COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — In one day, Ohioans will vote in an unprecedented Republican Statehouse primary election.
“It is at a level of intensity that I don’t believe we’ve seen before,” Republican strategist Matt Dole said.
‘Reprehensible’ ads and a Republican ‘civil war:’ How did we get here?
The “intensity” of the primary can be traced to the Ohio House speakership battle between Speaker of the Ohio House Jason Stephens (R-Kitts Hill) and Rep. Derek Merrin (R-Monclova Township).
“I hear from folks who are as red hot angry about it today as the day it happened,” Dole said. “Which is a strange thing, because usually time heals wounds.”
More than a year ago, 22 Republicans teamed up with Democrats to elect Stephens as speaker, an act that came as a surprise to Merrin and his supporters. The fallout has led to stalled legislation, delayed committees and even a lawsuit. The 22 Republicans who voted for Stephens have since been censured by the Ohio Republican Party.
Now, the infighting has carried into the primary election. There are 30 competitive Republican primary statehouse races. Of those, 19 incumbents are being challenged; 15 of those 19 primaries are against incumbent Republicans who voted for Stephens to take the speakership.
“This is a very strange circumstance,” Dole said.
The outcome of this primary election holds high stakes, as it could determine who the next Speaker of the Ohio House is.
“This is clearly part of this civil war between Republicans in Columbus trying to help one side versus the other,” Democratic strategist David Pepper said. “These candidates are essentially pawns to the bigger players who want to be the speaker.”
Primary opponents are typical in elections. But historically, incumbent Republicans support each other in primaries. Multiple sources confirmed that this year, House Republicans had no conversations about unification.
Though that is how things have typically operated, Rep. Ron Ferguson (R-Wintersville), who backed Merrin, said circumstances were different this year.
“Those of us who are not censured don’t want to be associated with those who are,” Ferguson said. “Period.”
But longtime lawmaker and House Majority Floor Leader Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) called the tension an “unprecedented” change. Seitz, who voted for Stephens, is not running for re-election. But he said in his 24 years of experience as a state lawmaker, he has never seen such a messy primary where incumbents are contributing money to challengers of other incumbents.
A lot of the fire is coming from Merrin supporters, he said.
“The fliers really are reprehensible,” Seitz said. “And it’s not a matter of promoting a challenger based on that challenger’s record or achievements or qualifications. They are 100% venomous ads designed to destroy somebody’s reputation based on false information.”
Seitz pointed to “false fliers” like one that was sent out about Rep. D.J. Swearingen (R-Huron), who is facing a primary opponent. The mailer Seitz referenced said Swearingen does not support House Bill 51, known as the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” despite his vote for a favorable report of the legislation from committee.
Some sources said other Stephens-supporting Republicans have had upward of 20 negative mailers about them sent to voters.
But Ferguson said it goes both ways. He said the Ohio House Republican Alliance has offered no support to Merrin-supporting Republican incumbents who are facing primary challengers.
“Beth Lear (R-Galena) and Brian Stewart (R-Ashville), who are on the other side of the faction, have not received one dollar, not one, from OHRA,” he said. “They’re not supporting anybody and we certainly, on the other side, are opposing people.”
Ferguson pointed to an ad posted to the Ohio House Republican Alliance’s X page in which he and Merrin — who is running for Congress — are pictured alongside President Joe Biden, a Democrat.
Ferguson is not facing a primary opponent, though he is vocal about the races on X. His campaign finance reports show that he does contribute to some of the primary challengers of Stephens-supporting Republicans.
Is the Statehouse ‘for sale’?
State legislative campaigns take hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund. Pepper said that in some cases, that can lead to vulnerabilities for new candidates.
“Basically, statehouses are for sale,” Pepper said. “So little happens in Congress, it’s such a mess, that a lot of interests, private interests and, frankly, extreme interests have figured out they can get a lot more of their agenda done in states and statehouses.”
Dole agreed that interest groups are “playing campaigns,” primarily through political action committees, or PACs. “But I don’t necessarily know that means the Ohio Statehouse is for sale,” he said.
Pepper said while he thinks it is a pattern in Ohio, it happens all over the country. He said specifically in Ohio, primaries lend themselves massive monies spent since, in many cases, the primary decides the outcome of the general election.
“People can win because some group came in and pretty much won the campaign for them,” Pepper said.
PACs are especially helpful to first-time statehouse candidates, he said.
“These PACs are very savvy,” Pepper said. “And they know how to target voters, they know how to message.”
It is illegal for candidates to coordinate specifically with PACs and offer legislative promises in exchange for their support. But Pepper said, in some cases, it might be unspoken.
“Even if they didn’t coordinate, the candidate sees all this happening and sees that this special interest has the power to determine who, in the end, wins the primary. You bet when they show up in six months and ask for whatever they ask for, that that now-state representative is going to listen,” he said.
Dole disagrees.
“I don’t know that there’s proof of that scenario existing; if it does, it’s wrong,” Dole said. “But I think overwhelmingly, legislators are making decisions based on what they believe is best for their constituents, rather than what a donor is telling them to do. I don’t think there’s a legislator putting their hand out and going to vote on an issue based on who their supporters are.”
Super PAC accusations
One political action committee working across the country and in Ohio is called “Make Liberty Win.” The Super PAC is based out of Virginia but publicly supporting four Republican candidates in Ohio’s primary, only one of whom is an incumbent.
Pepper said the proliferation of PACs and Super PACs — which can receive unlimited amounts of money but cannot make political contributions — creates an incentive system in which lawmakers are focused not on public service, but special interests.
Dole, meanwhile, said PACs serve an important purpose in elections.
“Campaigning is expensive, and candidates need to raise a lot of money to run for office,” Dole said. “But I think they are generally supported by the types of organizations or groups that they are already simpatico with, in terms of policy.”
Make Liberty Win is funded by a 501(c)4 entity called Young Americans for Liberty to the tune of $4.8 million, according to Federal Election filings from 2023. Because the group funding the PAC is a 501(c)4, they are not required to disclose their donors.
“If you really want to know who is funding this Make Liberty Win Super PAC, you need to know who is funding Young Americans for Liberty, and since they’re a (c)4, you won’t know that,” Seitz said.
The Super PAC has been involved in campaigning against some incumbent Republican candidates on Stephens’ side. Seitz said that Young Americans for Liberty is undoubtedly being used to only target Stephens’ supporters.
For example, a flyer went out against Rep. Adam Mathews (R-Lebanon), though he originally voted for Merrin. The mailer, for example, notes that he has introduced zero bills, but Mathews has introduced several, and most recently introduced one to eliminate the state income tax.
Ferguson is an employee of Young Americans for Liberty, though Seitz referred to him as a board member. Regardless, Seitz said Ferguson’s involvement with the dark-money group raises questions, given that the corporation is the principal donor to Make Liberty Win.
“That raises questions as to whether there is undo collaboration between the political arm and the 501(c)4,” Seitz said. “A little bit like shades of the whole Householder case.”
Former speaker of the Ohio House, Larry Householder, is in federal prison for unlawfully coordinating with a 501(c)4 to facilitate a $60 million bribery scandal for the passage of energy company bailout legislation.
Ferguson called the connection Seitz made “obnoxious” and “a stretch.” He said Seitz “should know better.”
“That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. I am an employee of a (c)4, I have absolutely nothing to do with a Super PAC that is an independent organization,” Ferguson said. “They have been lit up with the fact that so many of them are close to Householder, and now, in the 11th hour, they want to try to get a story out there that says our side is the Larry Householder side. It sounds to me like the pot calling the kettle black.”
Ferguson declined to comment further on the accusation, beyond calling it “laughable” and noting that his involvement with Young Americans for Liberty is filed on his Joint Legislative Ethics Committee disclosure.
Make Liberty Win has been involved in an alleged scandal to work with several other PACs to “buy a seat” of the Tennessee statehouse.
Seitz has long maintained that anonymity within 501(c)4 donations is important, but he said only on issue campaigns. Seitz said anonymity for something like the abortion amendment, where the question is “is this a good or bad issue,” is a different story than money funding campaigns for political candidates.
“When that money is being siphoned out of the (c)4 into a Super PAC to elect specific people to the Ohio House of Representatives or Ohio Senate membership, now we have an interest in knowing who really is the man behind the curtain,” Seitz said. “It matters because people have an interest in knowing who is funding political campaigns for people to be elected to office.”
Overall, Seitz said PACs are side-stepping the “long-standing prohibition” of corporate contributions to political candidate campaigns.
“If corporation X wanted to give a $13,000 contribution to any of our candidates, that would be illegal,” Seitz said. “So, why is it legal for a (c)4 to siphon money on behalf of one of its board members, by the way, over to a Super PAC to elect people that will be aligned with that board member’s political interests?”