The Ohio Elections Commission held a public hearing on Thursday to consider multiple state elections complaints against Householder. The cases parallel federal corruption charges that led to Householder’s 2020 arrest and ultimately to a conviction and 20-year prison sentence in 2023.
At the hearing, which resembled court hearing, commission Executive Director Phil Richter urged members to dismiss the complaints, which date back to 2020. He argued that too much time has passed and Householder’s federal conviction makes the state cases moot.
The commission was delayed in part because it held its review until after Householder’s trial occurred 2023.
“It is unfortunate, but the Commission cannot continue consideration of these matters due to the passage of time,” Richter said, according to a written copy of his remarks.
The commission voted instead to delay ruling on the elections violations case until Nov. 20.
The latest delay highlights a weaknesses in how Ohio enforces campaign finance law — even when such violations play a central role in major corruption cases. The Elections Commission is supposed to be the state’s first line in enforcing campaign law violations – which played a central role in the federal case against Householder.
But in this instance, it’s spent years coming to a conclusion and may end up doing nothing.
Recapping Householder’s trail of corruption/or Householder lawyer blames SOS
Prosecutors say Householder illegally accepted millions in concealed campaign contributions from Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp., in exchange for the passage of legislation the company favored.
The state complaints largely mirror the federal charges, although they also allege Householder illegally diverted $900,000 in campaign funds to pay for his criminal defense.
State officials initially filed the election complaints against Householder shortly after his 2020 arrest. As time has passed, the commission has missed the opportunity to refer any of the cases for criminal prosecution, or what’s called the statute of limitations. Now its toughest available option is to fine Householder $1,000.
Scott Pullins, a lawyer for Householder, didn’t blame the Elections Commission in a Friday interview. Rather, he said Secretary of State Frank LaRose and other state officials failed to provide adequate evidence for their complaints.
Pullins said LaRose gained publicity by filing his complaint against Householder, which mostly consisted of Householder’s federal indictment. Pullins also alleges the secretary of state failed to back it up with investigative legwork.
“What Frank LaRose did five years ago was issue a press release disguised as an elections complaint,” said Pullins, who defended Householder during the Thursday hearing.
“If we were in a court of law and if it weren’t FirstEnergy and Larry Householder, this would have been dismissed years ago,” he added.
LaRose, meanwhile, blames the Elections Commission. He issued a statement following the hearing blasting it as ineffective. LaRose’s office is in the process of taking overthe elections commission. In July, lawmakers voted to disove the commission, which had been an an independent bipartisan panel for decades
“The refusal to act on these criminal complaints, largely due to the director’s procrastination, is a mockery of justice,” LaRose said.
In a statement provided to the Elections Commission ahead of the Thursday hearing, Attorney General Dave Yost’s office also criticized the commission for being slow and said it should simply drop the case.
“The Ohio Elections Commission will cease to exist at the end of this year. In the time that
remains, the Commission should focus its resources and energy on matters in which it might
theoretically make a meaningful difference,” wrote Jonathan Blanton, an assistant state attorney general.
Elections commission attorney describes ‘untenable position’
During Thursday’s hearing, Richter said the federal criminal case put the commission in an “untenable position” by limiting its ability to conduct an investigation. The commission initially delayed acting on the 2020 complaints until the federal case wrapped up in 2023. Richter said he did later consult on the state criminal case Yost filed against Householder in 2024.
Some of the Elections Commission cases could have led to criminal charges or a fine but the statute of limitations expired, Richter said. Some of the case elements exceeded the statute of limitations even when they were initially filed, he said.
Richter also argued the cases against Householder are moot. The penalties Householder faced in federal court vastly exceeded anything the elections commission could have done to him anyway, Richter said.
The commission’s options in election cases include issuing fines – which it historically has largely failed to collect – or making criminal referrals to county prosecutors.
“It has been inferred that if the Commission simply dismisses these matters that Mr. Householder has won,” Richter said. “If winning is being sent to prison for 20 years, it is unclear to me exactly what winning is.”