COLUMBUS, Ohio — A federal judge has blocked a controversial new Ohio law restricting participation in the political process just hours before it was set to take effect. The controversial bill would have banned legal permanent residents, known as green card holders, from donating to political campaigns.
House Bill 1, passed during Ohio’s special session in May, aimed to ban foreign contributions to state and local election campaigns, either directly from overseas or to groups such as political action committees (PACs).
But it did more than that.
The bill would prohibit lawful permanent residents (LPRs) and green card holders from making donations or expenditures on ballot issues or candidates, and would also prohibit campaigns from accepting donations from them.
“These are people who pay taxes, who work here and contribute to society,” state Rep. Michelle Grimm (D-Toledo) told me on Monday. “It really ignores the voice of Ohio voters and tells them that their voice doesn’t matter.”
U.S. District Judge Michael H. Watson, a Republican appointed by former President George W. Bush, temporarily suspended that key provision, essentially blocking the entire law.
“I think the judge got it right in this case,” said state Rep. Michelle Grimm (D-Toledo). “Green card holders should be able to participate in the political process.”
The Ohio Republican Party is once again being accused of trying to make it harder for citizens to have their say – a charge they have denied three times before. This article was published on May 29, the day before the final version of the bill was released without some of the provisions the House of Representatives found unconstitutional.
Ohio Republicans again try to defy voters’ will, this time on redistricting and the minimum wage
RELATED: Ohio Republicans try to defy voters’ will again, this time on redistricting and the minimum wage
Grimm opposed the bill during the committee’s deliberations but was pleased the fight continued in court.
“Defendants ask this Court to hold that Ohio may prohibit LPRs from speaking out about Ohio politics because there is a significant risk that LPR individuals, whom the federal government allows to fight and die in the U.S. military, could exert ‘foreign influence’ on Ohio’s political process,” Judge Watson wrote in an unusual opinion Saturday. “The Court declines.”
The judge said the law was “probably unconstitutional” because federal law allows permanent residents to exercise their First Amendment right to political speech.
Many state Republicans say the bill is not just about green card holders, but helps protect their states.
“The majority of Ohioans would agree that foreign money should not influence our voting activities,” Senate President Matt Huffman said during the special session.
In early March, Republican senators passed SB 215, a bill similar to HB 1.
The bill is the brainchild of the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a dark money group that donates to progressive causes, said state Sen. Rob McCauley (R-Napoleon).
Ohio Senate passes bill banning foreign donations to political campaigns
Related: Ohio Senate passes bill banning foreign donations to voting campaigns
According to data from the state’s campaign finance disclosure portal, 501(c)(4)s spent about $11.5 million on groups that advocate for abortion access and maintaining majority rule on election ballot issues. The Ohio Reproductive Rights Coalition and its former name, the Ohio Reproductive Freedom Coalition, received about $6.4 million. The One Person, One Vote Coalition got about $5.1 million.
The foundation is not required to disclose its donors, but since 2016 it has received more than $200 million from Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss, according to the Associated Press.
Foreign funding of elections is already illegal under federal law, but Huffman said HB1 would give Ohio officials the tools to enforce criminal penalties, including felonies and prison time.
“This behaviour will continue as long as local actors who knowingly accept illegal payments are not compensated and face no penalties,” the president continued.
According to Ohio law and multiple bipartisan prosecutors we contacted, Attorney General Dave Yost can ask the court to freeze campaign finance accounts in order to conduct an investigation into “foreign interference.”
Democrats say the Republicans who introduced the bill are just angry about losing.
“They’re upset about their loss last year and are trying to make things difficult again,” said state Sen. Bill DeMollah, D-Columbus.
RELATED: Supporters of Ohio abortion rights amendment vastly outnumber opponents
All three ballot propositions passed in 2023 were initiated because voters were dissatisfied with the state Legislature and felt their voices were not being heard. The August special election was proposed by lawmakers who did not want abortion to be legalized and was a direct result of angry citizens.
Grimm said the so-called “foreign funding” ban is intended directly to block the passage of an anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment.
“Last year it was about diluting the voice of the voters,” she said, “and now it’s a ballot initiative that says citizens, not politicians.”
RELATED: Who’s funding Ohio’s redistricting amendments?
caveat
The ruling isn’t entirely shocking: Twelve Republicans in the House and one Republican in the Senate tried to block aspects of the legislation.
State Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati), the House Majority Leader and attorney, predicted this would happen. The version of HB 1 he was working on didn’t have the provision. Seitz said it was a last-minute floor amendment.
“Whenever the Legislature tries to push the envelope, tries to take bold action, tries to take a gamble, tries to hit a home run, all too often it blows up in our faces,” Seitz said in a floor speech, trying to persuade his colleagues to offer the amendment.
Seitz and state Sen. Niraj Antani (R-Miamisburg) both urged lawmakers to drop the amendment, criticizing the sponsor of the amendment, Rep. Brian Stewart (R-Asheville), and the original bill sponsor, McCauley.
Speaking to me on Monday, Seitz expressed frustration that Republicans haven’t listened to him, but he also said it’s always nice to “say, ‘I told you so.'”
“I was concerned that it would have a detrimental effect on the bill and Judge Watson found that to be exactly that,” he said.
While Watson didn’t completely kill the entire bill, he effectively did, Seitz said, adding that the bill is effectively unenforceable.
“Not only did he strike down the bill with respect to green card holders, he also determined that certain other sections of the bill were affected by the green card holder amendment and that they too must be blocked,” the senator said.
Despite his plea, only 11 members rejected the amendment, including House Speaker Jason Stevens (R-Kit Hill), who cited concerns about its legality.
What Republicans should have noted was the fact that every Democrat voted to keep the amendment in place, Seitz said.
“They put this in the bill to raise constitutional suspicions,” he said. “The proposers of the amendment should have realized they were walking into a trap when the motion to introduce the bill was defeated so miserably.”
I reached out to Stewart for comment but did not receive a response. That said, Monday is Labor Day, a holiday during which lawmakers have the day off.
In the House, Antani has struggled to even get lawmakers to listen to him. I spoke to Antani after the news broke, and he railed against the already-fractious Senate Republican leadership.
“I think the leadership here is really being questioned,” Mr Antani said, before launching into a lengthy string of insults at Mr McCauley. “It’s really just immense incompetence.”
Senate Majority Leader McCauley is expected to become the next Senate president, but Antani is contesting this.
“(He) cannot understand simple constitutional concepts, and that’s certainly a problem,” Antani said.
McCauley ignored Antani’s insults and sent a response regarding upcoming legal action.
“Our multi-tiered judicial system is based on the premise that reasonable opinions may differ. Accordingly, parties may exercise their right to appeal lower court decisions. I am confident in the extensive legal analysis that went into crafting House Bill 1. The lower court decisions will likely be appealed shortly. The appeal will continue to focus on the principle that foreign nationals who are barred from the right to vote are also barred from directly influencing elections through financial contributions,” McCauley told me.
Seitz thinks lawmakers should try again in the next General Assembly session.
“Our Democratic friends played it like a Stradivarius violin,” Seitz said.
Follow WEWS Statehouse Reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook .