COLUMBUS, Ohio — A federal judge blocked Ohio's new law limiting who can participate in the political process just hours before it was set to go into effect. The controversial legislation would have prevented lawful permanent residents, known as green card holders, from contributing to campaigns.
House Bill 1, passed during Ohio's special session in May, was meant to stop foreign donations to state and local ballot-issue campaigns. This could be by directly donating from outside the country or by donating to an entity, like a political action committee (PAC).
But it did much more than that.
It would have prohibited lawful permanent residents (LPRs) or green card holders from making contributions or expenditures regarding ballot issues or candidates. It would also prevent campaigns from accepting donations from them.
"These are people who pay taxes, these are people who work here and contribute to society," state Rep. Michele Grim (D-Toledo) told me Monday. "[The law] is really undermining the voice of Ohio voters and telling them that their voice doesn't matter."
U.S. District Judge Michael H. Watson, a Republican appointed by former President George W. Bush, has temporarily stopped this major provision — thus effectively blocking the entirety of the law.
"I think the judge did make the correct ruling in this decision," state Rep. Michele Grim (D-Toledo) said. "Green card holders can participate in the political process."
Ohio Republicans are being accused of, once again, attempting to make it harder for citizens to have their voices heard. The GOP denies this, as they did the previous three times. This story is from May 29, the day before the final proposal was unveiled, which didn't include some of the provisions the House said were unconstitutional.
RELATED: Ohio GOP again attempts to go around voters, this time on redistricting and minimum wage
Grim fought against it during the committee process but was glad when the fight continued in court.
"Defendants ask this Court to hold that individual LPRs—who the Federal Government allows to fight and die in the U.S. Armed Forces—present such a high risk of 'foreign influence' on Ohio’s political processes that Ohio may prohibit them from speaking on Ohio politics," Watson wrote in a rare Saturday opinion. "The Court declines to do so."
The judge said the law was "likely unconstitutional" since federal law allows permanent residents to use their First Amendment rights to political speech.
Many Statehouse Republicans have argued that this legislation is about more than just green card holders and would help protect the state.
"Most Ohioans would agree that we shouldn't have foreign dollars affecting our ballot initiatives," Senate President Matt Huffman said back during special session.
In early March, Republican senators passed S.B. 215, which is similar to H.B. 1.
This bill is stemmed from the Sixteen Thirty Fund, a dark money group that contributes to progressive causes, state Sen. Rob McColley (R-Napoleon) explained.
RELATED: Ohio Senate passes bill to stop foreign donations on ballot campaigns
Data from the state's campaign finance disclosure portal shows the 501(c)(4) spent about $11.5 million on the groups advocating for abortion access and keeping majority rule on ballot issues in elections. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights and the organization's prior name, Ohioans For Reproductive Freedom, received about $6.4 million. One Person One Vote got around $5.1 million.
The fund, although it doesn't have to disclose its donors, has received over $200 million from Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss since 2016, according to the Associated Press.
Foreign money in elections is already illegal federally. But Huffman explained that H.B. 1 would have given a way for Ohio officials to enforce criminal penalties, including felony charges and prison time.
"The local actors who are taking that money and knowing that it's against the law, if there's no recompense from them, if there's no penalty for doing anything — then it will continue," the president continued.
According to Ohio law and numerous nonpartisan prosecutors we reached out to, Attorney General Dave Yost could petition a court to freeze a campaign account in order to conduct his investigation into "foreign interference."
Democrats say that the Republicans who introduced this measure are just mad about their losses.
"They are sore losers from last year and they're trying to make it more difficult again," state Sen. Bill DeMora (D-Columbus) said.
RELATED: Supporters of Ohio abortion rights amendment far outraising opponents
All three ballot proposals that passed in 2023 were started because voters weren't happy with the state legislature, and didn't feel like their voices were being heard. The August special election was proposed by lawmakers because they didn't want abortion to become legal — a direct result of the angry voices of citizens.
This alleged "foreign money" ban is directly to stop the anti-gerrymandering constitutional amendment from passing, Grim said.
"It was really about undermining the voice of voters last year," she said. "And now the Citizens Not Politicians ballot initiative."
RELATED: Who is funding Ohio’s redistricting amendment?
Warnings
This ruling isn’t a complete shock. A dozen House and one Senate Republican tried to prevent this aspect of the law.
House Majority Floor Leader and attorney state Rep. Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) predicted this would happen. The H.B. 1 that he had worked on didn't have this provision in it. Seitz said this was a last-minute floor amendment.
"The General Assembly, whenever they try to push the envelope too hard and try to go swing for the fences, go for broke, hit the home run — whenever that happens, it generally blows up in our faces," Seitz said during his floor speech, attempting to convince his colleagues to table the amendment.
Both Seitz and state Sen. Niraj Antani (R-Miamisburg) urged their caucus to drop it, taking jabs at amendment proposer state Rep. Brian Stewart (R-Ashville) and original bill sponsor McColley.
Seitz, talking to me on Monday, explained his frustration that the GOP didn't listen to him — although noting that it is always nice to say "'I told you so.'"
"I worried that it was going to poison the bill, and that's exactly what Judge Watson found," he said.
Although Watson didn't completely strike down the entirety of the bill, he might as well have, Seitz said, adding that it was effectively unenforceable.
"He went beyond invalidating it as to green card holders, finding that certain other parts of the bill were, so shall we say, infected by the green card holder amendment, that they too had to be enjoined," the representative said.
Despite his pleas, he was only joined in throwing out the amendment by 11 others — including House Speaker Jason Stephens (R-Kitts Hill), who noted concerns about legality.
Something the Republicans should have paid attention to was the fact that all the Democrats voted to keep the amendment in, Seitz said.
"They wanted this to be put into the bill, thereby rendering it constitutionally suspect," he said. "At the point where the motion to table failed so dismally, the proponents of the amendment should have realized that they were riding into a trap."
I reached out to Stewart for comment but didn't hear back. That being said, Monday was Labor Day, a holiday that lawmakers have off.
In the other chamber, Antani struggled to even get lawmakers to listen to him. After this story aired, I spoke with Antani. He slammed Senate GOP leadership, with whom he has a contentious relationship already.
"I think that the competence of leadership is really under question here," Antani said, insulting McColley at length. "It's really just unfathomable incompetence."
McColley, the Senate majority floor leader, is expected to be the next Senate president, which Antani has a problem with.
"[He] can't understand simple constitutional concepts — that is certainly a problem," Antani said.
Ignoring Antani's insults, McColley sent a response about the legal steps moving forward.
"Our multi-tiered judicial system is built on the premise that reasonable minds can differ on a legal conclusion. Accordingly, parties can exercise their right to appeal a lower court decision. I am confident in the extensive legal analysis that went into the crafting of House Bill 1. I expect the decision of the trial court to be appealed shortly. The appeal will remain focused on the principle that non-citizens who are barred to voting are also barred from directly influencing elections through monetary contributions,” McColley told me.
Seitz believes that the lawmakers need to try again next General Assembly.
"Our Democratic friends played it like a Stradivarius violin," Seitz said.
Follow WEWS statehouse reporter Morgan Trau on Twitter and Facebook.
