Tag: bribery scandal

  • Ohio AG Yost is prosecuting others in utility scandal, but he won’t discuss his own involvement

    Ohio AG Yost is prosecuting others in utility scandal, but he won’t discuss his own involvement

    Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost. (Photo by Morgan Trau, WEWS.)

    BY:  Ohio Capital Journal

    Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost this year brought criminal charges against four figures who were involved in the biggest bribery scandal in state history.

    Many thought they were long overdue. That’s especially true of cases filed against men accused of funding the conspiracy, but who still hadn’t been charged by federal prosecutors four years after the last of the alleged wrongdoing took place — and almost a year after two others began lengthy prison sentences.

    But Yost’s own name came up several times in the federal trial and his office last week again ignored detailed questions about the matter.

    The attorney general played an important role in the defeat of an attempted repeal of the corrupt bailout. And there were claims that he believed that the bailout was a bad law, but kept his mouth shut out of loyalty to one of the conspirators — and to the law’s major beneficiary.

    The issue is politically fraught for Yost because the state charges he filed this year have raised new questions about Lt. Gov. Jon Husted’s involvement in the scandal. Yost and Husted are widely expected to face each other in the 2026 race to be Ohio’s Republican nominee for governor.

    New charges

    Former House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison last June for his role in a scheme in which Akron-based FirstEnergy paid more than $60 million to make him speaker in 2018 and to pass and protect a $1.3 billion ratepayer bailout the following year. It’s one of the biggest scandals in Ohio history, and so far it has also sent former GOP Chairman Matt Borges to prison for five years, resulted in two more guilty pleas — and seen two defendants die by suicide.

    But U.S. Attorney Kenneth Parker sidestepped a pretty important question last June when he stood in front of the federal courthouse in Cincinnati and boasted to the press about the convictions and sentences his assistants had just won. He was asked, what about the people who paid the bribes? Would they be charged? If so, when?

    All Parker would say was that the investigation was ongoing.

    In December, his team indicted Sam Randazzo, Gov. Mike DeWine’s nominee to be Ohio’s top utility regulator. In a deferred prosecution agreement, FirstEnergy said it paid Randazzo a $4.3 million bribe just before he became regulator. From that post, he did a number of lucrative favors for the company related to the bailout and he improperly helped with other matters as well, according to the indictment.

    But still uncharged by the feds are former FirstEnergy CEO Chuck Jones and Vice President Michael Dowling, the executives alleged to have directed truckloads of company money into 501(c)(4) dark money groups that financed the scandal.

    In February, a team of state prosecutors led by Yost stepped into the void by securing a grand jury indictment against Jones, Dowling and Randazzo. The charges relate to the bailout scandal, and also to a decade’s worth of shady dealings that allegedly paid Randazzo more than $10 million and ripped off industrial energy users and residential customers alike.

    In April, Randazzo died by suicide.

    Other questions

    The state indictment also raised new questions about the cozy relationships between the DeWine/Husted administration, FirstEnergy and Randazzo.

    Weeks before they were inaugurated, DeWine and Husted had dinner in downtown Columbus with Jones and Dowling — FirstEnergy’s top leadership — and discussed whether Randazzo would be acceptable to regulate the company. Jones and Dowling then drove about a mile to Randazzo’s German Village residence and negotiated the $4.3 million payoff, according to text messages that are being used in multiple court proceedings.

    The state indictment alleges that DeWine’s chief of staff, Laurel Dawson, knew about the payoff before the governor appointed Randazzo to chair the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. But Dawson — whose husband was a FirstEnergy lobbyist who allegedly received a $10,000 loan from Randazzo — isn’t talking publicly about what she knew or what she told her boss.

    DeWine also continues to stand behind his former governmental affairs director, Dan McCarthy, who lobbied the legislature on DeWine’s behalf to pass the bailout law.

    Just before taking that job, McCarthy, too, was a FirstEnergy lobbyist — a job in which he set up a dark-money group that became a conduit for tens of millions in funding for the scandal. In last year’s trial, the prosecution presented evidence that FirstEnergy VP Dowling in 2019 ordered a subordinate to keep the then-DeWine aide’s name off of a $10 million infusion into the corrupt bailout even after being told that it would violate IRS rules to do so.

    DeWine and his staff haven’t explained what McCarthy and Dawson knew about the corrupt machinations as the bailout law was in the works — or when DeWine signed it mere hours after its passage.

    DeWine, Husted and their administration also haven’t explained what they knew about the long, shady relationship between Randazzo and FirstEnergy described in the state indictment. The governor’s spokesman has tried to suggest that it was common knowledge, but extensive evidence shows that Randazzo and FirstEnergy went to great lengths to conceal it.

    DeWine also has said he didn’t know about millions in dark money contributions FirstEnergy made in 2018 to support his gubernatorial bid. But a University of Cincinnati political scientist said it’s simply not believable that a company would make that kind of an expenditure and not make sure the beneficiary knew about it. That seems especially true for a company that subsequently admitted that it paid millions more in outright bribes.

    For his part, Husted won’t comment on the $1 million in dark money FirstEnergy spent supporting his 2018 bid for governor, or whether he  promoted Randazzo for the regulatory job when he dropped his bid and joined DeWine’s ticket.

    The two had history. As House speaker in 2007, Husted appointed Randazzo to the PUCO Nominating Council — a position he held until DeWine nominated him to chair the agency.

    Questions for the Attorney General

    Husted and Yost, the attorney general, are widely regarded as the frontrunners for the 2026 GOP gubernatorial nomination in a state that hasn’t elected a Democrat to that job since 2006.

    There hasn’t been any suggestion that Yost brought charges in the bailout scandal as a way of embarrassing his likely opponent. But at the same time, Yost’s office has avoided questions about his own involvement in the bailout controversy.

    According to text messages presented at last year’s federal court trial, Yost was drawn into the fight at a critical time. The bailout passed the Householder-run House at the end of May 2019, but a month later, opposition was growing in the state Senate.

    Borges, the former GOP chair who had run some of Yost’s political campaigns, had a June 26, 2019 text conversation with Juan Cespedes, who was also being paid to push the corrupt bailout law. Borges intimated that Yost believed that the law was a bad one.

    The AG “‘would be out front (in opposition) if not for (FirstEnergy) support and your involvement,’” Borges quoted Yost as saying.

    A spokesperson for Yost declined to comment at the time, citing the fact that he’d been subpoenaed in the case.

    Regardless of the AG’s view, so many people agreed that the bailout was a horrible law that an effort to undertake the cumbersome repeal process was getting underway even before it passed. Borges noted to Cespedes that Yost would have to give his approval before a repeal could get on the ballot. The AG would try to help them there, too, Borges said.

    If there’s any way the law will allow him to reject the language, he will do it,” Borges texted.

    Regardless of why, Yost ended up doing just that.

    Crucial lost time

    DeWine signed the bailout, House Bill 6, the day the Senate passed it — July 23, 2019. Six days later, repeal advocates had gathered 1,000 signatures from registered voters and submitted a summary of the repeal to Yost for his approval.

    Time was of the essence because under Ohio law, repeal advocates had to gather another 265,000 voters’ signatures within 90 days of the law’s passage to get it on the ballot. But first they had to wait for Yost to approve the ballot summary.

    The attorney general waited the full 10 days allotted him and then issued a rejection letter that seems at odds with any concept of “summary.”

    It was a six-page, 1,535-word document that picked apart the summary in excruciating detail.

    “He listed a lot of different things,” said Rachael Belz, CEO of Ohio Citizen Action, which was strongly opposed to the bailout. “It seemed like a lot to overcome. It didn’t seem very neutral.”

    The repeal was a referendum — the only one for which Yost has considered summary language since he’s been attorney general. Of the 26 other summaries he’s rejected, the vast majority were for proposed constitutional amendments and the rest were for initiated statutes.

    His rejection of the summary for the bailout repeal stands out for its length. It’s more than twice as long as his other rejections are on average, according to information available on the attorney general’s website.

    In the event, Yost’s initial rejection did heavy damage to the repeal effort.

    Proponents on Aug. 16, 2019 submitted a new summary, which Yost certified on Aug. 29, 2019. But by that time, the repeal team had only 54 days left of the original 90 to gather and submit more than a quarter-million valid signatures. Their time to complete the gargantuan task was cut almost in half, in other words.

    What followed was a lying, xenophobic and sometimes-violent campaign to defeat the repeal into which FirstEnergy plowed $36 million in dark money. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the repeal couldn’t get enough signatures and parts of the corrupt bailout law are still on the books.

    Yost’s office didn’t respond to questions about his role in the repeal — or Borge’s statements that were presented at the former political boss’s criminal trial. But for Belz of Citizen Action, there’s plenty of blame to spread among Ohio’s statewide leaders.

    “I don’t think Yost’s hands are clean,” she said. “I don’t think Husted’s hands are clean. I don’t think DeWine’s hands are clean. I don’t know whose hands are clean. Frankly, that’d be a shorter list.”


    Marty Schladen
    MARTY SCHLADEN

    Marty Schladen has been a reporter for decades, working in Indiana, Texas and other places before returning to his native Ohio to work at The Columbus Dispatch in 2017. He’s won state and national journalism awards for investigations into utility regulation, public corruption, the environment, prescription drug spending and other matters.

    Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, the nation’s largest state-focused nonprofit news organization.

    MORE FROM AUTHOR

  • Judge boots lawyers from FirstEnergy bribery suit for failure to ‘diligently prosecute’

    Judge boots lawyers from FirstEnergy bribery suit for failure to ‘diligently prosecute’

    FirstEnergy’s headquarters in Akron. Source: Google Maps.

    BY: JAKE ZUCKERMAN – Ohio Capital Journal

    In an unusual move in a high-profile lawsuit, a federal judge booted lawyers from a lawsuit they filed against FirstEnergy Corp. for their failure to “diligently prosecute” the case against the scandal-mired company.

    U.S. District Judge John Adams said Wednesday he would appoint counsel on behalf of the shareholders who sued the company in connection with what federal prosecutors have called the largest bribery scandal in state history.

    Both the shareholders and FirstEnergy publicly announced that they’d reached a settlement in March that called for insurers to pay the company $180 million and for the ouster of six board members. One federal judge preliminarily approved the settlement in May, but said he had no authority over the two other judges overseeing the related cases.

    Adams has for months lambasted the plaintiffs for agreeing to settlements without deposing witnesses, reviewing evidence, and shirking other typical fact-finding efforts.

    “As the parties have made clear that they do not intend to prosecute the matter before this Court, the Court will appoint counsel,” he said Wednesday. “Consistent with the Court’s authority to oversee this derivative action to its conclusion, the Court will appoint counsel that will be willing to diligently prosecute this matter and seek approval from this Court of any potential resolution, if one is reached.”

    The lawsuit traces back to the 2019 passage of Ohio House Bill 6 — an energy policy overhaul worth about $1.3 billion to FirstEnergy. In 2020, federal prosecutors arrested then-Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and accused him and four allies of secretly accepting about $60 million from FirstEnergy and using it for personal enrichment, political gain, and to engineer passage and enactment of HB 6.

    Last summer, FirstEnergy Corp. admitted in federal court to the operation, also stating it paid Sam Randazzo, then Ohio’s top utility regulator, a $4.3 million bribe. FirstEnergy paid a $230 million penalty in connection with the filing and agreed to cooperate in related criminal investigations to possibly avert a federal charge of wire fraud.

    Householder has pleaded innocent and awaits trial. Two of four alleged conspirators have pleaded guilty. One died by suicide. Randazzo has not been charged with a crime and denied wrongdoing.

    FirstEnergy’s shareholders filed a derivative action against the company. This entails the shareholders suing the board of directors on behalf of a corporation for an alleged breach of duties, according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University. This allows shareholders to benefit as a derivative of the company’s corrective action.

    Adams called on a clerk to post the order in the court’s “News & Announcements” page. Interested lawyers can write him to express interest by July 25.

    His colorful outbursts have pockmarked the lawsuit. In the first hearing after the proposed settlement was announced, Adams demanded someone in the case answer a simple question: “Who paid the bribe?”

    After repeated attempts went nowhere, Adams told a lawyer for the plaintiffs that the attorney was wasting his time. Adams then stormed from the bench, according to an Akron Beacon Journal report.

    He later threatened to dismiss lawyers from the case if someone didn’t answer his question. An attorney for the plaintiffs later identified the alleged orchestrators of the bribery operation — two FirstEnergy executives — for the first time publicly.

    Last week, he denied a request from both the company and its shareholders that he dismiss the case, which could have cleared the way for the settlement. He cited uncomplete exchange of evidence between parities, no testimony under oath from any defendants, and an incomplete forensic examination to identify “possible missing communications” from FirstEnergy CEO Charles Jones’ phone.

    He also noted that of the $180 million, the settlement allows plaintiff’s lawyers to seek nearly $49 million in fees. Thus, he said it’s “hardly surprising” that they’d prefer the case handled by a judge who’s warmer to the settlement proposal.

    Two attorneys representing the shareholders did not respond to inquiries.

    A FirstEnergy spokeswoman declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

  • Power company says utility commission has no power to investigate role in bailout scandal

    Power company says utility commission has no power to investigate role in bailout scandal

    An Akron-based utility company that figures prominently in a massive nuclear bailout scandal is saying that state regulators don’t have the authority to investigate whether the company improperly financed the bailout effort.

    Over the past week, FirstEnergy Corp. has filed two documents with the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio saying that the commission and the state’s consumer representative don’t have standing to investigate whether FirstEnergy and affiliated companies improperly used ratepayer money in what has been called the largest bribery scandal in state history. 

    Marty Schladen

    Marty Schladen has been a reporter for decades, working in Indiana, Texas and other places before returning to his native Ohio to work at The Columbus Dispatch in 2017. He’s won state and national journalism awards for investigations into utility regulation, public corruption, the environment, prescription drug spending and other matters.

    Federal prosecutors say $60 million in utility money was used to pass a $1.3 billion nuclear bailout into law. But FirstEnergy says the utility commission lacks the authority to investigate whether it improperly used ratepayer funds in the affair.

    “The commission lacks any statutory basis to conduct an investigation of FirstEnergy Corp. with respect to the alleged expenditures or to order FirstEnergy Corp. to show cause that it has not violated Ohio utility law,” FirstEnegy said in a Sept. 23 filing. 

    It was in response to an order by the utility commission that it show “that the costs of any political or charitable spending in support of (the bailout bill), or the subsequent referendum effort, were not included, directly or indirectly, in any rates or charges paid by ratepayers in this state.” 

    Federal prosecutors in July charged then-House Speaker Larry Householder and four associates with using $60 million from FirstEnergy and related interests in a scheme to make Householder speaker and pass a $1.3 bailout of two failing nuclear plants owned by FirstEnergy Solutions, a successor company to FirstEnergy Corp.

    The effort was successful, although there is an effort in the legislature to repeal it before the charge hits ratepayers’ bills on Jan. 1.

    FirstEnergy and associated companies haven’t been charged, but in announcing criminal charges against Householder, U.S. Attorney David M. DeVillers stressed that the investigation was far from over. An affidavit supporting the criminal complaint also refers repeatedly to “Company A,” or FirstEnergy, and it makes reference to its CEO.

    In addition, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost last week filed a civil suit that names FirstEnergy, a subsidiary and its successors — as well as Householder and his associates — as defendants.

    The Ohio Consumers’ Counsel, the state’s official consumer representative in utility matters, has asked for an independent investigation into whether FirstEnergy improperly used ratepayer funds in the dark-money scheme to pass House Bill 6, the bailout legislation. The agency was disappointed when the utilities commission only directed the company to show that it had not acted improperly.

    But even that is too much for FirstEnergy.

    In documents filed on Monday with the utility commission, it said it was legally entitled to a reasonable profit. The company also seemed to argue that what it did with much of its money was nobody’s business.

    “Beyond the investment necessary to provide adequate service, a public utility may spend its funds in the best interests of the utility as determined by its management.,” the company argued, later adding, “To the extent the Companies use a portion of their revenues to make political or charitable contributions, this is not improper or illegal.”