FirstEnergy fights to keep details secret about alleged HB 6 bribery cases

Case filings and delay of possible nuclear bailout combine to block Ohioans from learning more before voting.

By Kathiann M. Kowalski

Consumer advocates, industry organizations and environmental groups continue efforts to learn more about claims that FirstEnergy and current or former subsidiaries may have financed an alleged $60-million conspiracy to make sure Ohio’s nuclear bailout bill became law and withstood a referendum attempt.

Yet opposition by FirstEnergy in two regulatory cases and in state court has combined with the legislative recess to prevent those groups and voters from learning more before Election Day.

“FirstEnergy’s lack of transparency is a continuation from its resistance to prove it even needed the bailout it received in House Bill 6, despite requests from lawmakers during HB 6 hearings,” said Miranda Leppla, Vice President of Energy Policy for the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund. “It is not surprising to see FirstEnergy’s current efforts to block any scrutiny of its actions in these legal and regulatory venues where organizations and the state are trying to get answers.”

Shielding financial details

One case deals with whether FirstEnergy used funds that came from Ohio ratepayers for lobbying or donations to groups that worked on HB 6. Various dark money groups are at the heart of federal and state cases against former House speaker Larry Householder and others.

Early in September, the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel asked the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio to order a full, independent audit. Such a process could trace the direct and indirect flow of funds to and from FirstEnergy and its utilities and uncover any lapses in corporate governance that might have overlooked or allowed diversions of money.

Instead, the PUCO merely told FirstEnergy to provide its own explanation to regulators. A subsequent statement from PUCO spokesperson Matt Schilling characterized that order as a “first step.”

FirstEnergy filed a brief response and affidavit on September 30, stating the company’s conclusion that ratepayers hadn’t paid charges for HB 6 because those amounts weren’t recorded in accounts used for calculating riders and charges. For now, that seems to be all that it’s willing to say. And it wants to stop other groups from taking part in the case as parties.

“FirstEnergy has sought to block the intervention of every party to this proceeding thus far with the exception of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and the Ohio Energy Group,” said attorney Robert Dove in an October 21 filing on behalf of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Besides NRDC, FirstEnergy’s utilities are trying to block party status to the Ohio Environmental Council, Environmental Law & Policy Center, Ohio Partners for Affordable Energy, Northwest Ohio Aggregation Coalition, Ohio Hospital Association, Ohio Manufacturers’ Association Energy Group, and others.

The utilities have said various other parties have no “real and substantial interest” in the proceeding, even where organizations serve thousands of ratepayers or agencies that help low-income households. Additionally, the utilities argued that “the Commission’s review involves only the filing of initial and reply comments.” Company spokesperson Jennifer Young said the company had no further comment beyond the filings in the case.

Yet PUCO Chair Sam Randazzo told lawmakers last month, “We will have other parties intervening in this case.”  

FirstEnergy also is fighting against environmental advocates’ efforts to expand the scope of the case.

“A robust investigation is necessary for the Commission to meet its statutory responsibilities and restore public confidence in utility oversight,” said a September 29 filing for the Environmental Law & Policy Center and the Ohio Environmental Council. In particular, the groups want the case to address issues relating to corporate separation and corporate management.

Meanwhile, the Consumers’ Counsel has taken steps to appeal from the PUCO’s failure to grant its request for a full independent audit. Earlier this month, the consumer advocate also sought to take the deposition of the FirstEnergy Director of Rates and Regulatory Affairs, Santino Fanelli. 

FirstEnergy moved to block the deposition. However, Randazzo’s testimony to lawmakers last month did not suggest that the intervening parties’ ability to conduct discovery would be curtailed.

“Some may choose to do discovery. Some may not choose to do discovery,” Randazzo said. “It’s a case. It’s an investigation.”

An October 20 PUCO order told the Consumers’ Counsel to respond to FirstEnergy’s motion by November 2 and noted that a case conference would be set at a later date. Meanwhile, the date for various parties’ comments on the merits of the case has been postponed.

Resisting refunds

In a separate case, the Citizens Utility Board of Ohio has asked the PUCO to amend FirstEnergy utilities’ tariffs for coal plant subsidies under HB 6. That way, the money could be refunded if the bailout bill is repealed or modified to reduce the amounts collected.

If a refund mechanism is put in place, “neither the FirstEnergy [utilities] nor the owners of these failing coal plants receive a windfall of ratepayer funding as the fruit of alleged political corruption,” said attorney Madeline Fleisher in her brief on behalf of the watchdog group. 

FirstEnergy utility customers have been paying at least $1 million per month to subsidize power from those Ohio Valley Electric Corporation plants, the Citizens Utility Board’s case filings noted.

Without specific refund language, the Ohio Supreme Court has denied customer refunds of unlawful charges, including nearly half a billion for a no-strings-attached rider for FirstEnergy’s utilities. The court held the rider unlawful last year.

FirstEnergy’s utilities oppose that motion. Young did not offer further comment on the regulatory case for the coal plant subsidies, beyond the company’s filings with the PUCO.

In a separate case, the Consumers’ Counsel and the Northeast Ohio Public Energy Council have appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court from an April PUCO ruling, which let another FirstEnergy subsidiary start doing business as an energy broker.

FirstEnergy spokesperson Mark Durbin said the company will participate in the court case as an intervenor, adding that in his view FirstEnergy Advisors is saving customers money by soliciting competitive bids from multiple suppliers.

However, issues in the case “include FirstEnergy Advisors’ sharing of managers with other FirstEnergy companies, instead of being corporately separate as required by regulations,” said Consumers’ Counsel spokesperson Merrilee Embs. That raises the possibility for cross-subsidies and possible unfair advantages, the consumer advocate’s brief noted.

The case doesn’t directly relate to HB 6. Nonetheless, corporate separation has been an issue in various other cases involving FirstEnergy and its utilities over the past decade, including various efforts to guarantee sales for or otherwise subsidize affiliated generation operations.

In court

In other case developments, FirstEnergy has moved to dismiss the Ohio Attorney General’s civil lawsuit against it, Energy Harbor/FirstEnergy Solutions, Larry Householder and others. Young had no further comment beyond the company’s filing in the case. Among other things, the case seeks to prevent Energy Harbor, FirstEnergy and other defendants from benefiting from the law’s nuclear subsidies.

Additionally, the cities of Columbus and Cincinnati filed their own lawsuit on October 27. The complaint alleges that the HB 6 rider is an unconstitutional tax. It also alleges that FirstEnergy violated the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act. The case aims to prevent any nuclear bailout money from being collected in the first place. 

Meanwhile, environmental advocates are waiting to hear the outcome of a federal appeals court motion that could require further consideration of matters in the FirstEnergy Solutions/Energy Harbor bankruptcy case that had mostly wrapped up earlier this year. FirstEnergy Solutions’ October 15 brief argued the environmental groups didn’t have standing to raise the issue, even though they had been parties to the bankruptcy case throughout. 

“This case presents an extraordinary situation,” said the environmental group’s October 22 reply. As they see it, federal bankruptcy law “provides the necessary tools to ensure that the public corruption charges did not infect the feasibility of the confirmation plan and are taken fully into account to protect the public’s interests and ensure the transparency and integrity of the bankruptcy process.”

An ongoing investigation

The federal case against Householder and others continues, and investigations in that case are ongoing. This week, two of the five defendants, Juan Cespedes and Jeffrey Longstreth, reached plea agreements with prosecutors. 

Shortly after, FirstEnergy announced the termination of Chief Executive Officer Charles Jones and two other executives. A company press release said its independent board committee "determined that these executives violated certain FirstEnergy policies and its code of conduct."

The criminal case does not explicitly name the energy company as a party but refers to a “Company A” that other materials indicate is FirstEnergy. That would make it and current and former subsidiaries the source of about $60 million in financing for the alleged conspiracy scheme.

“We have acknowledged receiving subpoenas related to the DOJ case and are fully complying,” Durbin said.

For now, however, environmental groups, consumer advocates and others continue to face roadblocks.

“Ohio consumers have been harmed by HB 6, and the damage gets much worse on January 1 when $150 million [in] nuclear bailout charges kick in,” said Tom Bullock, executive director of the Citizen Utility Board. “FirstEnergy says it’s not complicit in alleged HB 6 bribery, but it’s using legal maneuvers to block transparency, deny consumer refunds, and keep nuclear bailout money. Consumers need PUCO to side with us and order FirstEnergy to cooperate.”

• • •• • •

This article provided by Eye on Ohio, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Ohio Center for Journalism in partnership with the nonprofit Energy News Network. 

Ohio legislature's foot-dragging on HB 6 repeal fuels public concerns, points to 'dark money' influence

What can be done to reduce the influence of dark money on Ohio energy policy?

By Kathiann Kowal

This article provided by Eye on Ohio, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Ohio Center for Journalism in partnership with the nonprofit Energy News Network.

The arrest of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and others in July revealed how the use of dark money organizations enabled an alleged $60 million conspiracy to sway elections and provide costly bailouts to noncompetitive nuclear and coal plants.

As federal and state court cases move forward, questions remain about what can be done to restore confidence in the legislature and to prevent similar situations in the future.

“Dark money is really how special interests win right now,” said Jay Costa, executive director at Voters’ Right To Know. When corporations use shell groups to hide their political spending, they “gain a level of credibility they wouldn’t otherwise have,” he explained. “I like to think of it as the ‘Wizard of Oz’ effect.”

In other words, voters don’t get to see who’s behind the curtain.

Two months after the federal government’s crimin-al complaint and indictment in July, Ohio Attorney General David Yost has filed a state court lawsuit. The complaint alleges a “pattern of corrupt activity,” and seeks injunctive relief to prevent FirstEnergy, FirstEnergy Solutions, Energy Harbor and others from reaping benefits from the bailouts under House Bill 6. A hearing on a preliminary motion for that relief is currently scheduled for Friday, Oct. 2.

Meanwhile, it’s unclear whether Ohio lawmakers will actually repeal House Bill 6, the bailout law passed as a result of the alleged conspiracy. Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers called for a swift repeal in late July and early August. However, leadership in the Ohio House has so far refused to allow a full House vote on any pending repeal bills.

‘Dragging their feet’

“They’re just dragging their feet,” said Rep. David Leland, D-Columbus. “We have 58 members of the legislature who are willing to repeal HB 6 right now.”

Instead, Speaker Robert Cupp, R-Lima, has referred the bill to a House Select Committee on Energy Policy and Oversight. So far, those hearings have largely been a general review of the pros and cons of HB 6, rather than a focused oversight of the alleged corruption that led to its passage and whether it should be repealed in order to repair any claimed harm to public trust in the legislature’s integrity.

“The only way that we can prove that Ohio is not for sale is by repealing HB 6,” Leland said. “The polling we’ve seen shows that people by an overwhelming margin are going to punish those people who have voted for HB 6 and have done nothing to repeal it.” Early and absentee voting in Ohio begins on Oct. 6.

“Our legislators are supposed to act in the public interest,” said political scientist Leah Stokes at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Corporations’ interests may sometimes conflict. But, she adds, “it’s really politicians’ and regulators’ job not to be listening to those special interests. That basic responsibility of democracy has failed in Ohio with House Bill 6.”

A straight repeal would mostly restore Ohio energy law to before HB 6 became effective, subject to some follow-up regulatory matters before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. A quick replacement could potentially reenact all or much of the law, which also gutted the state’s clean energy standards.  

Advocates say that rushing to ram through anything more than a simple repeal this year would either just repeat bad policy or create more problems, even aside the alleged conspiracy’s past influence on the current makeup of the Ohio House of Representatives. Even at that, a repeal bill would now need either an emergency clause or an injunction sought by the state attorney general in order to stop the nuclear subsidies slated to start in January. The committee adjourned on Sept. 30 and no additional meetings are currently scheduled.

HB 6 “is so questionable at this moment. The vehicle itself and the way it was sold is all just a pack of lies,” said Rachael Belz, executive director of Ohio Citizen Action. “We need them to repeal it, and then we need to go from there.” And that second step will take time, she said.

“It’s complicated and complex legislation and policy. And we have to get it right,” said Chris Neme, a principal and co-founder of Energy Futures Group. “Passing a bill in less than a couple of months like the way HB 6 was just leads us down the road of unintended consequences.”

Shining a light on dark money

The bigger question is how to prevent similar abuses in the future. Utilities and fossil fuel interests have given heavily to Ohio political campaigns since the state enacted a 1999 law calling for competition in electricity generation. And the level of giving went up dramatically once a competitive market actually began to develop in the state.

Utilities’ political spending has continued during this election season. FirstEnergy spokesperson Jennifer Young said that its political action committee has since canceled campaign donations it had originally reported as going out in July shortly before Householder’s arrest.

Campaign donations shown for August have in fact been sent out, Young said. FirstEnergy has denied any wrongdoing in connection with its political donations or the alleged Householder scandal.

Meanwhile, a 2010 Supreme Court case, Citizens United, “really opened up the floodgates of fossil fuel and electric utility influence over politics,” Stokes said. Utilities’ political spending is “particularly pernicious,” in her view, because customers “have to buy from these companies” to get electricity delivered to their homes.

At the same time, reporting requirements currently apply only to immediate spenders on political issues and campaigns. They don’t reach all the way up the chain to the original source of the money.

“It’s basically this Russian nesting doll scenario, where you have one donor giving to another donor, giving to another donor, to get to the person who finally spends the money to influence the voters,” Costa explained.

In the case of HB 6, money flowed into Generation Now from multiple sources, with a lion’s share allegedly originating with Company A — understood to be FirstEnergy — and its subsidiaries, according to the federal complaint.

Some of the money in turn then went to a political action committee. Or, it went to other organizations that directly funded pro-HB 6 ads. One such ad claimed a debunked Chinese conspiracy was behind last year’s failed effort to put a referendum on the law on the ballot this fall. A for-profit group called Ohioans for Energy Security paid for that ad. When asked last year, lawyers at the firm that set up the corporation, Isaac Wiles, would not answer questions about the source of its funding.  

“The notion that dark money is something some people don’t like is not part of the elements of the crime,” Mark Weaver, an attorney at that firm, said at a Columbus Metropolitan Club forum after news broke about the Householder arrest. He noted that the alleged $60 million in bribes and dark money donations “pales in comparison” to the amount that Americans spend on Halloween candy and costumes every year. And he claimed that the First Amendment guarantees a right to conduct political spending anonymously.

However, the 1995 case that Weaver cited distinguished earlier cases requiring disclosure for corporate spending. And the Supreme Court’s opinion in Citizens United stated that “prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.”

“There is no absolute right to anonymous speech,” said attorney Ian Vandewalker at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law. Elections are treated differently from general speech, because of the overriding interest in making sure elections function properly, he explained at a panel organized by the League of Women Voters of Ohio.

“That requires informed voters. And it requires policies to not be able to cheat the public,” Vandewalker said. “And so those interests require that there be a level of transparency.”

“No regulation, no law, no set of ethical rules substitutes for American voters paying attention to who’s running for office — pressing them hard on what they stand for, looking closely at the issues, and going into the ballot box having done your homework,” Weaver said.

“The reason that information is important and transparency is important is so that voters are educated,” said Catherine Turcer, executive director of Common Cause Ohio. “You can’t make the argument that voters need to be better educated but you shouldn’t give them actual education. It doesn’t make any sense.”

Moreover, disclosure needs to be timely, said Heather Taylor-Miesle, executive director for the Ohio Environmental Council. In the case of HB 6, Generation Now didn’t report its 2017 spending to the Internal Revenue Service until late 2019. By then, millions more had been spent to influence the 2018 elections, the passage of HB 6, and the failed referendum effort against it.

Pending bills

Several bills introduced by Democratic and Republican lawmakers could make a strong start toward improved disclosure, including HB 737, HB 739, and SB 347. Those bills should be broadened to include digital media, as well as more traditional campaign spending, Turcer said.

The bills should also call for disclosure not only of the name of an organization, but the identity of the top three original donors of funding, Turcer added in her Sept. 16 testimony in support of SB 347. “Otherwise, wealthy special interests will attempt to avoid disclosure by creating pop-up shell groups,” she said.

And while Ohio voters won’t know who’s behind all the groups funding attack ads or other political spending this election season, information is available about how lawmakers voted on HB 6. The Akron Beacon Journal has also compiled some information on how some funds were used in the 2018 Ohio House campaigns.

“People should contact their legislators about HB 6” if they want to speak out about the issue, Stokes said, noting that the law passed with support from a mix of both Republicans and Democrats.

“When the public is outraged about an issue and really shows up, these issues get reversed,” Stokes added. “There’s a lot of leverage right now.”

• • •• • •

Renewable energy was casualty of alleged corruption scheme

Repeal of HB 6 would address only part of Ohio's recent actions to slow renewable energy advances

A complete repeal is needed as a minimum to undo the bill’s gutting of the clean energy standards, advocates say.

Ohio Statehouse

By Kathiann M. Kowalski

This article provided by Eye on Ohio, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Ohio Center for Journalism.  

Both Republican and Democratic Ohio lawmakers are pushing to repeal the state’s nuclear bailout bill after this week’s release of a federal criminal complaint against House Speaker Larry Householder and others. Clean energy advocates say that would be a start, but more is needed to address eight years of lawmakers’ actions to slow the growth of renewables in the state.

The complaint alleges a $60 million bribery and conspiracy scheme that led to the passage of House Bill 6 last summer, followed by the defeat of a referendum effort to give voters a say on the bill. Amounts involved are about 20 times more than amounts that could be tracked through public documents.

HB 6 is primarily known as a “nuclear bailout” for providing six years of subsidies for the FirstEnergy Solutions/Energy Harbor nuclear power plants in Ohio totaling roughly a billion dollars, but it also gutted the state’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards, and provided bailouts for two 1950s-era coal plants in Ohio and Indiana.

And while Gov. Mike DeWine has recently shifted his position from defending HB 6 to saying he wants to “repeal and replace” it, legislators from both parties say the whole thing should be thrown out. DeWine has said his office had no involvement in the alleged scheme. Yet he signed the law within hours after Householder secured its passage last summer.

Whether due to actual or perceived corruption, HB 6 “is a corrupt piece of legislation. All of it — not just part of it,” said Rep. Mike Skindell, D-Lakewood. “Therefore, the entire thing needs to be repealed. … That is one step in restoring the confidence of the citizens which was broken because of this corrupt process.”

“Those of us who are free-market conservatives are against the bill. Those of us who care about consumers and predatory pricing are against the bill. And it’s why those of us who want more renewable energy, not less, are against the bill,” said Rep. Laura Lanese, R-Grove City.

“Ohioans deserve an immediate and full repeal of House Bill 6 in order to restore the public’s trust in the legislative process, and also to get Ohio’s clean energy future restarted,” said Miranda Leppla, vice president of energy policy for the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund. “There is simply no room to consider anything less than a full repeal of this bill, as it is corrupt to the very core. Ohio lawmakers should consider what policies are best for Ohioans, without the corrupt influence of pay-to-play politicians and lobbyists working to influence their decisions.”

“I think this fiasco of HB 6 is just symbolic of the pay-to-play culture that has been in operation for a decade or more,” said Steve Melink, founder and CEO of Melink Corporation in Cincinnati. An analysis of lawful, reported campaign contributions from the utility, nuclear and coal industries in Ohio shows substantial increases in election years after a competitive generation market finally began developing in the state.

Efforts to give preferences to FirstEnergy and utility and fossil fuel interests didn’t start with HB 6. Bailout proposals have been on the table since at least 2014. And efforts to limit or repeal Ohio’s clean energy standards have been underway since at least 2012. A 2014 law imposed a two-year “freeze,” and then former Gov. John Kasich vetoed another bill to erode the standards. Other bills for nuclear and fossil subsidies and for weakening the standards were proposed in 2017 and 2018.

And then Householder was elected.

HB 6 “was much more than a bailout for uneconomic nuclear and coal plants. It was an attack on renewable energy and energy efficiency that First Energy, and its allies in the legislature, had been pushing for years,” said J.R. Tolbert, managing director for Advanced Energy Economy’s national business group. 

What more is needed?

“Ohio has some fundamental changes that need to be made to get back on track in our fight against climate change,” Leppla said. “These include fixing our wind setbacks, prioritizing efficiency as a money- and energy-saving resource, and fixing our power siting board process to ensure renewables have an even playing field.”

Removing a 2014 provision that tripled property line setbacks for wind turbines “is the very first change that has to happen” after a full repeal of HB 6, said Sandy Buchanan, executive director of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

“When the rules changed, it essentially froze the number of wind projects,” said IEEFA data analyst Seth Feaster. That caused communities to miss out on revenues, more financial stability, better credit ratings and indirect job benefits, he and Buchanan noted. Meanwhile, a lot of wind projects moved to other states that were more welcoming.

The constant push to limit or repeal the state’s renewable energy and energy efficiency portfolio standards has also hurt, Melink noted. The portfolio standards act as incentives to attract and develop clean energy and other businesses that want renewable energy by setting enforceable targets, which the market then moves to meet, he said.

“A totally unregulated market is too open to the kinds of things that we’re witness to with HB 6,” Melink said. “Setting standards and rules is a good thing.”

“Businesses need some certainty that before they make investments to grow their businesses, that there are good laws that will be in existence for some period of time — that we’re not going to be going back and forth every year or two years, changing our minds about these things,” Melink continued. “No company is going to make a major investment to grow a clean energy economy with that scenario.”

Other concerns focus on how regulators and the courts have applied the state’s energy laws, including provisions that currently limit or preclude refunds of unlawful charges. 

Even before HB 6 passed, for example, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio allowed a credit support charge. The Supreme Court of Ohio found that the charge was unlawful, but declined to make FirstEnergy refund charges to consumers. A delayed repeal of HB 6 could also let utilities collect charges under the law.

“FirstEnergy and FirstEnergy Solutions should not be allowed to financially gain from the poisoned fruits of a crooked tree,” said Howard Learner, executive director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center. “If the U.S. Department of Justice’s allegations of corruption are proven true, then the mandatory rate increase imposed by House Bill 6 on Ohio consumers should be invalidated, and FirstEnergy and FirstEnergy Solutions/Energy Harbor should be required to disgorge their financial gains and refund those excess charges to consumers.”

Other pending legislation could make matters even more challenging for renewables. House Bill 246, for example, “does little to address the serious issues plaguing the PUCO and [Ohio Power Siting Board]’s opaque and inconsistent processes, especially as it relates to siting renewable energy projects in Ohio,” Leppla said. The bill could also make the Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel more subject to political sway.

One or more bills to repeal House Bill 6 are being introduced next week, Skindell and Lanese said. But that repeal of House Bill 6 is not yet assured.

“Given the press of other business, repealing HB 6 is not a good idea because it would result in a rate increase for all Ohio ratepayers,” said House Majority Floor Leader Bill Seitz, R-Cincinnati. Seitz has pushed to limit or repeal Ohio’s renewable energy and energy efficiency standards since at least 2013. He and other House leaders have issued a joint statement saying they are reviewing the federal allegations and do not have knowledge of other representatives’ involvement.

“Repealing HB 6 doesn't solve all of the challenges faced by clean energy companies or corporations trying to meet their sustainability targets in Ohio, but it's a good start,” Tolbert said.

“We need to start from scratch,” said Sen. Stephanie Kunze, R-Hilliard. She added that the whole HB 6 process reminded her of baking a cake, in which supporters said “We’ll say that Ohioans want this cake, but really we want this cake, and you have to bake it for us.”

“We didn’t get a choice,” Kunze said.

• • •• • •

Utility's PAC targeted several NE Ohio elected officials with campaign contributions

FirstEnergy money flowed to Ohio politicians who supported Householder-backed HB6 

By Tyler Buchanan

Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, addresses reporters. Photo by Jake Zuckerman

FirstEnergy Solutions said it needed a government bailout to continue operating. It still had hundreds of thousands of dollars available to donate to Ohio politicians.

The Akron-based energy company spent years working toward what would become House Bill 6 — passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature and signed by Gov. Mike DeWine in the summer of 2019.

The effort to pass that bill spurred a federal investigation that led to the Tuesday morning arrest of Ohio Speaker of the House Larry Householder and four of his political associates.

Federal investigators have alleged Householder organized a bribery scheme to accept $61 million from FirstEnergy in return for passing HB 6 and enriching Householder and his allies in the process. 

No other state legislator besides Householder has been charged with a crime, and U.S. Attorney David DeVillers of the Southern District of Ohio Tuesday would not identify any others that may still be under investigation. 

A review of publicly-available campaign finance data shows FirstEnergy’s political action committee (PAC) has contributed money to politicians throughout the Ohio Statehouse. The company has donated generously to Republicans and Democrats alike, from leaders to backbenchers.

Between 2017 and when HB 6 was signed into law in July 2019, FirstEnergy donated nearly $375,000 to 54 different state lawmakers. Of those 54, 41 voted for HB 6, just 11 voted against and two did not cast a ballot.

Additionally, FirstEnergy made initial contributions to a dozen other lawmakers after they voted for HB 6.

The company saved most of its largest donations for the bill’s sponsors.

State law sets campaign contribution limits for PACs donating to individual candidates at around $13,300 per reporting period. Many of the top HB 6 backers received donations close to this amount.

The bill was sponsored by Republican state Reps. Jamie Callender of Concord and Shane Wilkin of Lynchburg in April 2019. It passed the Ohio House of Representatives in May; the Ohio Senate (with amendments) in July; then the House concurred with those changes a week later.

Callender received a max donation of $12,700 from FirstEnergy’s PAC in 2018. He’s since received $6,000 from the organization.

Wilkin received $10,000 from the PAC in 2018, another $3,000 during the summer of 2019 and $2,500 more that fall after the bill was signed into law. 

The bill had nine Republican cosponsors in the Ohio House. Three of them took in five-figure donations from FirstEnergy in 2018: Jon Cross of Kenton, Brett Hudson Hillyer of Uhrichsville and Anthony DeVitis of Green. DeVitis, the assistant majority floor leader, took in the most cash: $20,415 in 2018, another $7,500 the same month as the Ohio House’s first vote on HB 6 and $1,000 later in 2019. 

Other state representatives received FirstEnergy contributions in the few years leading up to them sponsoring and voting for HB 6: Bill Reineke of Tiffin ($1,500), Bill Seitz of Cincinnati, the majority floor leader ($7,000), Nino Vitale of Urbana ($2,500), Don Jones of Freeport ($500) and Dick Stein of Norwalk ($2,000). 

All 11 House sponsors and cosponsors received at least one donation from FirstEnergy following the passage of HB 6. 

A similar pattern followed in the Ohio Senate, which saw four cosponsors: John Eklund of Munson Twp., Theresa Gavarone of Bowling Green, Sandra Williams of Cleveland and Lou Terhar of Green Twp. Williams is the only Democratic cosponsor of HB 6; Terhar later resigned in 2019 after the vote.

Eklund brought in $9,500 from FirstEnergy’s PAC in the two years leading up to HB 6 and another $2,500 later in 2019.

Gavarone received $1,500 in 2018, $1,000 in May 2019 and has taken in $3,500 more in 2020. 

Williams, a four-term legislator in the Ohio House before being elected to the Senate in 2014, has been a long-time recipient of FirstEnergy campaign cash. The assistant minority whip took in $10,000 in 2017 and a few thousand more in late 2019. 

Terhar received $5,000 in 2016, $3,500 in 2018 and $500 more two weeks before the Senate’s vote. 

Campaign records show many other representatives and senators who voted for HB 6 (but did not serve as a sponsor) received FirstEnergy money. 

In the House, for example, nine Democrats broke with their party to support HB 6. Five of them received FirstEnergy donations in the year leading up to the vote.

·       Rep. Michael Sheehy of Toledo ($500 in 2018)

·       Rep. John Patterson of Jefferson ($500 in 2018)

·       Rep. Jack Cera of Bellaire ($1,000 in 2018)

·       Rep. John Rogers of Mentor-on-the-Lake ($500 in 2017, $500 in 2018)

·       Rep. Tavia Galonski of Akron ($1,500 in 2018, $500 in 2019)

Three of the four others received donations after voting in favor of HB 6: Reps. Thomas West of Canton ($2,500 later in 2019); Lisa Sobecki of Toledo ($1,500 in 2020) and Terrence Upchurch of Cleveland ($1,000 later in 2019, $2,500 in 2020). 

Just three Senate Democrats broke with their party to vote for HB 6. Among them were Williams and Sen. Kenny Yuko, of Richmond Heights, the chamber’s minority leader. Yuko brought in $1,500 from FirstEnergy in 2018 and another $1,000 a month before the vote. 

Dozens of Republican “yes” votes in the House and Senate received contributions in the years preceding and following HB 6’s passage.  

But the most money from FirstEnergy — of either party — went to Householder. As a representative, he received $7,500 from the PAC in 2017 and nearly $18,000 in 2018. As Speaker, he received a max donation of $13,292 in November 2019 after HB 6 passed. 

In addition to specific candidates, the company donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to both political parties and to various caucuses.

Besides campaign contributions, the company spent millions of dollars to advertise and lobby in favor of this legislative effort, cleveland.com and other outlets have reported.

• • •• • •

This story is provided by Ohio Capital Journal, a part of States Newsroom, a national 501 (c)(3) nonprofit. See the original story here.