September 19, 2024

Karsten Neumeister

Larry Householder’s “Hail Mary” Won’t Let Him Escape Accountability

ELPC argues “If we want more clean energy, then we need clean government,” as Ohio corruption scandal continues to surprise.

You might recall Larry Householder, the former Speaker of the Ohio House of Representatives, who was convicted by a federal jury last year on racketeering conspiracy charges related to Ohio House Bill 6. This bill not only bailed out FirstEnergy’s coal and nuclear plants but also significantly weakened Ohio’s clean energy standards.

Now, Householder is back in the spotlight, trying to dodge his conviction. His new argument? He claims that the First Amendment protects him from the bribery and political corruption charges he was convicted of in U.S. v. Larry Householder. Specifically, he argues that the quid pro quo exchanges should be considered political contributions and thus a form of protected speech.

Quid Pro Quo: Latin phrase for “an exchange of goods or services” associated with government corruption.

In response to this “Hail Mary” attempt to evade accountability, the Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC), in collaboration with the Campaign Legal Center and the Brennan Center for Justice, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in late August.

Our brief urges the court to reject Householder’s argument that his corrupt actions should be shielded by the First Amendment. It explains why, legally speaking, Householder should not be excused from accountability for his involvement in a RICO conspiracy, bribery, and political corruption. (RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.)

Read the brief here

Householder’s claim that his quid pro quo transactions are “permitted by federal law and protected by the First Amendment” is fundamentally flawed. But the significance of this case extends beyond Householder himself.

It highlights the critical need for clean governance as part of the broader effort to advance clean energy.

The context here is crucial: we’re dealing with the rate-regulated public utilities industry, where corruption is not new and is particularly challenging to address. Strong financial incentives often drive both public utilities and their regulators to engage in quid pro quo schemes. To paint a picture for scale, House Bill 6 provided $1 billion in subsidies to FirstEnergy, making the payments to Householder seem like a “bargain” to the company. In the face of such strong incentives, state ethics and campaign finance laws may fall short in preventing future quid pro quo exchanges in highly regulated industries like public utilities.

“We urge the court to ensure that the First Amendment does not become a shield for corruption.”

This situation harms consumers, but it also has dire consequences for the climate and public health. Householder’s actions not only deepened political corruption but also undermined Ohio’s progress on clean energy. By gutting Ohio’s clean energy standards and supporting subsidies for coal and nuclear plants, Householder’s actions needlessly extended Ohio’s reliance on polluting fossil fuels.

This case highlights the urgent need for effective governance to ensure that corruption does not become the norm. A robust legal precedent for prosecuting bribery is essential to deter corruption in the public utilities sector. Without it, corruption risks becoming an accepted part of the industry.

We urge the court to ensure that the First Amendment does not become a shield for corruption. Getting this ruling right is crucial for protecting our clean energy future.