Neil Clark’s perspective as an Ohio lobbyist revealed the pervasive influence of money in politics. By wearing a “DeWine for Governor” t-shirt when he died by suicide, Clark appeared to question why lobbyists and others were being prosecuted for actions that were common throughout Ohio’s political system. The distinction between legitimate lobbying and illegal “pay-to-play” schemes is nearly indistinguishable, a point emphasized in Larry Householder’s appeals.

Today, we talk with Catherine Turcer, executive director, and Mia Lewis, associate director, of Common Cause Ohio about dark money and its role in politics.

Dark money refers to undisclosed or secret financial contributions, often routed through various nonprofits to obscure the funding source. With the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, corporations and nonprofits were permitted to make campaign contributions under the rationale they were exercising their First Amendment rights. The result is that more money is now poured into campaigns.

Though the Supreme Court recognized the public benefit of disclosure, both federal and state governments have been slow to implement effective transparency measures. The lack of disclosure allows unethical practices to thrive in secrecy, emphasizing the need to identify and reveal the true sources of campaign funds.

Political action committees, also known as PACs, are required to file with governmental agencies like the Secretary of State or the Federal Election Commission and provide official records of their activities. In contrast, other nonprofits can be formed for short-term political advocacy and not register.

Effective disclosure laws can reduce the amount of money in politics and ensure that political advertisements and campaigns are held to higher standards. Corporate donors, for example, might avoid contributing to contentious issues if their support is made public, which can influence the tone and integrity of political messaging. Disclosure empowers voters by revealing who is attempting to sway elections and why, fostering informed decision-making.

The First Amendment guarantees both freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and both are under attack. These protections apply universally, ensuring that anyone can express themselves without prior restraint, though certain limitations exist through laws addressing harm or falsehoods.

Professional journalists adhere to a clear ethical code: never knowingly publish false information. This principle is at the core of responsible journalism and shapes the profession’s commitment to truth. Intellectual honesty and a commitment to factual reporting are key.

We talk with Marty Schladen, a reporter for the Ohio Capital Journal, about the challenges the press faces.

With the reduction of local news outlets and mainstream newspapers, a void has emerged, filled by individuals who lack professional training and oversight. This “fog machine” of misinformation makes it challenging for the public to distinguish reliable news from opinion or falsehoods.

In today’s media landscape, anyone can reach a large audience, making it difficult to discern professional journalists from amateurs. The lack of a regulatory body means that the honor system and personal credibility are vital for maintaining standards in reporting. Journalists must rely on their reputation and adherence to ethical guidelines to build trust with the public.

The Trump administration seeks to suppress or delegitimize the press, such as restricting access and publicly shaming specific journalists and outlets. Personal attacks and refusal to answer questions have created barriers to information, both at the national and state levels.

Reporters regularly face personal attacks and efforts to undermine their credibility. Despite these challenges, maintaining professionalism and composure is key, so that journalists can keep politicians and businesses accountable.

Efforts to restrict journalists’ access to government information, such as requiring loyalty pledges or excluding major news organizations, are particularly concerning. These actions undermine the press's role as a public watchdog and threaten the decentralized power structure that is fundamental to American democracy.

There's been a push in recent years by Ohio legislators to accommodate religious education in public schools. We talk with Gary Daniels, lobbyist for the Ohio ACLU, about this movement.

Most recently, Republican state reps. Gary Click and Mike Dovilla introduced Ohio House Bill 486, also known as the Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act, which promotes teaching in public schools the positive impact Christianity has had in America.

“What it does is it removes the invisible shackles that often hinder a full transparency in the teaching of American history,” Click said during his sponsor testimony. “We are not inviting instructors to teach doctrine or to proselytize … we’re simply affirming what is already in the law that exists.”

Well, maybe, but it's if not as if these legislators are advocating to educate students about the positive impact of all religions or the negative impact of all religions. They'll deny it, but these legislators are promoting Christianity, which is prohibited by the First Amendment.

The problem is that legislators are pushing to promote only the positive aspects of Christianity, which means their message is not neutral, and if the message is not neutral, it means the message is promoting a certain religion, and that’s not permitted by the First Amendment.

The bill lists some 20 items that teachers should feel free to teach in their classrooms—all positive, nothing negative such as, how the Bible was used to justify slavery or indigenous children were taken from their families and raised in group homes where they were forced to adopt Christianity.