OPEN LETTER TO THE ORSCC: Request for Assurances Regarding Decision-Making, Endorsements, and Funds Usage
I am asking for former Treasurer David Johnson and current Chairman Alex Triantafilou to help shed light on the questions being asked - or- I hope they will consider stepping down from the ORSCC
Dear Members of the Ohio Republican State Central Committee,
I hope this letter finds you well. As a concerned member of the party, I am seeking assurances regarding the decision-making process for endorsements and the utilization of funds within the Ohio Republican State Central Committee (ORSCC).
I had inquired about the process for the endorsement of these candidates with several State Central Committee members who were unaware of their endorsement in the 2023 calendar year.
I seek clarification on the ORSCC's role in endorsing and financially supporting candidates. Can you confirm that ORSCC members actively participate in these decisions, preventing unilateral actions by the Chairman or a rogue subcommittee? How are candidates chosen, and what criteria determine the amount of financial support? Is there a vetting process for these candidates? Were these candidates endorsed? What about the endorsement policy review committee - how were they involved?
Financial support from the ORSCC to political candidates implies endorsement beyond a mere transaction. This backing suggests the party values and endorses the candidate, influencing public perception. Voters interpret this support as an ORSCC stamp of approval, aligning the candidate with party ideals.
Considering the former Chairman's claim about discretionary disbursements without member approval, is this viewpoint shared by current ORSCC members? It seems perplexing for the committee to fund candidates not universally endorsed by its members.
Failing to acknowledge the implicit endorsement tied to financial support risks breaching trust and misleading voters. To uphold transparency and fairness, the ORSCC should openly communicate the significance of its financial support, enabling informed voter decisions based on a true understanding of the party's position.
Statements of Contradictions by the Party
Former Treasurer Johnson and former Chairman Paduchik have communicated to ORSCC members that the funds in the State Candidates Fund do not belong to the ORSCC but rather to the candidates who raise money into the fund.
However, a transaction of $221,773.24 on July 1st, 2023, was transferred from the State Candidates Fund to the ORSCC general fund in the first half of 2023. This prompts questions about potential miscommunication to ORSCC members, raising concerns about whether funds raised for State Candidates were redirected for other purposes.
Understanding the allocation of funds in the State Candidates Fund is crucial for State Central Committee members, especially when making decisions such as supporting or opposing issues like Issue 1 last November.
Former Treasurer Johnson mentioned that $189,000 was spent on defending the State Central Committee from a lawsuit, with his last claims being over $200,000 supposedly paid to Bricker and Eckler. However, a review of expenditures from the Secretary of State’s website shows no funds paid to Bricker and Eckler from the General Fund in 2021, 2022, or 2023. This inconsistency prompts the question of whether the Secretary of State records are inaccurate, if Johnson's statement was misleading, or if there is another explanation. Has the party failed to pay this bill? Another question - why spend $200,000 on such a “poorly constructed case” as Johnson explains - there are much more affordable and competent attorneys?
Additionally, there's an inquiry into the reluctance to allow ORSCC members to view the books and transactional data. The question arises: if there is nothing to hide, why spend $200,000 to prevent members from accessing this information? Former Treasurer Johnson's assertion that the Secretary of State audits everything does not align with the uncertainty surrounding the claimed $200,000 expenditure to Bricker and Eckler. Instead of internal conflicts, allocating resources to proactively address crucial issues, such as defeating Issue 1 and protecting the unborn, could have been a more constructive use of party funds. The party's commitment to transparency and financial accountability comes into question with these discrepancies.
This goes to getting fair and accurate Treasurer reports that reflect the true financial position of the ORSCC. The basic reports that State Central Committee members should receive as members of the State Central Committee are an “Income Statement”, “Balance Sheet”, “Statement of Functional Expenses”, “Fundraising Campaign Performance”, “Change in Assets”, “Expenses: In-kind Contribution Detail Report”, “Employee and Independent Contractor Function and Delegation Report” and “Statement of Cashflows”
Issue 1
I would like members to explore the potential ethical concerns surrounding the Ohio Republican Party's involvement in fundraising to combat a specific issue, such as Issue 1, without transparently and effectively utilizing the funds for that purpose. When a political party raises funds from its supporters with a stated objective, such as opposing abortion on-demand in the case of Issue 1, there is an implicit trust that the funds will be utilized to actively and meaningfully combat the stated issue.
However, if the Secretary of State's website data does not reflect any expenditures from the related to Issue 1 for the year 2023, legitimate questions arise regarding the transparency and accountability of the Ohio Republican Party's financial activities in addressing this specific concern.
Possible negative outcomes of these potential ethical problems include:
Loss of Trust: Supporters and donors who contributed funds with the expectation of actively opposing abortion on-demand may feel misled and experience a loss of trust in the party.
Diminished Credibility: Failure to transparently demonstrate how funds were utilized to combat the stated issue could diminish the party's credibility among voters and supporters.
Impact on Future Fundraising: If supporters perceive that their contributions were not effectively used for the stated cause, the party may face challenges in future fundraising efforts, as individuals may be less inclined to donate without clear evidence of impact.
Erosion of Party Unity: A lack of transparency and accountability can lead to internal dissatisfaction and division within the party, as members may question the leadership's commitment to the party's stated principles.
The potential ethical concerns surrounding the use of funds for a specific issue without transparent and effective utilization could result in a loss of trust, diminished credibility, challenges in future fundraising, and internal discord within the political party. Addressing these concerns through transparent communication and clear accountability measures is crucial for maintaining the party's integrity and ensuring the continued support of its members and donors.
Asking for Reassurances
I am expressing my concern and seek assurances from State Central Committee members regarding the transparent allocation of Ohio Republican State Central Committee (ORSCC) funds.
Specifically, I would appreciate clarification and assurances that these funds are not being utilized to support campaigns of unendorsed candidates, especially in activities such as making phone calls on behalf of competitors of current State Central Committee members. An example of this concern arises when individuals like Jon Husted may not endorse a State Central Committee member due to disagreements with the actions of the DeWine/Husted administrations.
To ensure the integrity of the process, I am seeking answers to the following questions:
What measures are in place to prevent ORSCC funds from being allocated to have staff or Ohio Republican Party employees work on the campaigns of unendorsed candidates? Is there a whistleblower policy in place for employees to come forward if their activities are not being honestly reported?
How does the ORSCC ensure that its employees or private contractors are not making calls in favor of competitors of certain State Central Committee members, including those named below?
Laura Bates
Jay Bergles
Sarah Bolte
Andrea Martin
Alex Montgomery
Kelly Powell
LaDonna Spencer
I believe that transparency in these matters is crucial for maintaining trust and upholding the principles of the Ohio Republican Party.
Staff for Incumbents
I am seeking clarification on certain practices related to staff support and fundraising within the Ohio Republican Party (ORP).
While I understand the notion of providing traditional support to the staff of incumbent officeholders, I would like to address a specific concern related to fundraising activities. It has come to my attention that campaign staff, funded by the ORP, may be involved in fundraising efforts for unendorsed incumbent candidates who have not officially declared their candidacy or may not receive endorsement. I am particularly interested in understanding how such activities align with the traditional practice and whether the use of ORP-paid staff for fundraising raises questions about the nature of this support.
As an illustrative question, is Frank LaRose utilizing his campaign staff, funded by the ORP, in his run for Senate? I seek assurances, especially for ORSCC members supporting Bernie Moreno, that staff paid by the ORP is not involved in fundraising for unendorsed candidates.
Furthermore, I am interested in learning about the transparency and accountability measures in place regarding the effectiveness of fundraising activities conducted by these employees. I suspect that many of the activities marked as “Fundraising Consulting” in the Secretary of State reports are a very liberal interpretation of that classification. When classifications become a catchall for almost any activity - it is hard for members to gain any insight on how the party is being managed. Are ORSCC members provided with detailed breakdowns that showcase the efficiency of fundraising efforts, such as the amount spent versus the actual funds raised per campaign? The lack of transparency and accurate and informative reports are shameful and become a source of skepticism and lack of trust for party members.
These inquiries stem from the expressed concerns of ORSCC members and Republican volunteers who feel uninformed about contributions and expenditures related to Issue 1. Clarity on these matters would greatly contribute to transparency and the trustworthiness of the ORP.
The Blue 22
I wish to express my concerns and thoughts on the recent discussions surrounding potential endorsements for the Blue 22 if they take a pledge.
While I am generally supportive of pledges, it is crucial to acknowledge the prevailing sentiment within the party. A considerable amount has been said by the Blue 22, yet there seems to be a lack of tangible actions that address the concerns raised. State Rep. Jon Cross's recent remarks help to capture the distrust of the Blue 22 felt by many Republicans, emphasizing the need for a careful consideration.
In my view, the credibility of the party is on the line, and the current atmosphere of discord is impacting party cohesion. While I harbor no personal animosity towards the Blue 22, the prevailing sentiment among their colleagues suggests a loss of trust and a loss of trust has been gained for their perceived violation of ethical conduct. Rather than relying solely on a pledge created by the OHRSCC, I propose a more substantial step — a vote within the Republican Caucus (minus the censured of course) in the House to reconsider the censure or to leave the censure stand.
The caucus, having to work closely with the Blue 22, could collectively decide on a path forward. I initially encouraged ORSCC members to devise a plan for the Blue 22's return to good standing at the time they made the censure, involving the passage of many pieces of conservative legislation. However, the collective decision was to refrain from this approach. Although such legislation could have been beneficial for the party, the opportunity seems to have passed.
Moreover, the absence of major changes in Ohio's public schools and the lack of legislative action against programs promoting wokeism, socialism, and divisive ideologies raise concerns (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, Critical Race Theory programs, Social Emotional Learning Programs, Comprehensive Sex Education, and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support Programs.). The Blue 22 addressing these issues more quickly and proactively would help in dispelling rumors about their teacher union involvement. The Blue 22 moving against these education policies that the Ohio Teacher Unions support would significantly contribute to the Blue 22 rebuilding trust.
In summary, I urge a careful consideration of the party's internal dynamics, emphasizing the importance of the Republican Caucus. A collective vote within the Republican Caucus (minus the Blue 22) could provide a more democratic and transparent path forward, aligning with the party's principles and not have the party at odds with each other.
Optics
I'd like to take a moment to reflect on recent discussions regarding the endorsement policy, particularly the outcome of the vote on raising the endorsement threshold for the Blue 22 to a two-thirds requirement instead of a simple majority. Even considering this course of action without the Republican Caucus onboard is foolhardy and in my opinion inviting an unnecessary optic that does not resonate with the Republican base.
The members who voted against raising the threshold (Dave Johnson, Melanie Mason, Brian Andrews, Gloria Kirker, Susie O’Brien, Dan Carter, Melissa Pope, Curt Braden, and Debbie Lang) have voiced their perspective on the unethical considerations and collaboration with Democrats and Teacher Unions. It's important to recognize and acknowledge the more liberal member viewpoints within our committee.
In the Chairman of the party considering the roles and subcommittee assignments of these more liberal members, it becomes quite evident that the composition of the ORSCC subcommittees intentionally plays an influential role in how the Ohio Republican Party is managed. Their strategic placements of more liberal State Central Committee members on multiple committees by the Chairman allow these members to disproportionately dominate the party's operations.
(Dave Johnson (is on 6 committees), Melanie Mason (is on 5 committees), Brian Andrews (is on 1 committee), Gloria Kirker (is on 2 committees), Susie O’Brien (is on 4 committees), Dan Carter (is on 4 committees), Melissa Pope (is on 3 committees), Curt Braden (is on 5 committees), and Debbie Lang (is on 2 committees)) Keep in mind that 31 of the 66 members of the ORSCC only have one committee assignment and 14 members only have two committee assignments. The Chairman of the party strategically places members on the committees of his choosing.
While differing opinions on ethical considerations exist, it's crucial for the party to approach these discussions with an understanding of the liberal perspectives within our committee. Each member brings a unique viewpoint, and these discussions are an opportunity for constructive dialogue on whether or not we should demand ethical behavior from those we work to help elect (State Representatives) and whether trust can be rebuilt among their colleagues.
As you navigate the complexities of party dynamics, I encourage a spirit of open communication with the public and making certain that all meeting on this subject are made public in a timely fashion.
Other abnormalities
I want to express my concerns about the Ohio Republican Party's (ORP) fundraising strategy, particularly focusing on the composition of contributions to the General Fund and State Candidate Fund.
In gauging a party's popularity and its resonance with the public, small-dollar donations are a key indicator. Many parties aiming for a better public connection set goals ranging from 10% to 50% of their donations to come from small sources of $500 and below. Contributions exceeding $500 often come from a limited group of top earners, businesses, corporations, and lobbyists. These groups tend to work in their own self-interest to accumulate power or to gain favorable consideration by State legislators in business dealings with the State of Ohio.
Let's examine the distribution of donations for both the General Fund and the State Candidates Fund for the year 2023:
General Fund
Donations $1,000 or More: 115 donations totaling $1,373,115.39
Donations Less Than $1,000: 96 donations totaling $24,707.26
Only 1.7% of the total value of donations to the General Fund came from contributions less than $1,000.
State Candidates Fund
Donations $1,000 or More: 131 donations totaling $1,286,204.65
Donations Less Than $1,000: 115 donations totaling $9,601.92
A mere 0.75% of the total value of donations to the State Candidates Fund came from contributions less than $1,000.
Interpreting the Results
It is considered that a party may be fully beholden to special interests if less than 5% of its total donations come from sources less than $500. To put this into perspective, Trump's 2020 campaign raised 54% of donations from $200 or less sources, while Bernie Sanders, a socialist Democrat, is known for his grassroots approach, raising a majority of his funds from less than $50 sources.
In my past experience working with other states, hitting a target of 25% for State Central Committees from donations of $500 or less - is common, with some state parties setting more ambitious goals of 50%.
I submit for your consideration that the ORP's lack of defined legislative objectives contribute to minimal fundraising and volunteer engagement among registered Republicans. As a common benchmark for non-impoverished states, if the ORP were popular among Ohio's 800,000 registered Republicans, we should expect to receive $25 from 80,000 individuals, totaling $2 million – roughly 42% from small donations. The problem, in my opinion is that the ORP prioritizes seeking to raise funds from special interests (groups of influential top earners, businesses, corporations, and lobbyists that do not have Ohioans best interests at heart - they act in their own interest.)
Considering Ohio's significant Republican voter base, which has the potential for substantial growth, we should strive to unlock this untapped potential. Historical instances during Reagan and Trump's eras have demonstrated the party's ability to expand voter roles by as much as 33% and to secure more funding with more principled and conservative candidates. But therein lies the rub, the special interests demand their candidates be malleable and unprincipled - so they are easier to control - where the everyday Ohio Republican wants more conservative candidates. Is this the reason why the party does not build passion for itself among all Ohio Republicans?
WHY IS THE ORP SUCCESSFUL BUT UNPOPULAR?
I have deep concerns regarding the current trajectory of the Ohio Republican Party (ORP) and its relationship with the broader Republican base.
It is my belief that while the party may be considered successful, it is facing challenges in capturing the favor of a majority of the Republican base. Its success I believe lies in resonating with moderately Republican independent voters and Democrats that vote in Republican elections for the version of the lesser of two evils. The perception, whether accurate or not, is that the ORP favors monied interests, especially lobbyists and businesses involved with the State government. This gained and legitimate perception, rightly or wrongly, has contributed to the disconnection between the ORP and the average Ohioan.
Key issues for Ohio Republicans that are concerned about party operations seems to be assurances the party is putting in place procedures to eliminate scandals and greatly reducing the focus on currying favor with special interests. Additionally, these Ohio Republicans have had their fill of ORSCC members in pursuit of positions of power, at the expense of representing the genuine concerns of constituents. I recognize that fundraising is a crucial aspect of political operations, but when these efforts become entangled in what I perceive as money laundering schemes, it raises significant ethical and legal concerns. The party has done nothing to allay fears of concerned Ohio Republicans and has exacerbated the optics of wrongdoing.
I contend, and do not make this accusation lightly, that many ORP fundraising practices are almost certainly circumventing campaign finance laws through illegal processes like earmarking donations. Earmarking, as you may be aware, is in violation of the law and repeated offenses can lead to felonies. It is disheartening to think that such practices, if true, may contribute to a disconnect between the party and the broader public and become yet another scandal to tarnish the Republican brand.
Ohio Revised Code 3599.04 implicitly prohibits the earmarking of funds into the Ohio Republican Party's State Candidate fund. ORC3599.39 makes any subsequent violation of ORC3599.04 a felony. Any political party channeling donations into the State Candidate's fund at the behest of donors or candidates, in my perspective, constitutes a contribution for illegal election purposes, reflecting an intent to sidestep campaign finance regulations.
The ORSCC bylaws/permanent rules prohibit any of its members from binding the party to obligations not specifically covered in the bylaws (Article III Section 7.) This would prevent the Chairman from having discussions with the donors and candidates to obligate the party to either donate funds received by the party to a specific candidate - or make in-kind contribution equating to the same amount. This is because the decision for distribution of party funds should be at the behest of the members and not guaranteed with an unspoken rule that Republican candidates must be compensated with funds they raise into the State Candidates fund. The old bylaws Article IV Section 5 (b) supported the notion that the Chairman of the party does not have unilateral and discretionary control of the State Candidates Fund or the General fund of the party as has been claimed by prior Chairmen. The old bylaws of the party required ORSCC members to approve a budget - and compare the projected budget versus the actual budget. Article IV Section 5(c) on a quarterly basis.
Old Section 5 imposed good controls to have in place as long as they were followed. I know of no member of the ORSCC, past or present, that has approved an ORP budget and none that have seen quarterly reports that show the budgeted versus actual expenditures and contribution.
With the newly adopted Article IV Section 5 of the bylaws, ORSCC members have given the new Chairman unlimited discretionary spending without effective oversight from the entire committee.
I do not know if ORSCC members that voted to adopt these bylaws have embraced the pinnacle of irresponsibility and disengagement from responsibilities that any reasonable person would assume they had. This was akin to Congress voting to give the President of the United States the power of the purse. Do Republican constituents really want no oversight over the finances of the committee?
Ohio's legal framework restricts corporations from directly contributing to candidates, as concerns loomed over the potential undue influence on legislators, diverting them from representing constituents to prioritizing corporate interests. However, corporations are legally permitted to make contributions to political parties. Notably, even when a high-net-worth individual reaches the maximum allowable contribution to a candidate, they can still contribute to the candidate's affiliated political party. It is essential to underscore that funds allocated to the party's State Candidate's fund should ideally adhere to the preferences of the State Central Committee members and not be obligated to candidates without their approval.
Any form of assurance or coordination by Republican leadership, indicating a specific distribution of funds from the State Candidate's fund, would be a deliberate effort to circumvent campaign finance laws. The same is true for the General Fund. For instance, a scenario where a major healthcare system CEO donates $50,000 to the State Candidate's fund, coordinating with the party chairman to direct it towards a particular candidate's re-election fund, would raise serious legal concerns. The appropriate response from the Chairman should unequivocally reject any attempt to assist the donor in circumventing Ohio's campaign finance laws.
Regrettably, video and audio recordings suggest a pattern of disregard for these laws within Republican leadership, raising legitimate concerns about compliance and adherence to established legal boundaries. Addressing these issues is crucial to upholding the integrity of Ohio's campaign finance regulations and ensuring a fair and transparent electoral process. As an ORSCC member can you assure your constituents that Ohio law is not being broken?
I encourage ORSCC members to have a renewed focus on grassroots support and popularity, ensuring that the party aligns more closely with the interests and sentiments of everyday Ohioans. By addressing concerns related to corrupt fundraising practices that are unethical and unscrupulous, we can work towards restoring the party's image and fostering a genuine connection with the Republican base. This would start by placing a priority on raising small dollar donations and launching an investigation into earmarking for candidates and donors.
As esteemed members of the Ohio Republican State Central Committee, your dedication and commitment to the party's principles and ethics are highly valued and are reflective of the candidates we elect. I believe that by collectively addressing these concerns and promoting transparency, we can strengthen the party's foundation and better represent the interests of our constituents. A better connection with Ohio Republicans can be formed
For the sake of accountability, could ORSCC investigate and reassure Republicans that the State Candidate's Fund and General Fund expenditures are not being distributed at the behest of the State Central Committee or with their approval? It is crucial for Republicans to be informed and confident that expenditures align with the decisions made collectively by the State Central Committee - or in this case - that they don’t.
Suspension of the Rules and Endorsements
I want to emphasize the importance of adhering to the established bylaws of the Ohio Republican State Central Committee (ORSCC) and to advocate for a fair and transparent process, particularly regarding the endorsement of candidates in primary elections.
While I understand that the party has occasionally suspended its bylaws for specific reasons, it is crucial to recognize that such actions should not become a casual or arbitrary practice. The suspension of bylaws, when done frequently, stifle minority viewpoints and undermines the integrity of the primary election and the trust that the party seeks to uphold.
I wish to address a matter of significant importance—namely, the presence of provisions within our bylaws that permit the suspension of specific sections. While I understand the need for flexibility, especially in exceptional circumstances, I believe it is crucial to consider the potential implications of such provisions on minority viewpoints and, by extension, the core tenets of the Republican Party.
Protection of Minority Viewpoints: Any provision allowing for the suspension of sections of our bylaws potentially exposes minority viewpoints to the risk of being overshadowed by the majority. In essence, this approach adopts a "might makes right" mentality, which can be equated to a form of majority rule akin to socialism. As Republicans, we must be cautious not to inadvertently mirror principles that contradict the foundational values of our party.
Preservation of Republican Principles: The Republican Party stands for individual liberties, personal responsibility, and limited government intervention. Allowing unchecked suspension of bylaw sections may inadvertently lead to a system where decisions are made solely based on numerical strength rather than a careful consideration of ideas and principles. We must ensure our organizational structure aligns with the principles we hold dear.
Avoidance of Soviet Socialist Republic Comparisons: By steering clear of provisions that allow for the suspension of any section of our bylaws, we actively distance ourselves from governance models reminiscent of Soviet socialist republics. Republicans cherish democratic processes that respect minority opinions and encourage diverse perspectives. The very essence of our party lies in the protection of individual rights and the avoidance of coercive, centralized control.
Promotion of Inclusive Decision-Making: A party that champions the ideals of individualism and liberty should embrace inclusive decision-making processes. Rather than relying on unchecked suspension provisions, we should encourage open dialogue, compromise, and a fair representation of all viewpoints within our party.
Additionally Robert’s Rules for Dummies had this to say:
I urge you to consider the long-term practical implications of provisions that allow for the suspension of any section of our bylaws. Let us remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting minority viewpoints, upholding Republican principles, and steering clear of organizational structures that bear even a semblance to socialism.
I would like to urge against endorsing candidates in primary elections, as premature endorsements can limit tip the scales during the primary and unfairly influence the selection of candidates. If, however, the committee still decides to endorse candidates prior to the primary, I propose the following considerations:
Individual Candidate Endorsements: Candidates should be considered and endorsed individually rather than as a slate. This approach ensures that each candidate is evaluated on their own merit and positions.
Candidate Presence at ORSCC Meetings: Candidates seeking endorsement should be required to attend ORSCC meetings to engage with members and answer questions. This facilitates a direct and open dialogue, allowing members to make informed decisions.
Candidate Questionnaires: All candidates seeking endorsement should be asked to complete a candidate questionnaire. This document can serve as a valuable tool to understand candidates' positions on key issues and their alignment with Republican values.
Debates Among Candidates: Consider implementing a requirement for candidates to engage in three debates with their opponents before being considered for endorsement. This ensures that candidates have the opportunity to present their ideas and compete on a level playing field.
Scrutiny of Unopposed Candidates: Unopposed candidates in the primary should not be rubber-stamped for endorsement. They, too, should undergo a vetting process to ensure their alignment with party principles and values.
Grading System for Candidates: Instead of endorsing candidates outright, consider implementing a grading system based on their stances and positions. This approach informs voters without playing favorites and is a responsible part of the committee's duty.
In upholding these principles, the ORSCC can demonstrate a commitment to fairness, transparency, and due diligence in the candidate endorsement process. By maintaining the integrity of the bylaws and ensuring a rigorous vetting process, the committee can better serve the interests of all Republicans.
As always, your commitment to transparency and adherence to ethics and the rule of law is vital for maintaining the trust and confidence of party members. I appreciate your attention to these concerns and look forward to hearing your response.