal government because it would create chaos if each of the 50 states was in charge of its own policy and security when it came to dealing with foreign countries.

Also, the places along the border that Abbott claimed were the site of a military invasion are among the safest communities in the country. So, even when immigrants showed up in large numbers, that didn’t amount to the military invasion Abbott claimed in an attempt to get around federal primacy, a judge ruled last year.

“Contemporary definitions of ‘invasion’ and ‘actually invaded’ as well as common usage of the term in the late Eighteenth Century predominantly referred to an ‘invasion’ as a hostile and organized military force, too powerful to be dealt with by ordinary judicial proceedings,” U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra wrote last year as he blocked Abbott. “This Court could not locate a single contemporaneous use of the term to refer to surges in unauthorized foreign immigration.”

After briefly lifting it, the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year upheld Ezra’s stay and is scheduled to hear Texas’s appeal in July.

Meanwhile, many experts have said false claims of invasion have prompted murderous rampages against vulnerable communities. For example, Patrick Crusius in 2019 drove from Dallas to El Paso, posted a manifesto saying he was stopping an “invasion” at the border and went to a Walmart. There he used an AK-47 to murder 23 and injured 22 more.

Some experts say the fact that such false, incendiary rhetoric can be deadly isn’t just incidental, it’s part of the point. It scares immigrants and others from standing up to those who use it, and that serves the political ends of those who use such rhetoric, those experts say.

Not to fight false claims that we’re being invaded undermines democracy, a program director at one of the groups that signed the letter to congressional leaders said in a statement.

“Depicting migrants and refugees as an ‘invasion’ is not only a dangerous and bigoted attempt to fearmonger, it is now the basis of an authoritarian power grab,” said Liz Yates of the Western States Center.

In their letter, all the groups said the harm will only spread unless those in power stand against claims of an “invasion.”

“This bigoted narrative has already been leveraged to promote policies that have and will continue to have a devastating impact on immigrant communities,” the letter said. “It has also inspired a pattern of white nationalist and antisemitic deadly attacks across the nation. Use of this bigoted conspiracy theory as justification for a policy agenda poses a public safety risk not only to the immigrant communities who are targeted for policy enforcement, but also to Jewish, Black, Brown, Muslim, LGBTQ+, AANHPI, Latinx and many other communities who are implicated in this conspiratorial rhetoric. It also constitutes a direct threat to our democracy.” Congress must refuse to further legitimize this bigotry by sanctioning or funding policies in its name.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

Far-right Republican AGs question protections for immigrants from dangerous home countries

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and 17 other Republican attorneys general are questioning the temporary protected status for immigrants from 17 distressed countries. They’re asking officials in President Donald Trump’s explicitly anti-immigrant administration to review whether protections are necessary.

In a statement Tuesday, Yost said some have been allowed to stay in the United States even after it was “safe for them to return home.” However, he didn’t name a single such country — and publicly available reports make it hard to guess which places he might mean.

His office was asked if he could name a person with temporary protected status who could safely return to her or his home country. A spokeswoman responded that it wasn’t the attorney general’s job to make such determinations.

An immigrant advocate said the letter was another way to scare vulnerable immigrants into the shadows. It’s akin to last summer’s false claims by now-President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance and others that Haitians under temporary protected status in Springfield were stealing and eating their neighbors’ pets, she said. That led to dozens of bomb threats and reports of violence against immigrants.

“It’s about intimidation,” said Lynn Tramonte, founder of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance. “It’s about destabilization. These are authoritarian tactics where you make people unsafe in their homes and communities. It’s really sad. J.D. Vance himself brought violence to Springfield.”

Longstanding problems

Yost and the other attorneys general sent a letter to Kristi Noem, Trump’s head of the Department of Homeland Security. Now confirmed, Noem has the power to grant or revoke temporary protected status, or TPS. Her farewell address last week as North Dakota governor was peppered with starkly anti-immigrant rhetoric.

The Trump administration is giving immigration officers an expanded authority to rapidly deport immigrants, including people the Biden administration temporarily allowed into the country under parole authority, according to an internal memo, States Newsroom reported this weekend.

“TPS beneficiaries represent over 1 million immigrants residing in the States who are otherwise without legal status,” the attorneys general’s letter to Noem said. “Converting TPS into a license for long-term residency frustrates congressional aims and only increases the financial and governmental strain on States.”

In addition to Yost, attorneys general from Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming signed the letter to Noem.

The letter makes much of the fact that the word “temporary” is in the name of the designation, and that people from some countries have had temporary protected status for decades.

“Honduras, for instance, first received TPS after a hurricane hit in 1998 and DHS bases its current TPS designation on ‘persist[ing]’ conditions from that same event,” the letter said. “TPS extensions spanning decades have become routine.”

According to statutory language provided by Yost’s office, the Homeland Security secretary can grant TPS if she finds “that there exist extraordinary and temporary conditions in the foreign state that prevent aliens who are nationals of the state from returning to the state in safety.”

Tramonte said the attorneys general are misreading the law.

“It’s called ‘temporary protected status,'” she said. “It’s not called ‘short-term protected status.’ When a crisis happens, whether it’s a natural disaster or a political crisis, it takes years to recover. They’re fixating on the word ‘temporary’ as if that means short-term. But all that means is that Congress said we’re going to give you a break and not deport you because it’s dangerous to send you back.”

Harrowing conditions

In its 2023 report on human rights practices, the U.S. State Department had this to say about Honduras, the country the Republican AGs cite as being designated a TPS country for almost 27 years:

“Significant human rights issues included credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by government agents; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary arrest or detention; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media freedom, including threats against media members by criminal elements; serious government corruption; extensive gender-based violence, including domestic violence, sexual violence, and femicide; and crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or intersex persons.”

In fact, of the 17 countries designated for TPS, 11 have the State Department’s most severe travel warning — do not travel. Three have the next-highest, reconsider travel. And three have the second-lowest, exercise increased caution.

Reports for the latter countries — Cameroon, Nepal and El Salvador — indicate how dicey it might be to return there, especially if you’re not a tourist from a developed country.

Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2024 says that El Salvador had been stricken by gang violence, and then “a state of emergency (that was) adopted in March 2022 that suspended basic rights remains in force. Authorities have committed widespread human rights violations, including mass arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, ill-treatment in detention, and due process violations.”

The Human Rights Watch report for Cameroon detailed “continued clashes between armed groups and government forces throughout Cameroon’s Anglophone and Far North regions severely impacted civilians, with cases of unlawful killings, abductions, and raids on villages increasing in the second half of the year.”

And the State Department’s 2023 report for Nepal described “significant human rights issues (including) credible reports of: arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings; torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government; arbitrary detention; serious restrictions on freedom of expression and media, including violence or threats of violence against journalists and unjustified arrests of journalists.”

Those are the TPS countries that the State Department deems to be the safest of the 17 to travel to. The letter the attorneys general wrote to Noem criticized former President Joe Biden for extending temporary protected status designations for Sudan, Ukraine, and Venezuela, in addition to El Salvador.

Ukraine has been devastated by war since Russian President Vladimir Putin invaded in 2022. Sudan has been torn by civil war since 2023, spurring the enlistment of child soldiers, sexual violence and other atrocities. And in Venezuela, the socialist government has made the economy so dysfunctional that 90% live in poverty, and it has the highest crime rate in the world.

Safe?

In a statement announcing that he and other Republican attorneys general called for a review of TPS designations, Yost, said some could safely return to their home countries.

“This program has been applied too loosely, allowing noncitizens to live here indefinitely, even after it’s safe for them to return home,” the statement quoted Yost, who last week announced a 2026 run for governor, as saying.

Asked if the Ohio AG could name one, his spokeswoman said that wasn’t his job.

“The Ohio Attorney General isn’t the person with authority to make TPS judgments, regardless,” the spokeswoman, Bethany McCorkle, said in an email. “That’s why the letter doesn’t call for the designation to be immediately lifted from any one nation.

“What the letter does ask is that the Secretary engage in a review of the country conditions and exercise her judgment regarding the status of countries that have been designated as ‘temporar[ily]’ protected for years — sometimes decades — based on the same insular events,” she added. “If conditions are currently unsafe in a certain country based on new/current factors that would reach the high bar set by Congress for TPS, then the Secretary would have discretion to give TPS on that basis.”

The call for an administration led by a vehemently anti-immigrant president to review and possibly deny immigrants’ protected status might be out of step with public opinion. A December poll sponsored by the National Immigration Forum and the Bulfinch group said that 73% of Americans agreed that immigration policies should protect the persecuted and keep families intact.

Tramonte, of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance, said the real point of the letter is to distract the public from the real cause of many Americans’ suffering.

“This gets them headlines, this gets them accolades from the people they’re trying to stir up,” she said. “They’re trying to distract from their bigger agenda, which is getting corporations bigger tax breaks and helping the wealthy while average people are having to work multiple jobs just to pay the rent.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

Judge in opioid proceedings slams pharmacy middlemen as they try to stall cases

The U.S. district judge in Cleveland, Ohio handling a galaxy of claims stemming from the prescription opioid epidemic on Monday reiterated his belief that powerful drug middlemen are trying to stall cases against them.

One maneuver, he said, “borders on frivolous.” That’s not something lawyers want to hear from a judge in a case where $41 billion in settlements have already been awarded — and billions of their clients’ dollars are potentially at stake.

More than a half-million Americans have died from opioid overdoses since 1999, and the lives of countless more have been shattered.

Overprescription of opioids was a major cause of the epidemic. Wealthy interests made billions, while many ignored evidence that what they were doing was devastating Americans, their families, and their communities.

Since 2017, U.S. District Judge Dan Aaron Polster has been working to consolidate more than 2,000 claims in his Cleveland federal court. They were filed by towns, cities, counties, and Indian tribes against those behind the the flood of opioid pills: doctors who prescribed them, companies that made them, wholesalers that distributed them, pharmacies that sold them, and the pharmacy middlemen that facilitated the transactions.

So far, cases have been consolidated and settlements reached with wholesalers such as Dublin-based Cardinal Health. Manufacturers such as Teva, Allergan, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals also have settled.

In addition, pharmacy chains CVS, Walgreens, and Walmart have agreed to pay a combined $13.1 billion to settle claims that their negligent conduct fueled the scourge.

But when it comes to middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers, lawyers are still in the process of deciding which of about 80 cases against them should be considered first. So any settlements might be far off.

The three largest middlemen — CVS Caremark, OptumRx, and Express Scripts — work on behalf of insurers to facilitate drug transactions. They negotiate rebates from drugmakers, they create pharmacy networks, and they determine reimbursements and reconcile claims.

Also known as PBMs, the big-three benefit managers control access to roughly 80% of insured Americans. They hold enormous sway over drugmakers because they decide on behalf of insurers which drugs to cover and which of those to give the most preferential treatment, often by not requiring a copayment.

To get preferential treatment — and thus sell more of their products — drugmakers pay PBMs huge rebates and fees. The system is far from transparent, but the PBMs pass a portion of that money along to their clients and keep a portion themselves.

Federal regulators have accused the big PBMs, each part of a massive health conglomerate, of using the system to push up rebates, list prices of drugs and out-of-pocket costs for patients, some of whom are among the least able to afford them.

Two recent journalistic investigations showed how opioid makers used the system of rebates and fees to get PBMs to do their bidding.

In October, Barron’s reported that between 2016 and 2017 oxycontin maker Purdue Pharma paid $400 million in rebates and fees to the big three PBMs. The story detailed a consultant’s report saying that Purdue officials knew that big rebates were key to keep the PBMs covering their products.

In 2020, Purdue pleaded guilty to several charges, including misleading the DEA as it marketed opioids to entities it had reason to believe were selling them illicitly, and to paying doctors kickbacks to write more opioid prescriptions. The company also agreed to pay $8.6 billion.

In December, the New York Times reported that the PBMs avoided or delayed putting limits on their opioid coverage in exchange for greater rebates and fees from the companies that made them. The foot dragging continued even as some executives pleaded for more responsible conduct, the story said.

As litigation against the PBMs proceeds in Cleveland, the companies are trying to avoid turning over personnel records of company officials before they sit for depositions in the case. The PBMs have asked Judge Polster to delay an order to turn over the records pending an emergency appeal to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati.

In an amended order filed on Monday, the judge wasn’t having any of it.

He noted that personnel records had been turned over in earlier parts of the multidistrict litigation, and that the PDM defendants were free to request the personnel records of anyone they planned to depose.

Polster also wrote that “this Court has long stated” that the PBMs could redact items such as addresses, phone numbers and medical history that the PBMs said they wanted to protect. Then he accused them of blatantly trying to stall.

“Ultimately, the PBMs’ request for emergency intervention by the Sixth Circuit regarding an everyday discovery matter borders on frivolous,” he wrote. “The Court believes the PBMs are wasting this Court’s and the Sixth Circuit’s time with a mandamus petition regarding the discoverability of current and former employees’ work background regarding compensation, discipline and commendations, job history, and so on.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

Ohio coal plant said to be nation’s most deadly — but new owners seem likely to keep it open

Environmental activists have been pressing the company buying an Ohio coal plant said to be the nation’s deadliest to retire the facility. But that seems unlikely, given statements it made in a regulatory filing that it provided to the Ohio Capital Journal.

The buyer, Energy Capital Partners, has boasted of helping plants make the transition away from coal. It hasn’t answered questions about its plans for Gavin, but in a Dec. 11 filing before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, it expressed no such plans for the Gavin Plant.

“As with any electric generation facility, (Energy Capital Partners) and Javelin expect that the Gavin facility… will continue to operate for so long as they are legally able to do so on an economic basis,” it said.

Energy Capital Partners, or ECP, and Javelin are private-equity firms that are in the process of buying the 50-year-old plant from another private-equity firm, Blackstone. The 2,600 megawatt plant along the Ohio River near Cheshire has stirred controversy for years.

To settle lawsuits in 2002, a former owner, American Electric Power, bought out residents around the plant for more than three times the value of their property.

The generating facility had been dumping toxic coal ash into unlined pits, creating worries that it would contaminate groundwater. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2022 ordered it to stop, and now its owners face a $40 million cleanup liability.

And a 2023 analysis by the Sierra Club looked at coal-plant emissions and weather patterns. It concluded that because it sends a plume of toxins over populous areas in the eastern United States, the Gavin plant is the deadliest in the country, killing an estimated 244 people a year.

Many investors have been turning away from fossil fuels — and especially coal — as a method of powering electricity generation. But private-equity investors have been taking up some of the slack, with nearly 80% of their power plant investments being in those fueled by coal or gas.

Private equity has been stigmatized over claims that it practices one of the harshest forms of capitalism. They often buy assets in deals that quickly recoup their investments, then frequently sell off the most valuable parts of an enterprise, and then walk away either by selling or declaring bankruptcy. Whether people needlessly lose jobs or consumers lose choices is not a consideration, critics say.

That has left environmentalists and private-equity critics worried that Gavin’s owners will continue to operate it as a polluting coal plant, then close it, and find a way to stick taxpayers with any cleanup costs.

However, Energy Capital Partners bills itself as a company that helps utilities convert from using coal.

“Energy Capital Partners (ECP) is a leading credit and equity investor across energy transition infrastructure, with a focus on investing in electricity and sustainability infrastructure, providing reliable, affordable clean energy,” its website says.

The company last week declined to respond to questions, other than to send the Dec. 11 filing it made in a FERC proceeding. In it, ECP made several statements that seem to indicate the company plans to keep the Gavin plant operating as it is.

“Notably, the Gavin facility has an existing long-term contract for coal supply with a supplier unaffiliated with Javelin, and ECP and Javelin have no intention of altering those arrangements,” it says.

The filing also said that it’s just speculation that the new owners plan to retire the plant.

“… regarding a secondhand, unnamed source’s speculation regarding plans to retire the Gavin facility, ECP and Javelin confirm that there are no such plans,” it said. “Notably, even the post cited by the Joint Protesters for the proposition that Gavin may be retired ‘in the coming years’ simply states (again, based on an unnamed source) that the facility may close or be converted to run on a different fuel by 2031, which is well outside of the forward-looking view on which the Commission relies in reviewing Section 203 applications.”

A group critical of the practices of private-equity investors asked what it would take to close the Gavin Plant

“Whether owned by Blackstone or ECP, every day that private equity firms continue to operate the deadly Gavin coal plant is another day that private equity executives are choosing to put communities at greater health risk,” Alissa Jean Schafer, Climate Director of the Private Equity Stakeholder Project said in a statement. “Gavin is one of the worst polluting power plants in the nation, and as emission plumes travel downwind, these negative health impacts reach far beyond Ohio. How many more premature deaths will be linked to Gavin before this plant is shut down?”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

Experts: Mass deportation will hurt at least one red state's economy

In a recent survey, a majority of Ohio economists said that mass deportations would harm the state’s economy.

President-elect Donald Trump has vowed to round up and deport millions of undocumented immigrants. But some experts have said that the expense, legality and politics of such a move will place some guardrails on what he’s able to do.

And with migrants playing such an important role in the economy, critics say removing them would be calamitous. CNBC on Monday reported that a massive roundup would take an estimated $1.1 trillion to $1.7 trillion out of the U.S. economy.

In Ohio, the group Policy Matters on Monday reported that the state’s 580,000 immigrants contribute $53 billion in annual economic output. And the state’s economists seem mostly to agree that removing a big chunk of them will cost the state on balance.

Scioto Analysis last week published a survey of 20 economists asking about the effect of mass deportations. When asked if the move would significantly reduce the state’s economic output, 14 said yes, three said no and three were uncertain.

Among those who agreed that fewer immigrant workers would reduce output was Will Georgic of Ohio Wesleyan University. But he said how much of a loss will depend on the scale of the deportations.

“While it is hard to know whether the reduction in state GDP will be significant, and this will largely depend on the scale of the deportations, the effect will be unambiguously negative,” he said in the comment section of the survey. “Deportations represent negative supply shocks as well as negative demand shocks, both suggesting a decrease in real output.”

Among the economists saying that mass deportations won’t significantly harm state GDP was David Brasington of the University of Cincinnati, who said the undocumented don’t make up a big enough share of the state workforce to have much of an impact.

“Not so many workers, and the jobs they have produce lower-value goods,” he said.

Rachel Wilson of Wittenberg University said that the economic harm from a mass deportation would be multifaceted.

“Not only will it be reduced by immigrants’ production but because of their missing demand,” she said. “Immigrants do not come and work in a vacuum. They spend the money they make creating additional demand for goods and services. They often have a high marginal propensity to consume from each dollar they earn.”

The economists were also asked if they thought a mass deportation would reduce the burden on Ohio’s social safety net. Fifteen disagreed, two agreed and three were uncertain.

Jonathan Andreas echoed some of his colleagues in explaining why he thought expelling the undocumented wouldn’t give much relief to the safety net.

“We can only deport people who are not here legally and they are ineligible for social services except kids can get public education and most of the kids of undocumented immigrants are US citizens by birth,” he said. “Furthermore, undocumented workers typically pay payroll taxes even though they don’t get any credit for it, so they subsidize Social Security and Medicare.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.

Pre-election research shows disturbing trend among Republicans

Public opinion research conducted in October shows a shift in one political party that might make Donald Trump’s election on Nov. 5 less of a surprise. A majority of the party now agrees with a sentiment about immigration that has previously been associated with organized hate — that they are “poisoning the blood of the country.”

While October marked the first time respondents were asked that question, responses to others indicated a hard shift against immigrants by Republicans and white evangelical protestants — especially after Trump became president.

The Public Religion Research Institute is a nonpartisan group that studies political issues alongside religious values. Since its founding in 2013, it’s conducted its American Values Survey and done more than 200,000 interviews in the process.

Among its most recent findings was a 50-point gap between Republicans and Democrats over how pressing an issue immigration is for the country. And there now is a huge difference between the parties about whether undocumented immigrants who meet certain criteria should be offered a path to citizenship.

In 2013, 71% of Democrats and 64% of independents believed a path to citizenship should be offered. The percentage for Democrats rose to 77% by October, while it fell to 55% for independents.

But for Republicans, the change was far more dramatic.

In 2013, most Republicans — 53% — believed that qualifying people should be offered a path to citizenship. As of October, just 36% did.

At a recent conference in Washington, D.C., Public Religion Research Institute Founder and CEO Robert P. Jones said that support for a path mostly held steady for Republicans between 2013 and 2019, “then it begins to drop, then it just fell off a cliff beginning last year.”

Jones said the partisan disparity indicates that we’ve entered a new era when it comes to the politics of immigration.

“This is a very, very different world than we were living in even 10 years ago,” he said.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there is a religious element to the disparity.

White evangelical protestants make up the only major religious group that does not have a majority supporting a path to citizenship. That support has fallen from 53% in 2013 to 40% now.

The Public Religion Research Institute survey seemed to find an element of hatred in some of the opposition to allowing more undocumented immigrants to become citizens.

“There were a number of questions that, as a social scientist, I found myself having to ask that I never thought I’d have to ask,” Jones said of the most recent survey.

One was prompted by Trump’s statement a year ago that immigrants are “poisoning the blood of our country.” The statement has ominous implications because Adolph Hitler, who murdered 6 million Jews along with millions of other targeted groups, made several versions of the statement, including that a male Jew “poisons the blood of others…”

In the survey, Jones asked, “Do you agree or disagree that immigrants who are entering the country today are poisoning the blood of our country?”

A full 34% of Americans agree.

“There is a gigantic partisan gap on this question,” Jones said.

Almost two-thirds of Republicans — 61% — 33% of independents, and just 13% of Democrats agreed that immigrants are poisoning the blood of a nation of immigrants.

Jones, who holds a Ph.D. in religion, said that so many Americans agree with such a statement should concern everyone.

“A racist and hate-filled conception of immigrants has really taken hold with a significant minority of the population,” he said.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.

OH election chief’s own numbers say fraud is extremely rare — but  he says that’s a ‘bogus narrative’

When Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose’s latest effort to prosecute voter fraud last week showed once again that voter fraud is vanishingly rare in the Buckeye State — turning up a handful of indictments out of hundreds of case recommendations, representing a minuscule percentage of the millions upon millions of votes cast in recent Ohio elections — he called it a “bogus narrative” on social media.

He’s used that accusation before. In February 2022, the news organization The Hill published a story that accurately said LaRose’s office found possible instances of voter fraud in 0.0005% of ballots cast in the 2020 election. LaRose took to the social media site that was then Twitter to accuse the media of pedaling a false narrative — and to support former President Donald Trump’s lies about that election: “Here they go again,” LaRose tweeted. “Mainstream media trying to minimize voter fraud to suit their narrative.”

In a follow-up tweet, LaRose added, “President Trump is right to say voter fraud is a serious problem. More to come.”

Trump’s claims of voter fraud were rejected by 60 courts, Fox News had to pay out $787 million over false stories about vote rigging, and Trump incited a mob to attack Congress on Jan. 6, 2021 over bogus claims of a rigged election.

However, true to his word, LaRose has continued to beat the voter-fraud drum.

“It’s obvious to anyone paying attention that the integrity of Ohio’s elections is under attack!” he posted on X Friday as he continues to demand citizenship records from the federal government.

But over the past six years, LaRose has failed to make the case that significant levels of voter fraud are happening in Ohio.

Frustrated that county prosecutors weren’t doing more to pursue what his office thought might be cases of fraud, LaRose in September referred more than 600 to Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. He made the referral after local prosecutors took up just 12 of the 633 cases he had referred to them.

On Tuesday, Yost announced the result: Just six indictments after a Lorain County grand jury declined to charge an Oberlin College student. And one of those who were indicted turned out to be dead.

The indictments address voting in elections stretching back to 2008. In presidential contests alone, more than 22 million Ohioans have voted since then, so 18 voter fraud charges show that despite LaRose’s aggressive investigation, phony voting just isn’t happening very much.

In announcing the charges, Yost said voter fraud was rare and he took LaRose to task over the quality of some of his referrals.

“I need to have a sit-down with the secretary of state about the value of those cases where there was no voting — I think that we ought to be focusing on the voting,” Yost said.

But that didn’t stop LaRose from claiming there’s actually a lot of voter fraud in Ohio.

“Also look for this bogus narrative: ‘It’s only six out of millions! Election fraud doesn’t exist!'” LaRose said last Tuesday on the social media site that is now called X. “That’s a spurious tactic by leftist operatives and their media allies who either want to ignore clear instances of fraud or outright want to make it easier to cheat.”

The secretary of state’s office didn’t respond when asked how it could be a “bogus narrative” when it was literally true that Yost’s work resulted in just six indictments out of tens of millions of votes cast.

Meanwhile, LaRose and his Republican allies on Capital Square have used the specter of widespread voter fraud to undertake a number of measures that critics say disenfranchise people who tend to vote Democratic:

A voter ID law enacted last year that is estimated to have already blocked more than 8,000 from voting.Tough restrictions on boxes for voters to drop off absentee ballots. LaRose had already limited the number of such boxes to one per county — regardless whether it has a million residents and tends to vote blue, or just 13,000 and tends to vote red.Despite the extreme rarity of voter fraud, LaRose also wants to require proof of citizenship in order for people to register. He’s now being sued over those actions. As with voter ID requirements, citizens who lack such documents tend to belong to groups such as people of color who tend to vote for LaRose’s political opponents.LaRose also has purged hundreds of thousands of voters from the rolls, including many because they haven’t cast ballots consistently. Critics say there’s no constitutional requirement that voters must be consistent to be eligible.

In addition to his claims about voter fraud, LaRose has done and said a number of other misleading things concerning elections and voting in Ohio.

For example, last year as he led the drive to make it much more difficult for voters to initiate amendments to the state Constitution, LaRose claimed the effort had nothing to do with blocking an abortion-rights amendment that passed by 14 last November or an anti-gerrymandering amendment that’s on the ballot next week. But then he told a group of Seneca County Republicans that the effort was “100% about” blocking the abortion-rights amendment.

As secretary of state, LaRose heads up the Ohio Ballot Board. That entity this year wrote a ballot summary of the anti-gerrymandering amendment that is on next week’s ballot that critics say is highly misleading.

Even though Ohio’s legislature and congressional delegation are among the most gerrymandered, LaRose’s ballot summary said the proposed reforms would “establish a new taxpayer-funded commission of appointees required to gerrymander the boundaries of state legislative and congressional districts to favor the two largest political parties in the state of Ohio.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.

Experts: Don’t necessarily expect to know the winner on Election Night

Anybody who lived through the 2020 election probably doesn’t want to hear this, but a panel of expert last Thursday said it’s likely that we won’t know who our next president is going to be on Nov. 5.

Results announced on Election Night are far from official. Those don’t come for weeks.

Rather, they’re projections made by media organizations once they’re confident that the trends they’re seeing will hold. In a close election, that can take a while.

For four agonizing days after the last presidential election, the networks hesitated to project the outcome because it was so close. With Republicans more willing to vote in person during the pandemic, the votes counted first tended to favor then-President Donald Trump, who declared victory while repeating false claims of fraud at 2:30 on the morning following Election Day.

Trump continued the lies right up to Jan. 6, 2020, when a mob he summoned to Washington, D.C., attacked the Capitol as Congress was certifying Joe Biden’s victory. Regardless of the harm it does to public faith in our democracy, the former president and many of his followers continue to repeat lies about the outcome of the last election.

Hopefully, we’ll avoid the violence this time around, but it’s unlikely that we’ll avoid the initial uncertainty, a panel convened by the National Task Force on Election Crises said on Thursday.

“We need to make sure that the public are aware that we may not have results for one race, for multiple races in a given state on Election Night, or even Wednesday, or maybe even Thursday,” said Tammy Patrick of the Election Center, a national group representing election officials. “It all remains to be seen.”

Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, was even more definite.

“We likely will not know the winner of the election on Election Night,” she said. “And we should be skeptical of candidates who claim victory before there’s a clear picture.”

Part of the reason is that certain swing states such as Pennsylvania and Wisconsin don’t allow early votes to be processed before Election Day. Michigan also didn’t allow the practice in 2020, but it does now.

Because so many Democrats voted early in those states, it created a “red mirage” and then a “blue shift” as votes for Biden overtook those for Trump in battleground states as early votes were counted, they said. Trump continues to exploit the phenomenon as part of his election falsehoods.

Stewart warned the public not to pass along dubious information until a clear winner can be projected.

“Being patient and staying calm and being careful not to share information that is false is really important,” she said. “I think we have a heightened responsibility in 2024 based on things that happened recently.”

A huge concern is that uncertainty and disinformation about the outcome of the election will exacerbate political violence that is already happening. Stewart called on the media to raise awareness that clear projections of the winner are not likely to be known on Nov. 5.

“I think there is a clearer role for media this round to contribute to maintaining calm by not calling for results too early, but waiting until there’s a better picture painted,” she said.

Patrick, of the Election Center, said everybody should just take a deep breath.

“Everybody wants the results to be in as quickly as possible,” she said.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.

Politicians are parroting racist lie with ‘great replacement’ rhetoric: critics

Certain politicians try to dress up their rhetoric about immigration as a concern for national security. But they’re really peddling an old, racist theory that has already fueled several massacres in the United States, an alliance of eight anti-hate groups report.

They say a slew of public statements and some legislative and state actions are based on the “great replacement” theory — a belief that shadowy, often-Jewish actors are orchestrating mass immigration by people of color to break the dominance of white people in American society. The theory has been connected to racist massacres in El Paso, Buffalo and Pittsburgh in which Hispanic, Black and Jewish people were targeted, respectively.

The anti-hate groups include the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Western States Center, and the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee. Issued earlier this month, their report documents “a disturbing trend among a faction of the 118th Congress: the normalization and amplification of xenophobic ‘great replacement’ and ‘invasion’ conspiracy theories.”

Peddling the notion that immigrants are “invading” the United States as part of some nefarious plot is to promote a lie.

U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra has defined “‘invasion’ as a hostile and organized military force, too powerful to be dealt with by ordinary judicial proceedings.” Even when the numbers of undocumented immigrants crossing the border peaked, there was never any evidence that they were part of a military force of any kind.

There’s also the fact that claims that immigration is a plot to subsume white power come from the most evidence-free precincts of the conspiracy world.

It’s also relevant to note that despite the fact that former President Donald Trump relentlessly hypes stories of crimes committed by the undocumented, that group commits crimes at substantially lower rates than the native-born.

People who study hate speech say claims of an invasion or a great replacement dehumanize immigrants and people of color and make them targets of violent extremists.

Despite their inaccuracy and their toxicity, many in the current Congress have made statements related to those theories.

“As of publication, the 118th Congress has held more than 30 Congressional hearings where bigoted conspiracies of cultural replacement or an invasion were espoused, and dozens of… immigration hardliners, far-right figures, and members of SPLC-designated anti-immigrant hate groups were called to testify,” the report said. “In total, there have been 1,411 unique social media posts from official congressional accounts promoting the same bigoted conspiracies.”

The report cited statements made by dozens of lawmakers, including several from Ohio.

For example, U.S. Rep. Warren Davidson of Troy on June 27, 2023 posted on X, “America welcomes about 1-million new citizens each year. An organized invasion and occupation is not the same thing. Border security is national security and Congress must restore our sovereign southern border with appropriations/impeachment.”

“Impeachment” referred to an attempt to oust Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. The effort failed, but Rep. Beth Van Duyne, R-Texas, all but accused him of plotting to destroy the United States.

She said Mayorkas “has inflicted great damage on our cities and families, the kind you would expect from a hostile foreign adversary looking to destabilize America,” the report said. “Criminal illegal immigrants are murdering, raping, and beating people in broad daylight. This is the death and destruction of our country and people, not just a policy difference.”

Never one to be outdone, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, took the floor during the impeachment debate and accused the Homeland Security secretary of actively working to take the country down.

“Mayorkas is guilty of aiding and abetting the complete invasion of our country by gang members, murderers, rapists, and thousands of immigrants,” she said.

The report also said that conspiracy theories about an invasion and the great replacement have spurred legislation.

For example, Rep. Lance Gooden, R-Texas, “introduced H.R. 552: ‘No Tax Dollars for the United Nations’ Immigration Invasion Act,’ which would prohibit the federal government from making contributions to the United Nations migrant and refugee agencies. The U.S. has given bipartisan support to the UN refugee agency for over 70 years,” the report said.

It adds that “coded versions of replacement-style ideas” are manifesting at the state level.

Despite Trump’s lies about the 2020 election, voter fraud of any kind is exceedingly rare. So rare that when expressed as a percentage, it’s usually a number that starts 0.000…”

Whipping up unfounded fears of fraud to justify measures that reduce minority voting isn’t new. But the New York Times in 2022 reported a new trend — Republican officials claiming that undocumented immigrants were voting in substantial numbers.

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has undertaken several potentially suppressive measures, supposedly to stop undocumented immigrants from voting.

Last week, he referred 597 cases of possible non-citizen registration for prosecution, but LaRose’s batting average in this arena isn’t good. An investigation by the Capital Journal last year found that of the 521 cases of noncitizen voting referred to law enforcement up to that point in LaRose’s tenure, just one resulted in prosecution. LaRose has been in office since the start of 2019, and the number of ballots cast in the state since then is well over 10 million.

However, LaRose continues to conduct voter purges that opponents say disproportionately target voters of color, and his office has improperly purged citizens from the voting rolls.

Yet he was back on X last week, again behaving as if noncitizen voting was a substantial problem in Ohio.

“It is my sworn-duty to ensure only U.S. citizens vote in Ohio’s elections,” LeRose said. “Following the most extensive citizenship verification audit ever conducted, our Public Integrity Division has now formally referred evidence of noncitizen voter registrations to the Ohio AG for potential prosecution.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.

For JD Vance, is not backing Ukraine more important than the fight against fentanyl?

Newly named GOP vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance made his mother’s struggles with opioid addiction a part of his public story, and he started a nonprofit to fight the scourge in 2017.

But earlier this year, the Republican senator from Ohio voted against an anti-fentanyl bill that he had co-sponsored. When asked why, Vance’s office said it was because the senator didn’t want to vote for $60 billion in support for Ukraine, which is under attack by Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

So does that mean that it was more important to Vance to oppose supporting Ukraine than it was to fight fentanyl in opioid-ravaged states like Ohio?

Vance’s office hasn’t responded when asked multiple times. But some critics say that Vance has taken several positions that have been convenient for Putin, while others say that the GOP VP nominee wasn’t serious about fighting opioids in the first place.

Vance published his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy, in the summer of 2016. It described growing up in Middletown in southwest Ohio, his mother’s drug and domestic struggles, and how he spent time with a more-stable grandmother in Eastern Kentucky.

The book purports to speak for a huge swath of left-behind America. And when Donald Trump won the presidency in a stunning upset four months after its publication, many in the chattering classes turned to it and its author to learn what they’d missed about the malcontented masses.

The following year, Vance, a graduate of Yale Law School, announced that he was moving back to Ohio to address the problems confronting communities oppressed by the feeling that the only way to get ahead is to get away — to someplace where opportunity actually exists. In a March 16, 2017, op-ed in the New York Times, Vance described living in Silicon Valley.

“It’s jarring to live in a world where every person feels his life will only get better when you came from a world where many rightfully believe that things have become worse,” he wrote. “And I’ve suspected that this optimism blinds many in Silicon Valley to the real struggles in other parts of the country. So I decided to move home, to Ohio.”

Vance didn’t mention an ambition to seek political office, but he did say in the column that he was “founding an organization to combat Ohio’s opioid epidemic.”

He ended up running for office and in 2023 began his political career from a lofty perch in the U.S. Senate. Once there, Vance continued to voice concerns about fentanyl.

“When we talk about fentanyl trafficking in particular, I worry a lot that we’re always… a few years behind what’s actually going on in our country, ” Vance said during a January hearing of the Senate Banking Committee. “And I think back to my own very personal experience with opioid addiction in my family. Ten years ago, what everyone was talking about was prescription painkillers. But of course, ten years ago prescription painkillers were sort of giving way to street heroin. Then five years ago, everyone was talking about street heroin, but heroin was kind of giving way to fentanyl and now, of course, we’re all talking about fentanyl.”

When Democratic Ohio U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown authored the FEND Off Fentanyl Act, Vance signed on as a co-sponsor. Becoming law in April, it declares the crisis a national emergency, creates new powers to disrupt money-laundering and distribution networks, and it creates new sanctions.

But before the measure came to a final vote, Vance had a change of heart. His office told Spectrum News 1 that the senator couldn’t support the $60 billion to help Ukraine defend itself against Putin’s invasion that was part of the package, and thus couldn’t vote yes.

Vance has said he opposes support for Ukraine because it doesn’t have the capacity to push Russia back across Ukraine’s pre-invasion boundaries. But Charles Kupchan of Georgetown University and the Council on Foreign Relations told the Capital Journal that simply cutting off support and telling Ukraine to negotiate would only embolden Putin.

And Bill Browder, one of Putin’s leading foes, said that Vance’s positions on support for Ukraine sound a lot like the Russian authoritarian’s own.

In any case, Vance placed stopping support to Ukraine over at least one front in the domestic fight against fentanyl, and his office won’t comment on why. A political opponent said that one reason is that Vance never really cared that much about the scourge of fentanyl.

His vote on the law is “entirely consistent with the fact that J.D. Vance has never cared about protecting Ohioans from fentanyl or opioid addiction,” said Justin Barasky, a national Democratic political consultant who managed Brown’s 2018 re-election campaign. Vance “launched his political career taking advantage of the fact that Ohio had a serious problem with (opioids.) He started a fake organization that he said was going to address the crisis. It spent zero dollars on treatment, and instead hired political advisors, did a poll, and even brought in a woman who was a mouthpiece for big pharma. So the vote was entirely consistent with his past actions.”

The nonprofit Barasky referred to was called Our Ohio Renewal.

The group drew criticism for hiring a doctor for a year-long residency who had long cast doubt on the role pharmaceutical opioids played in fueling the epidemic of illicit opioids such as heroin and fentanyl. She also worked for the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank that has received substantial funding from Oxycontin maker Purdue Pharma.

Some of the doctor’s claims relied on research that was funded by the opioid maker, ProPublica reported. In 2007 Purdue pleaded guilty to criminal charges related to misleading regulators about how addictive its products were, the New York Times reported.

Also, Our Ohio Renewal’s biggest expenditure was paid to Vance’s top political advisor, Business Insider reported.

Regardless of his motives, Vance’s actions on the FEND Off Fentanyl Act show that he prioritized blocking Ukraine aid over the fentanyl fight, said University of Cincinnati political science professor David Niven. He said he found that confusing.

“You’re a U.S. senator from Ohio, and you’ve got all kinds of Ohio battles to fight in a state that’s been economically trailing the nation and where you are out in front is” stopping aid to Ukraine, Niven said. “You’ve got a political message that’s your whole reason for being, and yet thwarting efforts to aid Ukraine wins the day in what he does and what he says.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and X.

Mark Cuban has a simple question for CVS’s drug middleman

Businessman and TV personality Mark Cuban has a seemingly straightforward question for the huge drug middleman owned by CVS: If you’re as transparent about drug pricing as you claim, why don’t you publish prices on your website?

The company didn’t answer directly.

Cuban, founder of Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs, last week raised that question to the Capital Journal in response to a paid column that appeared April 3 in Forbes magazine. It was written by David Joyner, president of CVS Caremark, CVS’s pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM.

The company is the largest drug middleman in the United States. It represents insurers in drug transactions by creating lists of drugs that are covered, negotiating deals with manufacturers, reconciling transactions at the pharmacy counter and reimbursing pharmacists.

The three biggest PBMs — CVS Caremark, OptumRx, and Express Scripts — are part of giant corporations that each own a top-10 insurer. Together they represent 80% of the patients whose prescriptions are covered by insurance. And they say they use that size to force the big pharmaceutical companies to reduce prices.

“Our size and scale allow us to go toe-to-toe with drug companies, driving competition and negotiating discounts that make the difference between someone affording their medication or going without,” Joyner wrote in his Forbes column.

However, those companies have for years been dogged by accusations that they’re not transparent and that they’re pocketing huge amounts from their position as middleman in lucrative pharmaceutical transactions.

For example, a special investigation by the Ohio Department of Medicaid showed that CVS Caremark and OptumRx in 2017 took nearly a quarter-billion dollars in previously unknown fees from the health program for the poor. Six years later, the companies are still in court, fighting to keep secret information that it redacted in the report — even though the media reported it in 2019.

Questions about the big PBMs reached the point that the Federal Trade Commission in 2022 mounted a major investigation of the companies’ practices. It’s ongoing.

Amid stories about seemingly arbitrary pricing in which the big PBMs were sometimes paying themselves 100 times as much for drugs as they could be gotten elsewhere, Cuban and others started opening businesses that take drug purchases outside the insurance/PBM system. Discarding the PBM model of using a dizzying array of “maximum allowable cost” lists, the pharmacies publish their cost for the drugs and charge that plus a set markup plus a set dispensing fee.

For example, pharmacist Nate Hux opened Freedom Pharmacy in Pickerington. Illustrating how arbitrary pricing in the insurance/PBM system can be, Hux in 2021 reported selling a patient Celecoxib — a generic version of the anti-inflammatory drug Celebrex — for $23.05. When the patient used her insurance, her copayment alone had been $141.

The Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company site reports other such disparities.

In his column, Joyner, the CVS Caremark president, points out that such operations deal chiefly in generics — the least expensive class of drugs that are no longer patented and thus available from multiple manufacturers. He said the idea behind such cost-plus businesses is old and outmoded.

“The reality is, the Cost Plus offering is neither novel nor unique — it is a generic sourcing business that is 10 years too late,” Joyner wrote.

Cuban appeared to tweak Joyner for claiming the Cost Plus idea is irrelevant, while simultaneously going to the trouble to write a column in a national magazine criticizing it.

“My only response is that we are honored that he would take the time to talk about us and we hope he continues to do so,” Cuban, an owner of the Dallas Mavericks, said in an email.

In his column, Joyner said Cuban’s operation couldn’t address “the real issue: This country has a brand drug pricing problem.”

Those are the more-expensive drugs that are still under patent. The big PBMs negotiate huge, non-transparent rebates and discounts from their manufacturers in exchange for covering them on behalf of the millions of patients they represent. Joyner blamed drugmakers for raising list prices of drugs, but research has shown that list prices go up in conjunction with rebates and discounts received by PBMs.

A spokesman for CVS Caremark didn’t respond directly to a question asking whether, through its negotiations, the company impacts the prices of branded drugs.

In his column, Joyner also said CVS Caremark was bringing sunlight to drug pricing. He wrote, “… we are creating a more transparent environment for drug pricing in this country, and it’s not just for 2,500 drugs; it’s for every drug from every manufacturer for every condition and every patient.”

That prompted Cuban to ask whether the company would publish drug prices on its website as his company had.

“All anyone has to do is go to costplusdrugs.com and look at our pricing and then go to their websites and do the same,” Cuban said. “Then they can make their own decisions.”

Asked whether CVS Caremark would publish prices, its spokesman, Phil Blando again didn’t respond directly.

“The point David (Joyner) is making is one we’ve talked to you and many others about: PBMs are the only enduring protection from high prescription drug prices for seniors, the disabled, and working families,” Blando said in an email. “Prior to the advent of PBMs, consumers were at the mercy of drug companies’ high list prices. Many patients could not afford their medicines and otherwise manageable conditions took a heavy toll. We remain confident in our model and our ability to deliver sustainable savings to our clients and their members without sacrificing access or quality.”

For his part, Hux on Monday said his Pickerington business has grown by the month. He said word-of-mouth, media coverage and Cuban’s venture have all raised awareness of the cost-plus pricing model.

He said that it not only allows him to offer many medicines much more cheaply, the model also creates fewer headaches than his insurance-using pharmacy does.

“We don’t have to fool around with chasing claims, all the extra administrative work,” Hux said. “The documentation, there’s a lot of paperwork to deal with. And the fees they charge the pharmacies. And the audits. It’s just very inefficient. I hate it.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

History’s hateful echo: Century-old Klan resurgence resonates today

He was a crooked, gaslighting sadist who a jury found guilty of sexually attacking a woman he’d chewed so savagely that the wounds he inflicted helped to kill her. He led a white-nationalist drive so successful that it could have landed him in the White House. And much of what he did happened right here in Ohio.

It’s important during Black History Month to highlight the struggles and successes of giants and martyrs who helped clear away barriers for all who came behind them. But as the commemoration draws to an end today, it’s also important to remember just how high and hateful those barriers really were, if we ever really knew that in the first place.

Fever

Fighting after 1915 to keep the most forbidding barriers in place was the resurgent Ku Klux Klan. It was led by one D.C. Stephenson, a man who came north seemingly from nowhere, set up shop on the Indiana portion of the Ohio River and began a rise that appalled much of the country while taking the rest of it by storm.

Author Timothy Egan paints a terrifying portrait of the utterly amoral Stephenson in his 2023 book “A fever in the Heartland: The Ku Klux Klan’s Plot to Take Over America, and the Woman Who Stopped Them.”

Stephenson was actually born in Texas, but he lied so relentlessly about his background — and everything else — that by the time he showed up in Evansville in 1920, he could have been from anywhere.

“His new life in Evansville was a dash and a dodge, just a few steps ahead of the multiple lives he’d left behind,” Egan writes. “He’d knocked around from town to town, selling linotype parts, stock in a coal company, but mostly selling himself. He could talk a dog off a meat wagon, as they said in those parts.

“His smile was toothy and his cheeks dimpled, his eyes blazed, his shoes sparkled and his clothing was impeccable. He liked heavy food, a good cigar and many a drink. He looked prosperous, even if he wasn’t. He sounded educated, an incontinent user of five-dollar words even if the college he attended changed with each telling. But the truth of his background didn’t matter; his swagger was convincing.”

Stephenson was, in other words, both a fraud and a born salesman. But he was also something more and much more sinister.

As he maneuvered his way into one of the top two slots in the Klan and the recruiter across a vast swath of the Midwest, Stephenson made himself rich by skimming off a hefty portion of the money members paid for dues and robes. And he hid the grift behind a veneer of respectability.

Stephenson made common cause with the Anti-Saloon League and other Christian conservatives while being such a drunkard that he at one point required medical treatment. He was also a bigamist, rapist and murderer.

Stephenson was hardly alone in his rank hypocrisy. Egan described how time and again, Klansmen paid off Protestant clergy to get them to spread the Klan message of hate from the pulpit. They dressed it up as “100% Americanism,” but through a mix of fear and greed, those erstwhile messengers of Jesus espoused a creed antithetical to any actual Americanism or any true Christianity.

Fear in a changing nation

Never one for humility, Stephenson boasted that he was the world’s “foremost mass psychologist.” And he understood that he wasn’t selling people anything new so much as appealing to something very old: a fear of the “other” that was already present in so many.

Stephenson’s new Klan continued the relentless, violent persecution of Black people that its earlier, Southern forebear did, with many highly racialized lynchings taking place through the 1920s.

But Stephenson expanded the circle of hate to encompass those he said were responsible for the country’s “national decline.” They included beer-brewing, wine-drinking immigrants, independent young women known as flappers, Mexicans, Chinese, Catholics and of course Jews — who were supposedly masterminding the “national decline” because… something.

Of course, the claim of decline was laughable. The economic engine that was the United States had just brought an end to the Great War and it was by far the richest nation in the world — and strong immigration played a vital role fueling that growth.

But the country was changing. Women were voting and smoking, dark-complexioned people who spoke scary-sounding languages were crowding the cities, kids were running around in cars and they were wild about music created by Black people.

By the time he was ensconced in a Klan-owned mansion in the Irvington neighborhood of Indianapolis in 1923, Stephenson was manipulating those anxieties like the master he was. People joined out of a fear of change or a fear of the Klan — extortion, to put it bluntly. For example, some farmers were advised that joining was a way to protect their livestock from a malady known as “bullet in the brain.”

Stephenson, known to his henchmen as “Steve,” was just as effective using carrots and clubs to dominate politicians and businessmen — especially in Indiana. By 1925, a Klan slate promising to keep Black children out of most city schools and to officially segregate Indianapolis neighborhoods swept to victory, giving the benighted city the nickname “Klanopolis.”

Metastasis

The power of Stephenson and the Klan radiated far beyond the Hoosier State and especially into Ohio.

Old clippings from The Columbus Dispatch show that as the organization rose in the Buckeye State, the paper had a hard time deciding whether that was a good or bad thing.

A brief published on May 23, 2021 described a Klan raid on an Akron home in which members cut the beard off of a man who was likely Jewish or foreign-born — or both — “after an alleged assault on his aged and crippled wife.”

But less than three months later, on Aug. 5, 1921, the paper published a brief extolling the group as a positive good.

“The Ku Klux Klan is a patriotic order, which stands for law enforcement and true Americanism,” it said, credulously.

As Klan chapters formed across the state, there was pushback. Ohio had done as much as any state to win the Civil War, and some veterans’ organizations were adamantly opposed to an organization that sought to undo the second founding of the nation that had come at the cost of so much blood.

On Oct. 2, 2021, the Rev. G.W. Hopewell, a member of a “colored” Ohio post of the American Legion, made a powerful speech against the Klan at the state convention. It was so well received that he was elected to be a delegate to the national convention in Kansas City.

“The resolutions committee in a report condemned all societies discriminating against race, color or religion ‘under the guise of 100% Americanism,'” the Dispatch story said.

But the fire continued to rage.

Some may want to forget it now. But racism was then so sweeping and so ingrained that even the president of Harvard University, A. Lawrence Lowell, embraced the pseudoscience of eugenics and sought to limit the numbers of Jews admitted to his university. So it’s not surprising that humbler people who felt more buffeted and bewildered by change would turn to racist nonsense to explain a world that scared the crap out of them.

Impunity

In Ohio, the predatory Klan leader Stephenson received a disconcerting welcome.

“Ohio was a second home for Steve during the warm months,” Egan wrote. “He’d purchase a showcase at Buckeye Lake, where many of the wealthy and powerful of the state passed their summers. He could count on Ohio judges, prosecutors, politicians as friends of the order. Youngstown, 170 miles from the site of the police encounter, was about to elect a Klan mayor.”

Egan was referring to a June 1923 incident just outside Columbus that foreshadowed what would lead to Stephenson’s downfall a few years later.

Two motorcycle-mounted Franklin County sheriff’s deputies stopped by a car parked alongside a dark, lonely road. In the back seat, they found Stephenson with his pants down and a young woman with her dress up.

Stephenson, who maintained a public persona of Christian virtue, at first refused to identify himself. Deputies only let him go when he pulled out a badge showing he was a deputy with the Horse Thief Detective Association.

Horses were mostly gone from midwestern roads in 1923. But Stephenson had built the detective association into a paramilitary force in Indiana. He swelled its ranks to 14,000 and used his troops to entrench his power much as Benito Mussolini’s Black Shirts did in contemporary Italy.

Stephenson escaped accountability on the outskirts of Columbus only to sin again. On July 12, 1923, even he was surprised that 75,000 showed up for a Klan rally at Buckeye Lake that was ridiculously known as a Klonklave. It was the largest Klan gathering in Ohio history.

“Three days later, Stephenson stumbled down his Buckeye Lake compound to a cottage that housed some of the women who worked for him,” Egan writes. “It was 3:30 a.m. He was naked but for his underpants and so drunk he could hardly stand. He barged inside and went to the bedroom of his stenographer, a 19-year-old from Indianapolis who had been an employee since April. She jumped out of bed, terrified at the sight of the glassy-eyed Klansman stumbling toward her.

“He grabbed the girl and tried to kiss her. He was her boss; she was told when she was hired that she should never cross the Old Man. He threw her on the bed and lowered his underwear. As he tried to pin the woman, she squirmed out of his grasp.”

Stephenson desisted when she threatened to scream. But Egan noted that it was at least his second attempted rape in two weeks — and the second for which he’d suffered no consequences.

To the contrary, just a few weeks later, Stephenson was hosting Ohio Gov. A. Victor Donahey and other high officials on his 98-foot yacht, Reomar II, as it sailed out of its home port in Toledo.

Another attack

Stephenson continued to consolidate his wealth and power — including by extorting Black, Jewish and Catholic business owners to pay up or face Klan boycotts.

His control over Indiana state government was so complete that he was able to force through a bill ordering a health-education curriculum. It was so specific that only he could control the content and publication of the textbook from which it would be taught.

But the woman to whom he dangled authorship of that text proved to be Steve’s downfall.

Madge Oberholtzer was a 28-year-old who had formerly been a student at Butler College, which was then in the Indianapolis suburb of Irvington near Stephenson’s Klan compound. She was known as lively and independent. She’d made, for example, a cross-country driving trip with a female friend at a time when rural roads were nothing like they are now and attitudes about what women could properly do on their own were even more primitive.

Stephenson was the most important man in Indiana and when she came to his attention and he dangled the book project, Oberholtzer took a wary interest.

After the two had become more familiar, a Stephenson aide made a nighttime telephone call to Oberholtzer’s parents’ Irvington home on March 15, 1925. The aide demanded that Madge come to the Klan compound for some sort of emergency. After some resistance, Oberholtzer got into a car driven by a Klan flunky.

At the compound, an intoxicated Stephenson ordered his henchmen to force Oberholtzer to take several drinks that turned out to be drugged. They then drove to Indianapolis’s Union Station and boarded a train to Chicago.

In a berth once the train was underway, Stephenson forced himself on Madge.

“He bit her neck, her face, her breasts — a burst of savagery,” Egan wrote. “Blood flowed out. He chewed her tongue and spit out blood. He chewed her breasts again. He moved on to her legs, her ankles, mutilating her body. The pain was excruciating.”

Stephenson and his party disembarked in Hammond, short of the Illinois state line. He knew he could control Indiana state law enforcement. But if he carried Oberholzer into Illinois, he would be subject to federal jurisdiction and Steve didn’t know if he could control that.

Courage and comeuppance

As Stephenson ate and slept in a Hammond hotel, Oberholtzer demanded to be taken to a drug store so she could get medicine for her wounds. Unbeknownst to her Klan escort she also bought bichloride of mercury, a poison used in the well-publicized death of a silent film star in 1920. Madge took six of the pills.

When Stephenson learned what Oberholtzer had done, he was furious and ordered an aide to get a car. On the way back to Indianapolis, Madge changed her mind about suicide and begged to be taken to a hospital.

Stephenson refused unless Oberholtzer agreed to marry him, thus giving him a way around a rape charge. There was no such crime as marital rape in Indiana until the 1990s.

A disgusted, suffering Oberholtzer doggedly refused, so Stephenson drove her back to the Klan compound. He told her it would be futile to report what he’d done to her.

“What’s done is done,” Steve said. “I am the law and the power.”

Back at her parents’ home, Madge Oberholtzer clung to life for nearly a month. And as she did, she dictated a painstaking account of what she suffered at the hands of Grand Dragon Stephenson, the most powerful man in Indiana.

In a state where Stephenson controlled most public offices from the governor down to sheriffs and judges, lawyers and prosecutors were understandably reluctant to take up Oberholtzer’s cause. But several did, anyway.

In a trial held months later just to the North in Noblesville, prosecutors were able to use Oberholtzer’s dying declaration to damn Stephenson from beyond the grave. And doctors testified that her death wasn’t just a suicide from the poison she took — a severe infection from the bites Steve had inflicted played an important role in killing her.

In the end, an all-male jury of stolid farmers convicted Stephenson of second-degree murder on Nov. 14, 2025. He was sentenced to life in prison two days later.

Worry and hope

Surely reinforcing prosecutors and jurors against the phalanx of threats they faced was a large group of women who attended court day after day in support of Oberholtzer’s cause.

“Here was a crime that strikes at the very foundations of our life as Christian people,” reads a statement by the Irvington Women’s Club that Egan quotes in his book. “If we permit perpetrators of such acts to go unpunished it will show that our ideals have become obscured or that our sense of justice has been blunted.”

The women’s advocacy and their attendance at the trial were brave in their own right. But they surely also bespeak a long history of abuse that mostly went unreported and unpunished, as Stephenson’s many other depredations had.

In the end, the horror and thievery exposed at trial — and in the Klan more broadly — irreparably harmed a gang that tried to pretend that it was protecting Christianity and “Americanism.” And Stephenson himself brought down Indiana Gov. Ed Jackson when that official refused to pardon the Klansman.

But during the trial, as Stephenson’s monumental cruelty was being exposed to the world, many refused to believe what they read or heard. In jail, the grand dragon was flooded with letters of support and gifts of food. Those supporters included Stephenson’s jailer, Hamilton County Sheriff Charles Goodling, a “lawman” who continued his fealty in the face of Stephenson’s utter lawlessness.

It’s worrying to think that a monster such as Stephenson achieved unaccountable power in states like Indiana and Ohio, which sent thousands to die in a war against his kind. It’s even more disturbing that such a man had a plausible path to the American presidency.

But it’s inspiring to think that principled citizens — including humble farmers, downtrodden minorities, and a woman who was uncowed even when facing death — were able, even if just barely, to turn the tide against Stephenson and the fear and hatred he hid behind.

SUPPORT NEWS YOU TRUST.

DONATE

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX

SUBSCRIBE

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

Ohio indictments provide a better picture of squalid relationships that spurred massive scandal

An Ohio grand jury has handed up a 44-count indictment against three players in what is likely the biggest bribery scandal in state history. And when the 50-page indictment was unveiled Monday, it provided new details about a decade of payoffs and conflicts as one of them — who became the state’s top regulator — allegedly did a huge electric utility’s bidding.

The indictment concerns a $1.3 billion dollar bailout that Akron-based FirstEnergy has already admitted to the federal government that it paid more than $60 million in bribes to purchase.

Former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, and former state GOP Chairman Matt Borges are serving federal prison sentences for their roles in the 2019 passage of the bailout and the dirty-but-succesful fight to thwart a voter-led repeal.

When federal prosecutors in 2021 charged those two and three others, they said their investigation continued. But it wasn’t until December that they charged another in the case — Sam Randazzo, a lawyer and longtime energy consultant whom Gov. Mike DeWine nominated to chair the state’s top regulator, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

That left the people who paid the alleged bribes — FirstEnergy’s top executives — uncharged in a scheme that took place more than four years ago.

Double dealing

All that changed Monday when Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost announced state charges against Randazzo and former First Energy CEO Chuck Jones and former Vice President Michael Dowling for their alleged roles in the criminal conspiracy. The three were arraigned in Akron on Tuesday and each pleaded not guilty.

They were charged in an indictment that alleged shady dealings between the them stretching back 13 years.

“It all began with a well-lawyered theft in 2010,” the indictment said.

It went on to describe how Randazzo was general counsel for a group of large FirstEnergy customers — the Industrial Energy Users of Ohio — while also working as a FirstEnergy consultant. Only, the Industrial Energy Users didn’t know that Randazzo was also being paid by the company they were paying him to fight, the indictment said.

It accuses Randazzo of settling the industries’ claims against FirstEnergy on terms acceptable to FirstEnergy and running the settlements through Randazzo-controlled shell companies where he took a skim — again, unknown to the industrial energy users.

“His clients, the industrial members of IEU-Ohio, did not know he was a consultant for FirstEnergy,” the indictment said. “Randazzo did not tell them. Years later, some of the money would make its way to IEU-Ohio. Some of it would end up in Randazzo’s pocket.”

The Industrial Energy Users appear to have engaged in some cynical conduct of their own, however. The indictment describes a 2015 agreement in which FirstEnergy was to pay Randazzo’s company $8.5 million for “consulting services.”

It was really a cash “side deal” in which FirstEnergy paid the industrial users to drop their objections to a rate hike FirstEnergy wanted, supposedly in the name of “energy security,” the indictment said. In other words, prosecutors said that with Randazzo’s facilitation, FirstEnergy paid off a wealthy, powerful group of electricity users in order to raise rates on everybody else.

Such arrangements proved quite profitable for Randazzo.

“Between 2016 and 2019, FirstEnergy paid… $13,152,639.94 to Randazzo’s two shell companies,” the indictment said. “Of that total, Randazzo gave $7,756.903.84 to his IEU-Ohio Client and kept $5,395,736.10 for himself.”

Cozy relationships

This is the guy the incoming DeWine-Husted administration thought would be a good candidate to regulate utilities — companies to which Ohioans have little choice in paying their billions.

The state indictment describes how, on Dec. 18, 2018, FirstEnergy execs Jones and Dowling met with Gov.-elect DeWine and Lt. Gov.-elect Jon Husted at the Columbus Athletic Club and discussed whether the executives wanted Randazzo to regulate their massive electric utility.

The notion that a governor would ask a huge utility who might be acceptable as a regulator might itself seem startling. But after the dinner, according to the indictment, Jones and Dowling did something even more brazen.

They went to Randazzo’s German Village condo and pursuant to that, Randazzo solicited a $4.3 million payment from Jones and Dowling, the indictment said. FirstEnergy paid the money “without ever having received an invoice for the payment and without any work or consulting services being performed,” the indictment said. It added that the executives made the payment over the objections of a company lawyer.

Randazzo told Laurel Dawson, DeWine’s chief of staff, about the payment, calling it a “consulting agreement.” But he didn’t tell her of the other millions he’d gotten from the utility he was seeking to regulate, the indictment said. Randazzo also never told the Ohio Ethics Commission about any of the money he’d gotten from FirstEnergy, the indictment said.

In Dawson, Randazzo might have had a sympathetic audience. Her husband, Michael Dawson, was a “paid FirstEnergy lobbyist” in 2016, when he’d gotten a $10,000 loan from Randazzo, the indictment said.

But if his chief of staff told DeWine about the huge payoff Randazzo got from FirstEnergy, it must not have fazed the new governor. DeWine nominated Randazzo to be chairman of the Public Utilities Commission — the ratepayers’ supposed protector — on Feb. 4, 2019.

Versatile player

During Householder’s six-week trial in Cincinnati last year, federal prosecutors put on exhaustive evidence of how the FirstEnergy executives financed Householder’s bid to become speaker and to pass the notorious bailout known as House Bill 6.

“Together, Jones, Dowling, Randazzo and his shell companies worked in concert to steal the power of government and bend it to the will of FirstEnergy,” was the way the state indictment unveiled on Monday put it.

Most of the details of Randazzo’s involvement in the creation and passage of HB 6 are already known from the federal trial. They show him acting in multiple, conflicting, often-undisclosed capacities — similar to those the state indictment alleges he had already played with FirstEnergy and the industrial energy users.

Even though he was supposed to be a regulator, Randazzo drafted portions of the bailout legislation and passed them between FirstEnergy officials and a Householder employee who had recently worked for the PUCO. They sometimes only shared printed copies of the huge bill, out of an apparent apprehension about leaving electronic fingerprints.

According to text messages between Jones and Dowling, Randazzo went so far as to actively lobby for passage of the bailout — which would seem a big departure from the traditional duties of a disinterested regulator.

Jones and Dowling discussed a meeting about HB 6 that Randazzo had with Sen. Steve Wilson, R-Maineville, and the Senate’s counsel. “We have a good plan to help,” Dowling told his boss.

Other officials

Despite the fact that DeWine had reason to know Randazzo was connected to FirstEnergy, the governor made him the state’s top utility regulator and he signed the billion-dollar bailout that benefitted the company the day it passed. And on July 21, 2021 — the day Householder was arrested — DeWine said he wasn’t in favor of repealing the measure.

The governor subsequently walked that back, but HB 6 is still on the books and Ohio utilities are still getting hundreds of millions in ratepayer subsidies as a result.

DeWine wasn’t the only state official to act at least peripherally in the scandal.

Secretary of State Frank LaRose has refused to explain the “private” updates that FirstEnergy CEO Jones said the state’s chief elections official was providing during an attempt to gather signatures to put an HB 6 repeal on the ballot.

And Yost himself dealt a mortal blow to the signature gathering when he initially rejected the ballot language — cutting nearly in half the time HB 6 opponents had to gather a quarter-million valid signatures. And in text messages presented in the federal trial, Borges told a co-conspirator that Yost thought HB 6 was a bad law, but wouldn’t speak up because of help he’d gotten from FirstEnergy in the past.

Beyond the bailout

Randazzo’s alleged help to FirstEnergy wasn’t limited to HB 6. He also thwarted a PUCO look into the company’s books that was likely to force a cut in electricity bills. That would have caused falling stock prices and a hit to Jones’ and Dowling’s portfolios, the indictment said.

The erstwhile regulator was apparently so helpful that Jones at one point told a FirstEnergy subordinate to back off for fear of being too obvious. In a text message included in the indictment, Jones told Dennis Chack that Randazzo’s pro-FirstEnergy conduct “has a lot of talk going on in the halls of PUCO about does he work there or for us?”

Even so, Randazzo’s behavior at the PUCO continued to be shameless, urging fellow regulators to join him in lobbying for the corrupt bailout, the indictment said.

Randazzo “began internally lobbying PUCO staff members between July 2020 and September 2020 to generate strategies to save HB 6, despite facing internal objections about the inappropriateness of the effort to save HB 6,” it said.

The indictment included a Sept. 15, 2020 email in which Randazzo told subordinates, “One option (and I really think we need to get other commissioners and staff into a proactive mode): We could, on our own initiative, issue a show-cause order to (FirstEnergy) directing (FirstEnergy) to show that no costs associated with HB 6 have been included in any riders or base rates.”

Had such an order been issued, the result would have been misleading. While the bill didn’t raise consumer costs through riders or base rates, it included a provision that ensured FirstEnergy would collect at least as much as it did in one of its best years and it created a massive subsidy for money-losing coal plants.

Randazzo’s efforts seemed finally to end two months later, when the FBI searched his condo.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

Ex-First Energy executives, Ohio utility regulator charged in bailout and bribery scandal

Ohio law enforcement authorities on Monday filed numerous felony charges against two former First Energy executives and a former top utility regulator in what has been called the biggest bribery and money-laundering scandal in Ohio history.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost announced scores of felony charges against a former regulator who also has been charged federally, and against two people who haven’t — former top executives for Akron-based FirstEnergy whom the company admitted paid more than $60 million in bribes between 2016 and 2020 in exchange for a $1.3 billion ratepayer bailout.

Charged were Sam Randazzo, former chairman of the Public Utilities Commission. Already facing felony charges in federal court, the state indictment charges him with 22 more, including grand theft, bribery, and money laundering. The indictment accuses him of taking bribes from FirstEnergy from 2010 until just before he became chairman of the commission in 2019.

Also charged were former FirstEnergy CEO Chuck Jones and Vice President Michael Dowling. Between them, they face 22 felony charges similar to those faced by Randazzo.

“This indictment is about more than one piece of legislation,” Yost said Monday. “It is about the hostile capture of a significant portion of Ohio’s state government by deception, betrayal, and dishonesty.”

The state charges that were announced Monday didn’t deal with much of the activity addressed in the federal case. They instead focused on the relationship between Jones, Dowling, and Randazzo between 2010 and early 2019, when they paid him $4.33 million just as he was becoming the state’s top utility regulator.

The House Bill 6 scandal

Back in 2019, former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder took $61 million in bribes in exchange for legislation to give FirstEnergy a $1 billion bailout, named House Bill 6, all at the expense of the ratepayers.

The scheme was revealed in three main ways — two separate whistleblowers and a phone wiretap.

In March 2023, a jury found Householder and former Ohio Republican Party leader Matt Borges guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for their involvement in the racketeering scheme that left four men guilty and another dead by suicide.

In late June that year, federal judge Timothy Black sentenced Householder to 20 years in prison. Borges got 5 years. The two surviving defendants took plea agreements early on, helping the FBI, and are still awaiting their sentencing. The feds are asking for 0-6 months for them.

Until Monday, only federal indictments had been handed out.

HB 6 mainly benefited FirstEnergy’s struggling nuclear power plants, but those provisions were later repealed. There are aspects of the bill still in place, though.

The Ohio Valley Electric Corporation (OVEC) got a handout from the scheme. It expanded a bailout of the OVEC plants and required Ohioans to pay for two 1950s-era coal plants— one in the Southern area of the state and the other in Indiana. The main beneficiaries of this are American Electric Power Company (AEP), Duke Energy and AES Ohio.

Despite this scandal becoming public years ago, ethics laws in the state have not changed to prevent schemes like this from happening.

There are numerous bipartisan efforts to repeal HB 6 totally and to put forward ethics laws. None are going anywhere, it seems.

Monday’s indictments

AG Yost was joined by Summit County Prosecutor Sherri Bevan Walsh and Sheriff Kandy Fatheree for the announcement Monday.

“The crimes committed by these individuals impacted the pocketbooks of every hard working Ohioan and further shook our faith in the institutions and organizations that we count on to represent us and to provide us with essential services,” Fatheree said. “Today, we take another important step in ensuring that justice is served for these crimes and that those who took advantage of the public’s trust are held accountable.”

FirstEnergy as a company has already admitted in a deferred prosecution agreement to bribing public officials in Ohio, including a $4.3 million bribe to Randazzo. Jones and Dowling allegedly paid this to him.

Randazzo pleaded not guilty to the federal charges against him in December.

The Sustainability Funding Alliance of Ohio and IEU-Ohio Administration Company are also named in the filing. Randazzo controlled each of them, and they were allegedly shell companies created to further his criminal activity.

Reactions

While Monday was probably not the best day for Randazzo, Jones and Dowling, it was a great day for whistleblower Tyler Fehrman.

Fehrman is the Republican operative-turned-FBI informant who is credited with exposing this mass public corruption at the Statehouse — and he is cheering the AG and Summit County for these arrests.

“These guys deserve to have everything taken away from them,” Fehrman said. “They deserve it.”

Borges attempted to bribe Fehrman, and threatened him, to be a part of the scandal — even at one point telling him that if he snitches, Borges would “blow up his house.”

That conversation was actually set up and recorded by the feds. Instead of staying quiet, Fehrman testified, helping the jury to return guilty verdicts in the federal trial.

Fehrman ended up having to change careers and flee the state due to fears of retaliation — and because he was ostracized — but now he gets to watch as the scheme continues to unravel.

“You can hide your actions in the dark for a little bit,” Fehrman said Monday. “But the sun always rises and the truth always comes out. Every time one of these guys gets indicted, especially the people that made it possible for Matt and Larry to have the opportunity to do what they did to me — to see them get in trouble, it’s extremely vindicating.”

He agreed with Yost’s statement that there can be no justice without holding the check-writers and the masterminds accountable.

Case Western Reserve University law professor Mike Benza believes these charges are going to be hard to fight. When asked the best possible scenario for them, other than pleading guilty, he said their best bet could be to argue this is politics as usual.

“It seems that the focus from the defense side is going to be much like the focus from Householder and Borges — this is just how things get done in Columbus,” Benza said. “This is just the normal sausage-making of public policy and it may not be pretty and you may not like it, but this is the reality and it doesn’t equal corruption.”

Clearly, that wasn’t a winning argument in federal court.

Part of the reason why it may have worked so poorly in Black’s federal courtroom is because Householder went against the advice of the vast majority of criminal defense attorneys and decided to testify in his defense.

The now-convicted felon used the bribe money to put himself and his allies into power, demolishing and threatening anyone in his path, as well as paying off credit card debt and renovations to his home in Florida.

Benza believes Randazzo, Jones, and Dowling are facing difficult days ahead.

“Randazzo is probably going to be looking at dying in prison,” Benza responded. “Jones and Dowling are probably in that same boat.”

Ferhman is hoping for more indictments, including high-profile names.

“The clock is ticking for the other people that were involved,” Fehrman said.

He named Gov. Mike DeWine Lt. Gov. Jon Husted as people of interest for him.

DeWine has been complying with a subpoena he received in a civil case connected to the scandal, he said.

FirstEnergy investors are suing for being negatively impacted financially by the scandal. They have subpoenaed documents from DeWine, and they’re scheduling a sworn deposition with Husted.

In a one-on-one interview with the governor, DeWine was asked if he was nervous about the scandal, or, more importantly — if was he worried for Husted. DeWine said no to both.

Randazzo has been named as the mastermind behind HB 6, due to him being one of the creators of it — according to the feds. But DeWine was how he came into power.

DeWine was asked in the same interview if he regretted naming Randazzo the state’s top utility regulator.

“Oh, look, if I knew what I know now, if I knew that — I certainly would not have appointed Sam Randazzo to that position,” DeWine responded.

DeWine said he was the best person for the job, claiming that he wasn’t aware that Randazzo was FirstEnergy’s handpicked man.

“While our office was not privy to the indictment and have not yet reviewed it, the indictment alleges very serious acts,” DeWine’s spokesperson Dan Tierney said Monday afternoon. “Our office has full faith in the criminal justice system to adjudicate these serious allegations in an appropriate manner.”

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

J.D. Vance slams 'elites' despite shared backgrounds: analysis

While it’s impossible to know what’s in his heart, Ohio Republican J.D. Vance has been taking some positions against so-called elites that would seem to be squarely opposed to… guys like him.

They include statements he’s made about people trying to disqualify former President Donald Trump from running again.

It’s widely thought that Vance is lobbying to be Trump’s running mate. And last week he received a lot of attention by telling ABC host George Stephanopoulos that in 2020 he would have given Trump’s phony slates of electors a chance to contest the election in Congress.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, of course, refused to do such a thing. So Trump attacked him via Twitter during a violent insurrection at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. That prompted some of the marauders to chant “Hang Mike Pence!” while Pence was still in the building.

Vance’s current statements contrast with the time before Trump took power. “My god what an idiot,” Vance tweeted of soon-to-be President Trump in 2016.

And his statements to Stephanopoulos last week were part of a series of head-scratchers Vance has made in recent months. On Jan. 4, for example, he published a 494-word post on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter.

In it, Vance bitterly criticizes “elites,” who he says got their positions not through working hard and being smart, but because they “checked a box.”

Vance starts with Claudine Gay, the Harvard University president who was forced out amid multiple allegations of plagiarism.

“The most important point about Claudine Gay’s plagiarism isn’t that she was fired, but that she had the job — the most prestigious job in higher education — after an extremely thin record of accomplishment,” Vance wrote of Gay, who is Black. “Claudine Gay has never published an article — even a plagiarized one — that really mattered, or significantly advanced scholarship. She got her job not through merit, but because she checked a box.”

Vance then cast a wider net, writing, “Our entire elite is like this. People who got their jobs because they checked boxes, not because they achieved something amazing or accomplished something meaningful.”

Vance’s despised “elites” apparently don’t include Trump, who inherited at least $413 million, only to declare six bankruptcies, be indicted on 91 felony counts, lead the Trump Organization to a criminal tax fraud conviction, and to be found to have committed sexual abuse in a civil proceeding.

Ohio’s junior senator also wouldn’t talk about where he falls in the privilege scale.

His office didn’t respond on the record when asked how, as a sitting U.S. senator and a graduate of Yale Law School, Vance himself is not an “elite.” And in terms of “box-checking,” his office didn’t respond to a question asking whether he played up his Appalachian ancestry on his Yale admission essay — thereby checking a “box” of his own.

But where his argument perhaps is most confusing is when Vance turns his attention to lawyers trying to keep Trump off the ballot on the rationale that the former president violated 14th Amendment by engaging in insurrection. It seems to be a reasonable question, given Trump’s lies about his loss, his elaborate attempts to overturn it, and the violent attack he stoked as Congress met to certify Joe Biden’s victory.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday heard arguments on the issue. During them, the justices seemed poised to reject Colorado’s attempt to disqualify Trump for fear of sowing chaos by allowing individual states to decide presidential elections.

But the debate didn’t delve very deeply into a pretty important issue: whether Trump had engaged in insurrection and what looms for the country if he’s allowed to run again, win or lose.

In his post last month, Vance himself tried to disqualify lawyers for even making the argument that Trump had disqualified himself by attempting to overturn the election results and the will of 80 million American voters.

“This is why you should scorn the attorneys who tell you that Donald Trump committed ‘insurrection’ and should be thrown off the ballot,” Vance wrote. “They have no special legal knowledge. They are political hacks pretending to be lawyers, and they are not smart or accomplished, they have a credential from an institution that cares more about box checking than merit.”

That’s an interesting claim when you look at the credentials of three attorneys who have played major roles in the effort to disqualify Trump.

Two are Michael Stokes Paulsen and William Baude.

In August, the conservative law professors wrote an article. It said that Section 3 of the post-Civil War 14th Amendment was written for just such an eventuality as Trump seeking reelection after doing so much to overturn the result of one he’d already lost.

The Colorado Supreme Court cited the pair’s argument when it ruled that Trump couldn’t be on the ballot in that state and their article came up again in Thursday’s oral argument.

As for the professors having “a credential from an institution that cares more about box checking than merit,” that’s a surprising statement for Vance to make.

Both hold law degrees from Yale University, the same school that awarded one to Vance. His office didn’t respond when asked in a follow-up question if Vance believed his degree came from an institution that is more concerned with “box checking” than merit.

Then there’s the senator’s claim that proponents of the 14th Amendment argument “have no special legal knowledge” and “are not smart or accomplished.”

Before he was elected to the Senate in 2022, Vance worked in corporate law, then in venture capital, and wrote a memoir about his Ohio roots. Baude is a law professor at the University of Chicago and Paulsen at the University of St. Thomas.

Whatever their relative merits, all three resumes seem to pale next to that of another prominent believer that Trump should be disqualified from the 2024 election.

That would be J. Micheal Luttig. In 1991, George H.W. Bush appointed him to the 4th U.S. Court of Appeals — a bench on which he sat for 15 years. Before that, Luttig served as assistant attorney general, assistant counsel to then-President Ronald Reagan and clerk and special assistant to then-Chief Justice to Warren E. Burger.

Instead of ad-hominem attacks against people who disagree with him, Luttig made an argument on historical and constitutional grounds.

“The January 6, 2021 insurrection sought to prevent the vesting of the authority and functions of the Presidency in the newly-elected President,” said a brief Luttig co-authored urging the Supreme Court to disqualify Trump. “The Civil War generation certainly understood that the threat and use of force to prevent a newly-elected President from exercising executive power is an insurrection. Indeed, the activities of federal officials to prevent Lincoln’s inauguration were one basis for Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

That’s an argument with which Vance doesn’t seem to have engaged.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

White House takes a stab at lowering drug prices, but ignores a big piece of the puzzle

The Biden White House continues to promote its effort to lower prescription drug prices by going after “Big Pharma.” But while that industry is guilty of well-documented abuses, the effort so far mostly ignores another important part of the supply chain.

That would be drug middlemen known as pharmacy benefit managers. Each is part of a corporation that also owns a top-10 health insurer, and each corporation is one of the 15 largest in the United States.

The effort the White House is talking up is part of President Joe Biden’s landmark legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. Amid sweeping policies aimed at incenting clean energy and going after wealthy tax cheats is a long-talked about attempt to slow the rising cost of prescription drugs: by using the huge purchasing power of Medicare to negotiate directly with drug manufacturers.

The administration started by capping the cost of insulin for Medicare recipients at $35, and by selecting 10 other drugs for which to negotiate prices. That list is expected to expand, and meanwhile, the White House last week kicked off negotiations by making initial offers for the original list of drugs.

“A new era in Medicare has begun with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launching negotiations for better, fairer prescription drug prices,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said in a conference call with reporters. “… This effort is a direct result of President Biden’s commitment to lower drug costs for the American people.”

Superficially, it makes sense. If the cost of prescription drugs is high, the obvious culprits would seem to be the companies that make them.

The statements issued by the White House reinforce that notion.

“After decades of opposition, President Biden enacted a law that finally takes on Big Pharma and gives Medicare the power to negotiate drug prices,” a White House memo dated Feb. 1 says.

A Dec. 7 fact sheet goes even further, seeming to imply that drugmakers are solely responsible for inflating prescription costs.

“President Biden believes that health care should be a right, not a privilege,” it says. “For too long, corporate special interests and trickle-down economics have allowed Big Pharma to make record profits, while millions of Americans struggle to afford health care and prescription drugs to treat common and chronic conditions.“

However, that ignores another huge player in the drug supply chain.

The fact sheet noted that the 25 top drugmakers control about 70% of revenue in that sector. But it didn’t even mention pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. In that sector, just three companies — CVS Caremark, OptumRx and Express Scripts — control an estimated 80% of that marketplace, and they play at least as large a role in setting drug prices as the drugmakers themselves.

That’s because they represent insurance companies in drug transactions. Each is also part of a corporation that owns top-ten insurer: CVS/Aetna, Cigna/Express Scripts, UnitedHealth/OptumRx.

When the PBMs represent those and other insurers, they have great leverage negotiating with drugmakers.

Pharma companies abuse the system through stratagems such as “product hopping.” As the patent on one drug winds down companies sometimes make meaningless changes, extend the patent, and quash competition from generics.

But in their negotiations with drugmakers, the big PBMs wield an even bigger weapon — access to tens of millions of patients.

As insurers’ representatives, the PBMs control drug “formularies” — the lists of drugs that are covered by insurance and which get the most favorable treatment. In exchange for such treatment, drugmakers pay them huge rebates and give other discounts in a system that is far from transparent, so it’s hard to know how much PBMs are pocketing and how much they’re passing along to payors such as Medicare, Medicaid or private insurers.

It’s long been suspected that to pay for those discounts, manufacturers increase the “list price” of their products. That’s what you pay if you don’t have insurance. In addition, copayments and coinsurance are often based on list prices.

Research has shown a correlation between increasing rebates and list prices. In 2020, researchers at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center found that a $1 increase in rebates on a drug was associated with a $1.17 increase in its list price. In other words, however quickly the rebates drugmakers give manufacturers grow, list prices grow even more quickly.

However, the Biden administration has said next to nothing about PBMs as it touts its efforts to lower drug costs. During last week’s conference call, a senior administration official didn’t seem to want to even talk about the industry.

“We are talking today about the implementation of a statute that gives (the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) the power for the first time ever to negotiate prescription drug prices, and that is what CMS is focused on and those are the announcements we are focused on today,” she said. “Those announcements don’t stand in isolation. The president has been focused on stimulating competition throughout the health care sector and we look forward to continued conversation about how to lower health care costs.”

The White House didn’t respond to a follow-up question asking whether it would require PBMs to give equitable formulary treatment to the drugs for which the government is negotiating with manufacturers.

However, pharmacy benefit managers are being scrutinized by another arm of the government. In 2022, Biden appointees to the Federal Trade Commission led the way in opening a major investigation into possible anticompetitive practices by the industry.

But the administration might have a financial incentive not to get too tough on PBMs. That’s because Medicare gets a portion of the rebates PBMs extract from drugmakers. In 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal government would net about $180 billion in such rebates over the course of a decade.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

Ohio Supreme Court dismisses congressional redistricting cases

The Ohio Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed two cases over congressional districts in Ohio.

The decision isn’t a complete surprise because the groups filing the complaints asked for the dismissals earlier this week. But struggles over partisan gerrymandering in Ohio and elsewhere are far from over.

The complainants continue to maintain that Ohio’s congressional districts — as well as its legislative districts — are unfairly gerrymandered. They simply calculate that it’s better to dismiss the cases in light of other developments and because the state Constitution already requires that districts be redrawn after next year’s General Election.

In claiming that Ohio is extremely gerrymandered, the plaintiffs appear to have a point. Former president Donald Trump won the state with less than 54% of the vote in 2020, yet Republicans control 66% of the state’s congressional seats — a 12-point differential.

Many political scientists and other experts say extreme gerrymandering is a problem because by making general elections uncompetitive, it incentivizes candidates to pander to the most extreme elements of their primary electorate. Also, by imposing one-party rule, it creates unaccountable, corrupt majorities, they say.

In May 2018, an amendment to the state Constitution that banned extreme partisan gerrymandering and gave the Ohio Supreme Court the power to throw out maps on that basis passed with an overwhelming 75% of the vote.

Yet the Republican-dominated Redistricting Commission created by the amendment twice ignored rulings by a bipartisan majority on the Ohio Supreme Court rejecting maps it drew in the wake of the 2020 Census. With the clock effectively run out, a panel of three federal judges kept the unconstitutional congressional maps in place for the 2022 election.

Ohio Republicans argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that the state judiciary has almost no power to regulate how legislatures draw congressional districts — no matter what state law says or how gerrymandered those legislatures might already be. That’s known as the “independent legislature doctrine” — which Carolyn Shapiro blasted as “an unprecedented, unconstitutional, and potentially chaos-inducing intrusion into state election law,” in an article this year in the University of Chicago Law Review.

On June 27, six members of U.S. Supreme Court agreed in Moore v Harper. The ruling said the North Carolina Supreme Court had the power to enforce a state law banning excessively partisan congressional maps.

However, gerrymandering foes in Ohio might not find much solace in the decision.

Former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, a Republican, repeatedly joined the court’s three Democrats in ruling that Republican-drawn congressional and legislative maps were excessively partisan. But then she was forced to retire last year because of her age and the new court has a more partisan makeup.

Other recent developments might not hold much hope for Ohio’s anti–gerrymandering groups, either.

The U.S. Supreme Court last October struck down Alabama’s congressional maps in Allen v Milligan. The surprise ruling said that the state’s congressional districts violate the Voting Rights Act by being unduly gerrymandered against Blacks.

It ordered that the state legislature redraw maps so that Alabama Blacks will have a chance at a second seat in the state’s six-seat delegation in which they can select a representative of their choice.

That doesn’t necessarily mean picking a Black representative — or that by merely being Black, a representative meets the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. The law requires that minority communities have a legitimate shot at picking representatives in numbers proportional to their own.

Blacks make up about 27% of Alabama’s population and the ruling in Milligan would give them a chance at power over 33% of its congressional seats, as compared to the current 17% they have power over now.

However, the state’s Republican-dominated legislature twice defied orders to comply with the ruling. On Tuesday, a panel of federal judges rebuked the body and ordered that the new map be independently drawn.

The ruling in Milligan has implications for several other states, such as Louisiana, which have large, underrepresented minority populations.

But Ohio might not be one of them because it doesn’t have the diversity those states do. Whites make up 80% of the state’s population, while Blacks make up just over 13%. The next closest group, Latinos, make up 4.5%.

Louisiana, by contrast, is 63% White, but that group controls 80% of the state’s five congressional districts.

In her role as now-retired chief justice, O’Connor is helping to lead an effort to build even more stringent anti-gerrymandering amendments into the Ohio Constitution. The amendment she’s working to put on the November 2024 ballot would do what the federal panel did to the Alabama legislature on Tuesday — take district drawing out of the hands of partisans and give it to an independent commission.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

CEOs who pay poorly do fabulously: report

Ticketmaster isn’t just crappy to its customers and to the musicians whose shows it manages ticket sales for.

As a dominant event middleman, it tacks on hefty fees and has the effrontery to call them “convenience charges.” And bands complain that by the time parent company Live Nation Entertainment deducts its many cuts for their shows, they’re left struggling to survive while others profit from their work.

Turns out, Live Nation also pays its employees poorly while paying its CEO, Michael Rapino, like a pharaoh. In 2022, the median Live Nation employee earned just $25,673, while Rapino hauled in a tidy $139 million, or more than 5,400 times as much as the employee who fell in the middle of his company’s income distribution, according to a report that was released today.

The findings were part of the 29th annual “Executive Excess” report by the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive Washington, D.C. think tank. While companies complained about the lack of available workers during the pandemic, this year’s report says that for at least 100 corporations, executives managed to keep worker pay down while giving themselves huge raises.

“In response to strikes and union organizing drives, corporate leaders routinely insist that they simply lack the wherewithal to raise employee pay,” the report said. “And yet top executives seem to have little trouble finding resources for enriching themselves and wealthy shareholders.”

The report said that in the case of Live Nation, the company wants investors to know that the situation isn’t as unfair as all that. If you take into account the fact that most of the company’s employees are part-time and and set them aside — and if you set aside a mammoth payment Rapino received in 2022 — the CEO only made 350 times as much as his median-paid, full-time worker did.

“In its (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) proxy statement, the company takes great pains to point out that if you nix the CEO’s $109 million stock grant and all of the company’s primarily part-time employees from the calculation, the Live Nation pay ratio would be merely 353 to 1,” the report said.

The mechanism CEOs have often used to boost their pay over the past few years has been the stock buyback. Instead of reinvesting profits in research, equipment or in rank-and-file employees, companies often use a hefty chunk of that money to repurchase shares of company stock — which increases the value of those shares and those that remain outstanding.

Companies say they do stock buybacks to consolidate ownership, stabilize stock prices or return value to shareholders. But by happy coincidence, the executives deciding to do the buybacks are often huge shareholders in their companies because much of their compensation is in the form of company stock.

In other words, when company leaders undertake stock buybacks, they’re usually giving themselves big raises.

The huge, plutocrat-friendly Trump tax cuts in 2017 sparked a wave of stock buybacks that seems to have continued through 2022. But while they boosted executive pay, at least in the early going, the average worker saw little benefit.

In fact, workers’ share of corporate income continued its decades-long slide — while executives were lavishly rewarded for enacting mass layoffs and keeping down workers’ pay.

The Institute for Policy Research report compiled a list of the “Low Wage 100” — the 100 firms listed on the S&P 500 who paid the worker that fell in the middle of their pay range the least. When the researchers looked at this group, they found that it bought back $340 billion worth of stock in 2022 and their CEOs’ stock holdings increased at three times the rate of their median workers’ pay.

At the top of the buyback list was home-improvement mega-store owner Lowes, which bought back $35 billion in stock. While its median employee made just less than $30,000 in 2022, CEO Marvin Ellison made $17.5 million, the report said.

While many workers for Low Wage 100 companies effectively subsidized their CEOs’ gargantuan salaries with under-compensated work, employees with half those companies were also subsidizing them with their federal tax dollars.

Fifty one of the companies received a combined $24 billion in federal contracts between fiscal years 2020 and 2023. During the same period, those companies engaged in $160 billion worth of stock buybacks, the report said.

Amazon was the biggest in the group, getting more than $10 billion in federal business, much of it for classified work for the National Security Agency and the Department of Defense. As it did, Amazon’s top corporate leadership has done quite well.

“Under CEO Andy Jassy’s two years at the helm, Amazon has spent $5.9 billion on stock buybacks, an outlay that has helped inflate Jassy’s personal stock holdings to $265 million,” the report said. “These millions do not include the bulk of his 2021 mega-grant, a reward that will vest over 10 years.”

There have been steps taken to address the interconnected problems of stock buybacks, skyrocketing executive pay and depressed wages.

As part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, Congress passed and President Biden signed a 1% excise tax on buybacks and Biden proposed raising it to 4% in this year’s State of the Union address.

The Department of Commerce also plans to give preference for subsidies under the CHIPS Act to semiconductor makers who don’t engage in buybacks, the Institute for Policy Studies report said.

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David DeWitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com. Follow Ohio Capital Journal on Facebook and Twitter.

BRAND NEW STORIES
@2025 - AlterNet Media Inc. All Rights Reserved. - "Poynter" fonts provided by fontsempire.com.