He is now on the DCCC’s Red to Blue list, which is a big deal. It means this race is going to get more attention, more money, and more resources. The DCCC and Poindexter’s campaign are going to run ads, knock doors, hold rallies, walk in parades, and do all the things campaigns are supposed to do. They will probably bring in big-name political people too.

Honestly, it would not surprise me if Barack Obama came out to campaign with Brian Poindexter at this point. If that happens, I will officially be jealous.

But none of that means this race is won.

This is still a district drawn to be strongly Republican. Democrats are still the minority here. The people paying attention to politics in the middle of August are the minority of psychopaths who love this stuff all year round. Most people are not like us.

Go outside and ask eight out of 10 people who their congressman is, what district they live in, or who they are voting for. Most of them will not be able to tell you. More than likely, they are only going to start seriously paying attention a couple weeks before the election.

That is what makes this race difficult. It is also where the rest of us have a job.

Brian Poindexter is not asking me to write this or say this. Honestly, I do not even know if he, his campaign, or everybody around him agrees with me.

But it is my perspective, and it is my newsletter, so I am going to write it anyway.

Pressure the People Still Supporting Max Miller

The first thing people should do is pressure the elected officials who donated to Max Miller or publicly supported him to renounce that support.

This will create more buzz than people realize.

If you live in Bay Village, for example, ask the elected officials there who supported Max Miller why they are still standing with him. Ask them publicly. Ask them directly. There are plenty of people on Capitol Hill who are distancing themselves from Max because they understand that being associated with him has become politically unpopular.

So why are local elected officials still supporting him?

Why is the mayor of Bay Village? Why is the council president? Why are other local people still willing to have their name connected to his?

Here is the list. Contact them. Pressure them. Make it public. Point it out.

Dwight Clark — Bay Village City Council President — $125 — June 12, 2026

Paul Koomar — Mayor of Bay Village — $500 — June 12, 2026 (through Friends of Paul Koomar)

Edward Orcutt — Mayor of Brook Park — $1,000 — June 12, 2026 (through Friends of Edward A. Orcutt)

Elected Republican Party officials:

Carla Washko — Cuyahoga County Republican Central Committee, Strongsville — $100 — June 21, 2026

Patricia Mroczka — Cuyahoga County Republican Central Committee, Strongsville — $150 — June 21, 2026

Edwin “Ed” Oliveros — Cuyahoga County Republican Central Committee, Strongsville — $100 — June 12, 2026

Former elected officials:

James Trakas — Former Independence City Council member — $250 — May 31, 2026

Linda Barath — Former North Royalton City Council member — $100 — June 12, 2026

Kimberly Veras — Former Brecksville City Council member — $1,000 total ($250 each on March 6, April 12, May 10, and June 12, 2026)

Allen Biehl — Former Montville Township trustee — $500 — June 12, 2026

Make them either stand with Max, say nothing, or renounce him.

Saying nothing or renouncing him is what you want. And if somebody does renounce him, it will bring a lot more attention to this race than people think.

If they do not, trust me, that should be on the scorecard next time they are up for election. It should be part of their political résumé. When Max Miller was facing serious allegations and the people around him were backing away, did they stand with him anyway?

That is a fair question for voters to ask.

Do Not Let This News Disappear

The second thing is simple: do not let this news disappear.

No matter how big this story feels right now, it is only August. We still have all of September and October. Kids are going back to school. Parents are dealing with homework, practices, activities, bus schedules, and everything else that comes with the school year. People are thinking about vacations, Halloween, Thanksgiving, and their own lives.

Their minds are not on the news.

And to be perfectly honest, even in a couple short months, it is easy to forget the whole laundry list of things that have come out about Max Miller.

Brian has already made a point of saying he is not running this race because of Max. He is running to put workers first. For good or bad, that appears to be the decision his campaign has made. He is not going to make the entire race about what is happening with Max.

Will special-interest groups run ads about it? Maybe.

Will the DCCC campaign on it? Maybe.

Will big-name people endorse Brian and talk about it on his behalf? Maybe.

But the people with the biggest reach and the most power are you.

If you do not let this go and let it be forgotten, there will be people who may not vote for Brian, but also will not vote for Max. And that is a win too.

I have said it before: Republicans are probably not going to vote for Brian en masse. But it is very possible that some Republicans will not vote for Max.

That is what you want.

Do not let people’s busy lives bury this story. Do not let it disappear beneath the next big headline. Do not let people come back to the news in late October, find it already buried, and then vote normally because they forgot what happened.

You do not have to scream at people. You do not need the angry, anti-Trump, anti-Republican rhetoric that is honestly cringeworthy half the time because it comes with so much rage and vitriol that it turns people off, even people who might otherwise agree with you.

Just say something softer.

“Hey, did you know about his history?”

“Have you heard about the allegations?”

You do not have to convince people. The allegations will do a lot of the work themselves.

And be clear about what they are: allegations. Max Miller denies them. But people are allowed to know about them, ask questions about them, and decide whether they want to vote for him.

Volunteer

Number three is obvious: volunteer.

People always ask, “What can I do?”

Ask the campaign. Put your name on the list. When they email you, show up.

Just showing up is a huge help and a huge motivator.

I cannot tell you how thankful I was when people showed up to help me knock doors. If 20 people show up and decide to knock 30 or 40 doors each, and they do that a couple times during the campaign, that is a massive amount of help.

Do the math. It adds up.

Make phone calls. Send text messages. Knock doors. Submit yourself and your time to the campaign. I promise you, if they have the help, they will keep you busy.

This Is Possible, But It Is Not Guaranteed

I am looking at this race and seeing a lot of people get excited about the possibility.

It is absolutely possible that this seat gets flipped.

But it is also very possible that it remains Republican and Max Miller wins his race. That is just the nature of politics. What is big news now can come and go. The next big story happens. Life gets busy. Other priorities take over.

By November 3, what we are talking about right now may not even be in anybody’s memory.

That is why this cannot just be Brian Poindexter’s campaign. It cannot just be the DCCC. It cannot just be ads, rallies, or big political names coming into the district.

It has to be the voters, the constituents, the Democrats, the Republicans, the independents, the unaffiliated people, and anybody who simply does not want Max Miller representing them in Congress.

Keep talking. Keep presenting facts. Keep asking questions.

And do not let this be forgotten.

Stay Angry.

The war in Iran threatens Ohioans’ well-being, starting with our day-to-day lives and leading to a serious deterioration of our national security. Here, working from the innermost circle outward, is how this war makes us unsafe and why your vote is so important on November 3.

Economic Challenges to the Average Ohioan

Increased diesel prices will raise farmers’ fuel costs by as much as $20,000/year. Fertilizer is up 40–70%. “It will cost us twice as much to plant corn.” ¹ The added expense, combined with the toll taken by tariffs and the loss of USAID revenue, is contributing to farm closures and bankruptcies. The number of Ohio farms was down over 2% from 2023–2024. ²

Of course, it is not just farmers; manufacturers and average consumers suffer too. According to the Cleveland Federal Reserve, “…because of escalating energy costs related to the conflict in the Middle East, fuel costs are ‘skyrocketing,’ further exacerbating already-high freight costs. Materials costs continued to rise, particularly for metals like copper, steel, and aluminum, with manufacturers citing tariffs as drivers, as well as the Strait of Hormuz closure.” ³

Ohio families have paid approximately $2,175 more per year for gas, utilities, and groceries, and thousands of dollars more in health insurance premiums for those on the ACA marketplace since January 2025 due to federal policies enacted during President Donald Trump’s second term, according to a report released Wednesday by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. The report attributes the cost increases to four key policy decisions: the war with Iran that drove up gas prices, cuts to clean-energy investments that led to higher utility bills, blanket tariffs that increased prices on imported goods, and the expiration of enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium tax credits. ⁴

Though Ohio’s suffering exceeds the national average, we also reflect the entire nation. And we also reflect the world, which is attempting to manage higher utility and fuel costs in record heat.

War Readiness

As the arms stockpiler to the world, it is shocking to hear our munitions are seriously depleted because of the six-month-long bombing campaign. It is even more demoralizing that our huge, sophisticated stockpile is being defeated by a primitive, cheap, nimble Iranian war machine. Military experts also tell us our tactics and strategy are doomed to failure. Not once has a conflict been won from the air. You may fly over a nation forever, you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it, and wipe it clean of life. But if you desire to defend it, if you desire to protect it, if you desire to keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did . . . in the mud.” ⁵

Even more wasteful, then, is that we shot all our munitions into Iran for no gains. And in spite of these failures, Trump wants to keep bombing. The very useful Military Spend tracker keeps kinetic tracking of our spending, now upwards of $38 billion. ⁶

Here are just a few examples of the asymmetric use of sophisticated, expensive weaponry we have wasted on cheap, primitive Iranian drones.

Status of Key Munitions

The Military Spend link also includes running totals of food assistance, healthcare, housing, and educational needs that could have been funded by these sums. And for what? As of July 31, Trump admitted at his July Camp David cabinet meeting there was no end in sight. So we have thrown away our munitions reserves, at the expense of caring for Americans, for no gain.

I wish I could say that Ohio would benefit by replenishing these stockpiles with our state’s defense industries, but we do not make these products here. Perhaps Texas, Arizona, and California will benefit. We make tanks, but now that funding for Ukraine is in question, Ohio is not benefiting by assisting Ukraine, as I outlined in my article for The Land, ⁷ and our defense industries do not profit from war with Iran.

Congressional Approval

Who approved this widespread suffering in Ohio, the country, and the world, not even counting Iranian casualties, at a cost exceeding $38 billion? Trump did. In spite of Congress’s repeated effort to debate a War Powers Resolution to compel the Trump Administration to define goals and objectives and justify the cost, Congress has refused to hold the administration accountable.

Vice President and former Ohio Senator JD Vance called the 1973 War Powers Resolution “fundamentally fake and unconstitutional.” ⁸

Senator Bernie Moreno posted on his official website Trump’s praise for Moreno’s refusal to pass the resolution. ⁹

Since Trump launched the war on February 28, Senator John Husted has voted five times against war powers resolutions that would have reined in the president’s authority. ¹⁰

And alleged wife beater Congressman Max Miller has voted against the act four times.

District 14 Representative David Joyce also has consistently voted against the act.

Only GOP Representative Warren Davidson of Southern Ohio has voted in favor of the act.

The 1973 War Powers Act was put in place after the Vietnam War to prevent U.S. presidents from committing the United States to war. Trump justifies his $38 billion expenditure by calling the war a “skirmish,” insisting he does not need congressional authority. Democratic Party candidates running against Husted, Miller, and Joyce in this year’s midterms pledge to vote in favor of the resolution and end the war. The war, and its justification, are now a battleground issue in Ohio, a state where foreign policy is rarely a factor.

JCPOA

The Obama Administration, after months of negotiations among diplomats and experts, passed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or “Iran Deal,” on July 14, 2015. The United States, EU, Russia, China, and Iran all agreed on the deal. The plan allowed Iran to retain some enriched uranium in exchange for intrusive, regular inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and a commitment to not acquire nuclear weapons. The deal also unfroze potentially $30 billion in assets frozen since the 1979 Iranian revolution. The plan was successful for three years, until Trump unilaterally withdrew in 2018, ending IAEA inspections, after which Iran immediately returned to enriching uranium.

Prior to withdrawing from the JCPOA, Trump fired the nation’s leading nuclear non-proliferation experts, beginning with Assistant Secretary for Arms Control Tom Countryman, who oversaw the negotiations of the JCPOA and who was on a negotiating mission with Russian and British nonproliferation experts in Amman, Jordan, when he received a phone call to return to Washington. This is all documented in Pulitzer Prize winner Ronan Farrow’s book, War on Peace, ¹¹ and later confirmed to me personally during subsequent conversations with Countryman. And Trump continued, gutting the experts who negotiated the plan, thereby eliminating our institutional knowledge of nuclear safeguards and Iran’s nuclear program.

Trump’s long-standing fetish with Iran allegedly began during the 1978 hostage crisis, when he was consumed with American humiliation. This long-standing grudge, combined with the obsession with destroying everything Obama, and topped with a long-standing friendship with the equally crooked and amoral Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, made “wiping out Iranian civilization” Trump 2.0’s primary foreign-policy objective. He was determined to go to war with Iran, even though he did not know why, nor did he have to justify his objectives to our allies, the U.S. Congress, or the American people.

Any deal Trump puts together with his Keystone Cops negotiating team of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff is doomed to yield a much worse deal than the JCPOA, with long-standing principles of Freedom of the Sea international law violated by giving up free passage of the Strait of Hormuz. Trump is also likely to throw in more money than the $30 billion in frozen assets foreseen in the JCPOA. The outcome will be a huge diplomatic, economic, and military loss for the United States, and a significant win for the resilient, proud, and now united Islamic Republic of Iran. This is what a foreign policy without diplomacy looks like.

Who Is Iran?

This massive failure was conducted against the backdrop of total ignorance of Iran and its culture. Any successful negotiation requires research into one’s opponent’s position, including motivation and knowledge of objectives. A simple financial transaction, the kind Trump likes, is much simpler and geared to a one-off situation. In diplomacy, you are in a long-term relationship where every step goes to build that relationship, usually to mutual benefit.

In April alone, Trump floated the following counterproductive negotiating positions:

April 5, Truth Social (Easter Sunday post): “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.”

April 6 or 7: “The entire country could be taken out in one night, and that night might be tomorrow night. ... Because of the power of our military, every bridge in Iran will be decimated, every power plant in Iran will be out of business, burning, exploding and never to be used again.” (Author’s note: all war crimes.)

April 7, Truth Social (deadline day): “A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” ¹²

Four months later, nothing has changed. On the August 2 CNN GPS show, renowned Iranian expert Dr. Sanam Vakil responded to host Farid Zakaria’s question of how to get out of the conflict: “We’ve seen bombing does not work, it is time to return to diplomacy.”

In 2005, when I was Chargé d’Affaires in Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, a senior Farsi-speaking Hungarian diplomat visited, looking for a beer and pork break. At that time, Iran was still receiving enriched uranium from Russia, allegedly for civilian use with its Bushehr nuclear reactor. “As an oil- and gas-producing nation, why does Iran need nuclear energy?” I asked. “You have to understand Iran, the national culture remains that of the descendants of the great Persian Empire of 500 BC, that ruled the then-known world. You cannot tell a single Iranian of any political or religious persuasion that Iran is less equal than any world power. If the barbaric Russians and Americans can have nuclear weapons, Iran should have them too.”

Your 13-year-old son can Google how to build a nuclear weapon. Furthermore, no amount of bombing will destroy Iran’s considerable brain trust. Iran will always have the know-how and, we are seeing through its ongoing cooperation with Russia and China, will always have access to uranium.

Empty rants of denying Iran nuclear weapons only consolidate Iranian resolve. This resolve is strengthened at the expense of our daily gas prices, depleted weapons, and allied support. Maybe we can wait until the November midterms, but we have to end this madness on November 3.

Stay Angry.

Ambassador (retired) Jennifer Brush is a 30-year national and international diplomat with specialties in nuclear non-proliferation, the Balkans, Central Asia, and Mongolia. She was born in Solon, where she currently resides, and is President of the Solon Democratic Club.

Footnotes

1. News 5 Cleveland: “Ohio farmers face steeper prices as diesel and fertilizers soar”

2. Ohio Country: “Farms and farm lands are declining across Ohio”

3. Columbus Underground: “Ohio businesses blame Trump tariffs, Iran war for economic downturn”

4. Cleveland.com: “Trump policies have cost Ohio households thousands since January 2025”

5. RealClearDefense: “Airpower Can’t Occupy a Hill”

6. Military Spend: U.S.–Iran War Tracker

7. The Land: “Supporting Ukraine boosts Ohio’s economy”

8. The Hill: “Vice President Vance and war powers”

9. Sen. Bernie Moreno: Trump praises Moreno for helping defeat Democrats’ war powers resolution

10. Senate Majority: “Sixty days in, Jon Husted is still signing off on Trump’s war”

11. Ronan Farrow, War on Peace

12. International Business Times: Trump’s Iran remarks

This is part of our ongoing analysis of races around Ohio. Our mission is simple: focus on policy, accountability, and candidates who are actually trying to make life better for Ohioans. We do not have time to fall back on “vote blue no matter who” while candidates run on thin policy, vague promises, and no clear plan to get anything done.

This time, we are looking at the race between Nicole Sigurdson and Ed Hargate for Ohio House District 19. The purpose of these comparisons is to create a framework for understanding what each candidate is running on, what they have done, what they say they will do, and who is funding them.

District 19 runs from Cleveland’s Old Brooklyn neighborhood south through Brecksville and Seven Hills, then east to Solon and Pepper Pike and north to Highland Heights and Mayfield Heights. Term-limited Democrat Phil Robinson holds the seat now, and he beat his Republican opponent by 14 points in 2024, according to Ballotpedia’s district records. The general election is Tuesday, November 3, 2026, and the Democrat is heavily favored to win it.

Meet Nicole Sigurdson

Nicole Sigurdson is a lifelong Ohioan, labor organizer, and Old Brooklyn resident. For the past five years she has worked as an organizer with SEIU 1199, representing healthcare and social service workers across northern Ohio. She describes growing up in the Cleveland suburbs, meeting her husband Lucas in 2020, and marrying in 2024.

She won the May 5 Democratic primary with 5,668 votes in a four-way field, beating Dionna Gore and Cheryl Perez. She carried the endorsement of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party.

What Sigurdson says she will do

Her platform page sorts her positions into four buckets. Here’s the full list.

Economy: Stand with unions and protect collective bargaining rights. Oppose efforts that weaken worker protections. Raise wages. Defend workplace safety standards. Address the gender and racial pay gaps. Support small business growth and local economies. Protect the right of women to make their own healthcare decisions. Ensure equal access to democracy.

Education: Fully and fairly fund public schools through the Fair School Funding Plan. Provide safe classrooms, modern learning tools, and support for educators. Preserve what already works in the district’s stronger school systems. Build pathways from early childhood education through college and career readiness.

Environment: Safeguard Lake Erie from pollution and harmful algal blooms. Invest in solar and wind energy. Remove lead from older homes, schools, and buildings. Address climate change and build sustainable growth.

Additional: Protect the rights of LGBTQ+ Ohioans. Pass gun safety reforms including background checks and responsible ownership measures. Expand access to affordable housing and homeownership. Continue the fight for equity and opportunity across race, gender, and background.

Our read

Sigurdson calls herself a strong, unapologetic voice for the district. Translated, that phrase covers a platform on which almost nothing would draw an argument at a Cuyahoga County Democratic Party meeting. Fully fund schools, protect collective bargaining, defend abortion access, invest in renewables. Every Democrat in Ohio says those words. The unapologetic part would show up in the details, and the details are where this platform is light.

Sigurdson draws a paycheck as an organizer for SEIU 1199. SEIU 1199 PAC is also her single largest donor at $16,615.67, which matches Ohio’s published per-election contribution cap for legislative candidates to the penny and accounts for nearly 38 percent of everything she raised.

That relationship runs straight into the job she is seeking. District 19 is the exclusive bargaining agent for roughly 25,000 State of Ohio employees, and its 2024-2027 state contract is negotiated with the state itself.

In 2024 the union ran a public campaign telling Ohioans that “out of touch lawmakers” were failing state workers on wages and staffing. The General Assembly writes the budget that pays for those contracts. Her employer’s bargaining counterparty is the body she wants to join.

Now compare what the platform commits to against what it leaves open. She promises to stand with unions, protect collective bargaining, and oppose efforts that weaken worker protections.

Those are the positions District 19 needs from a state representative, and they cost her nothing to say. Then comes “raising wages,” with no figure attached. She told Signal Cleveland she is campaigning on increasing the minimum wage, and her own platform page never says to what number, by when, or through which bill. Ohio’s minimum wage fight has specific figures and a specific ballot history behind it, and five years into a labor career she should be the sharpest person in this race on that math.

That same lack of detail covers state worker pay, safe staffing levels, and long-term care standards, which are the issues her employer spends money campaigning on. Those workers appear in her biography. Their policy does not appear in her platform. A candidate funded by her own employer owes voters more precision on that employer’s agenda, not less.

Sigurdson has published nothing about how she would handle a vote on a contract her employer negotiated. She has not said whether she would recuse, whether she would keep the job, or whether she sees a problem at all. None of that is a hard question for a candidate who has thought about it, and none of it has an answer on her website.

Then there is the party. Sigurdson’s largest single payee was the Ohio Democratic Party’s restricted fund at $8,215.76, and she paid the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party another $3,000, which is better than a quarter of everything her campaign spent.

The Cuyahoga County party endorsed her, and her campaign moved $11,215.76 to party committees over the cycle. Common practice is not the same as clean practice, and readers of this publication have watched that particular loop tighten in race after race. The endorsement steers the primary. The primary decides the seat. The winner pays the endorser. For what, we can only speculate.

Where she does get specific, she is good, and the same standard applies in both directions. Naming the Fair School Funding Plan matters, because that is a live budget fight in Columbus with a dollar figure attached and she picked a side of it. Lead removal from older homes and schools is a concrete, measurable program. Safeguarding Lake Erie and investing in solar and wind are positions rather than plans.

The “Additional” section compresses four separate issues into one paragraph. LGBTQ+ rights, gun policy, housing, and civil rights each carry their own legislative fights in this General Assembly, and bundling them signals which four issues she expects to vote on rather than lead on.

There is also the matter of her “from the river to the sea” post on Instagram in January 2025, which she later posted a video apologizing for it. She took responsibility publicly, which counts for something in a party that usually handles these episodes by waiting them out. Voters in the district’s largest Jewish communities get to decide whether that closes it.

Meet Ed Hargate

Ed Hargate is a Cleveland-area attorney. He was born in Cleveland, raised in Highland Heights, earned a history degree from Grove City College, and graduated from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law. He has practiced civil litigation, domestic relations, and juvenile law. He joined the city council in 1984 and served four years as council president. He also led the Friends of the Mayfield Library for 25 years and served eight years as a Vice District Chairman with the Boy Scouts of America.

Two facts belong next to that record. Highland Heights voters removed him from council in November 2025, where he finished fourth of four candidates for three at-large seats with 1,087 votes, losing to first-time candidate Bill Morton after 40 years in office. He is also not the Republican who originally filed for this seat. Eric Geyer filed in February and died before the primary, and Hargate filed on April 22, less than two weeks out, then ran unopposed.

What Hargate said he would do

His campaign website lists four positions as of 2020 that have not been updated since. Here is the full list.

Protect our environment. Support Governor DeWine’s H2Ohio plan to clean and protect Ohio’s freshwater resources. Continue to emphasize zero emission solutions for energy production.

Improve education. Allow local boards of education to hire retired military and police officers to help protect students. Fight to keep locally generated tax dollars with local schools.

Encourage economic growth. Encourage students and graduates to enter skilled trade programs that develop new industries and lead to high-paying, high-skilled jobs.

Increase access to care. Create a state tax credit for people caring for elderly and special needs family members. Establish higher standards of care for nursing homes, hospitals, and rehabilitation facilities.

In 2020 he added detail that has not appeared since. He told Chagrin Valley Today he is a strong supporter of local home rule and opposed state efforts to redirect locally generated tax dollars. On vouchers, he said students should have school choice and that the state, not the local district, should pay for EdChoice.

Our read

Start with the website. The banner at the top of edhargate.com still reads “Election Day: March 17th, 2020.” The endorsement it advertises is a Plain Dealer nod from the 2020 Republican primary in the old District 6. The site has exactly one page, confirmed by its own sitemap. Voters in District 19 have no published statement from Hargate about what he would do in the 136th General Assembly, only a six-year-old brochure for a different district and a different election.

A candidate who cannot spend one afternoon changing a date and a district number is telling this district exactly just how important he thinks it is.

This is not a first-timer who doesn’t know better. Hargate spent 40 years in elected office and has practiced law for decades. He ran for a legislative seat in 2020 and put $33,205.80 behind it, so he knows precisely what a campaign requires. He is choosing not to run one. The four issues on that page were written for a district that no longer exists in that shape, and they do not mention Cleveland once, in a race where Old Brooklyn, Newburgh Heights, Cuyahoga Heights, and Brooklyn Heights are on the ballot alongside Solon and Pepper Pike.

Northeast Ohio has real business in front of the legislature while that page sits there. Voucher expansion is pulling money out of the public districts in this seat. Lead in older Cleveland housing is still poisoning children. Lake Erie water quality, utility costs, and housing prices all run through the General Assembly. Hargate is asking to vote on every one of those with a six-year-old brochure addressed to somebody else’s constituents. Voters have no indication or reason to believe he has thought about any of this since 2020.

Campaign Finance

Nicole Sigurdson

Nicole Finance Files

Sigurdson’s campaign raised $44,164.67 and spent $42,086.34 through the post-primary reporting period. The SEIU’s contribution of $16,615.67 is the maximum any PAC or individual may give an Ohio legislative candidate per election, according to Ballotpedia’s summary of Ohio campaign finance law.

Add the Ohio AFL-CIO at $1,000, the North Shore Federation of Labor PAC at $1,000, and the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen PAC Fund at $500, and organized labor supplied more than 43 percent of her money. She gave her own campaign $760, and her largest individual donor was Chann Fowler-Spellman at $1,000. Transparency USA logs 167 contributions and 27 expenditures for the committee.

On the spending side, after the two party committees, Public Ruckus took $4,000.01 for consulting and three printers took a combined $10,807.67. She also spent $2,075 with Cleveland Jewish Publications.

Two institutions supplied and absorbed the bulk of this campaign, and both will have business in the Ohio legislature. District 19 is entitled to hear how she plans to handle that before the vote, not after the oath.

Ed Hargate

Ed's Finance Files

The Friends of Ed Hargate Committee reports no contributions and no expenditures for the entire 2026 cycle, through the most recent Ohio reporting period ending June 30.

His 2020 run in District 6 took in $5,275 and spent $33,205.80, so he is running behind his own six-year-old pace in a race he has not visibly started. A campaign that raises nothing and spends nothing is not a campaign.

There is a cost to that beyond his own prospects. A Democrat who faces no funded opponent faces no pressure to explain themselves, and District 19 loses the forum, the contrast, and the questions a real race would have forced. Republicans conceding a seat is one of the quieter ways Democratic voters get handed a nominee instead of a choice.

What We Are Watching

Ohio’s pre-general reports land in late October and will show whether the Ohio Republican Party or the House Republican caucus decides this district is worth funding, and whether Sigurdson’s labor support scales up or stays where it is.

We will also be watching whether either candidate agrees to a public forum, whether Hargate publishes anything at all about this district, and whether Sigurdson puts a number next to the word “wages” before ballots are counted on November 3.

To Ed Hargate: take down the 2020 site and tell District 19 voters what you would do in Columbus.

To Nicole Sigurdson: name the minimum wage increase, publish your position on state contracts your employer negotiates, and tell this district in writing what you will do the first time District 19 and your constituents want opposite things.

Stay Angry

Get 20% off for 1 year

The Federal Election Commission’s second-quarter reports came due Tuesday, covering April 1 through June 30. They are the first full financial X-ray of the general election since Brian Poindexter, a union ironworker from Brook Park, won the May primary and set up a race against Rep. Max Miller that Cook Political Report, Sabato’s Crystal Ball, and Inside Elections all recently moved off safe-Republican, even while all three still favor Miller to win. (Signal Ohio) We break down some of the donors below.

Two Different Reports

Max Miller, the Republican incumbent, reported $2,142,561.93 raised this cycle, $937,959.47 spent, and $1,379,131.85 in the bank as of June 30. That last number is the one that matters, because cash on hand can steer a lot of momentum right before election day.

Brian Poindexter reported $603,155.59 raised, $290,865.42 spent, and $312,290.17 on hand. Miller has more than four dollars in the bank for every one Poindexter does. (FEC, Ohio House District 07, 2026)

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

Where Miller’s Money Comes From

Start with what did not come from voters. Of Miller’s $2,142,561.93, individuals gave only $924,384.95. That’s 43%. The non-itemized small-dollar money, the sub-200-dollar checks campaigns love to wave around, made up only $165,676.57 of that total and only about 7.7% of the total.

The majority of Miller’s money came from committees, not people. Political action committees gave him $656,840.80. Another $559,412.60 arrived as transfers from his own joint fundraising committee, Max Miller Victory. Add those two and you get more than $1.2 million, about 57 cents of every dollar he raised, moving through Committees and PACS. (FEC)

Who are the PACs? The biggest is AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, at $24,500 across the primary and general. The Republican Jewish Coalition PAC gave $14,000. Then the corporate roster, most of it at the $5,000 maximum: the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, MGM Resorts International, Stanley Black and Decker, and Lubrizol, the Ohio chemical maker. (FEC receipts)

The real-estate money is not incidental. Miller is a member of one of Cleveland’s wealthiest families, which built its fortune founding and selling the real-estate giant Forest City Enterprises. (Signal Ohio) His money map looks like his biography. Corporate PACs, a joint-fundraising machine, and a national donor network writing 7,000-dollar maximums out of New Jersey, Texas and Colorado, not Parma.

Two of those maximum checks are worth naming. Anatoly Yakovenko, the CEO of Solana Labs, wrote $7,000 from Boulder. Donald Wilson, who founded the Chicago trading firm DRW, wrote another $7,000. Both are crypto executives, and both gave in March, the same month Miller was doing something specific for their industry. (FEC receipts) (Tiffin Ohio) Both men’s companies carry federal legal histories. Yakovenko is a named defendant in an unproven civil racketeering suit over the Pump.fun memecoin platform, which he is contesting. An SEC case against Wilson’s trading firm, Cumberland DRW, was dismissed last year under the Trump administration, on regulatory-reform grounds rather than the merits. (Tiffin Ohio)

Miller sits on the Ways and Means Committee, which writes the tax code. He voted for the CLARITY Act, the crypto deregulation bill the House passed last year. He co-wrote a draft that would exempt small stablecoin purchases from capital gains tax. And he is, by his own account, a convert. At a blockchain summit in March, the same month those checks came in, he told the industry, “It’s because of your industry and people like you as to why I’m up here passionate about cryptocurrency.” (Tiffin Ohio) The people writing him 7,000-dollar checks are the people he thanked for connecting him to crypto.

Miller’s committee also reports $970,000 in debts it still owes. The war chest is real. So is this bill. (FEC)

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

Where Poindexter’s Money Comes From

Poindexter raised $603,155.59, and he raised it differently. Individuals gave $439,659.22, or 73% of his total. His non-itemized small-dollar money came to $148,901.64, roughly a quarter of everything he raised and the single largest slice of his haul. He put in $1,420 of his own. He took no loans and no party transfers, and he carries no debt. (FEC)

His PAC money, $162,073 in all, reads like a union hall. The building trades wrote him $5,000 checks one after another. His own union, the Iron Workers, the Bricklayers, the Elevator Constructors, the Machinists, the Communications Workers of America, the United Auto Workers, the Painters, and the Longshoremen. (FEC receipts)

The interesting thing is that Labor did not line up entirely behind the union candidate. Three building-trades committees, the Operating Engineers Local 18, the Plumbers and Pipefitters, and the Firefighters, put their $5,000 into Max Miller, the incumbent, not Poindexter. (FEC receipts) Incumbency has its own gravity. Some of the trades are hedging.

There is one more layer, and it is the one that matters most. The biggest money in Ohio 7 is not in either candidate’s own report. It is being spent around them, by groups whose names are not on the ballot.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

The Outside Money Democrats Don’t Want to Advertise

Independent expenditures are the dollars spent for or against a candidate by groups that are legally forbidden from coordinating with the campaign. On paper, the candidate technically has nothing to do with them, but some campaigns are better enforcers of this boundary than others. In practice, there is at the very least, passive coordination.

Here is what the FEC has logged in Ohio 7 so far.

Jobs and Democracy PAC has reported $570,203.89 supporting Brian Poindexter. BDA PAC, the independent-expenditure arm tied to the centrist Blue Dog Democrats, has reported $198,019.35 supporting him. (FEC) Local reporting, which captures the fast-turnaround filings the summary tables leave out, puts the totals higher still, at roughly $1 million in pro-Poindexter ads and about $360,000 in pro-Poindexter mailers during the primary. (Signal Ohio)

An ironworker who won a primary on $150,000 in small checks had close to a million dollars in outside air support spent to get him there.

So who is Jobs and Democracy PAC?

They are the Democratic arm of a spending network called Public First, seeded by a $20 million donation that Anthropic, the artificial-intelligence company, made to the network’s nonprofit in February. The network’s stated purpose is pushing for tougher federal regulation of AI, which should be read as fighting for more control of regulation of AI. (OpenSecrets) As to why an AI firm based in San Francisco, not Ohio, spent more than half a million dollars, by the FEC’s own count, to help elect a Brook Park city councilman in suburban Cleveland, Poindexter says he doesn’t know. “I think they see in me somebody who can win this seat,” he told Signal Ohio. AI is a point of contention across this state with the majority of Ohioans

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

The Number Nobody is Talking About

Now look at what is missing from the outside-money ledger.

There is no independent expenditure logged against Poindexter. None supporting Miller. Zero. The House Majority PAC, the main Democratic outside group, has still not reserved a dollar of general-election air time in Ohio 7. (Signal Ohio) And the Republican side, for all Miller’s cash on hand, has not yet drawn a single outside dollar to defend him.

That silence is the tell. The big institutional players on both sides are watching Ohio 7 and keeping their options open. The only outside money that has actually moved is the AI network and the Blue Dogs, both betting early and both betting on the challenger. Miller has the bank account. Poindexter has the early believers. Nobody with real reserves has committed yet.

On paper, Ohio 7 is safe-Republican (Trump +11). By the numbers alone, no serious outside group would spend here. Yet the race-raters (Cook, Sabato, Inside Elections) did downgrade Miller, and Signal Ohio reports they did it "in part" because of Miller’s divorce and abuse allegations. So the thing making this district potentially competitive is not fundraising totals or partisan lean. It's the scandals that is making it interesting.

What Does this All Mean?

Donors are hedging bets on Max Miller’s scandals, which could prove to amount to a very late (like last 2-3 weeks) influx of money for his campaign if things stay quiet. That should be a motivator for Poindexter to push hard on fundraising, and at this writing, he is significantly behind Miller with cash on hand.

Miller is the candidate of the institutions. Corporate PACs, his family's real-estate world, pro-Israel money, a joint-fundraising machine, and crypto executives writing maximum checks to the man drafting their tax breaks.

Poindexter is the candidate of the building trades and the small-dollar donor, lifted into the general election by an AI company's super PAC and the centrist Blue Dog Democrats group. One coalition is richer and more institutional. Both are carrying an agenda that is not the district's.

The Angry Democrats

The Company Store 2.0: How Stablecoins Are A Threat

Cathie Wood, the CEO of ARK Invest, has started to trim her bull case for Bitcoin. Her reason is simple: she believes stablecoins are going to take a large share of the digital money market. She is right to worry. Stablecoins are the biggest threat not only to sovereign money like Bitcoin but also to the entire idea of financial independence…

Read more

9 months ago · 2 likes · 2 comments · The Angry Democrat

Campaign donations are never neutral. On either side. The crypto donors want the stablecoin exemption Miller is writing. The AI network wants a vote it can count on for tougher regulation of its rivals. When either of them spends, it is buying a position, not cheering a hometown kid.

For voters following this race, Watch the independent-expenditure line at the FEC's Ohio 7 page for yourself. Not the candidates' totals, the outside money.

This where the decision to actually contest this seat will show up first, in close to real time, weeks before the election.

Stay Angry.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Ohio offers a few routes into nursing. The fastest is the LPN track — about a year of schooling, followed by the NCLEX, the national licensing exam. LPNs can already perform many RN-level tasks. From there, an LPN-to-RN bridge program (typically a few semesters) leads to an Associate’s degree, and a second NCLEX exam to earn RN licensure. Other options skip the LPN step entirely: direct-entry RN/Associate degree programs, or accelerated BSN (ABSN) programs for those who want a bachelor’s-level credential faster.

Schools such as Fortis, Hondros, Valley College, Bryant and Stratton College, Arizona College of Nursing, and Polaris Career Center are schools that prey on peoples desires to better themselves by offering “no prerequisite” starts to nursing school. They charge an inexplicable amount of money for attendance, which students will be shackled to for a good part of their lives. For example, Arizona College of Nursing, which is owned by Searchlight Capital Partners, is a major global private equity firm.¹ On its website it is notably hard to find an exact price for tuition, so I had to go over some twists and turns to find out that in Cleveland, the school charges $843 per credit hour or a total of $101,160 for the total cost of the program.² To give you a price comparison, the Associate degree RN program at TRI-C costs between $8,000 and $10,000 and most of that would be subsidized by FAFSA, or WIOWA grants through the State.³

Arizona College of Nursing has been marred in controversy.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

Their main campus in Tempe, AZ was placed under probation by the Arizona Board of Nursing due to complaints of noncompliance with program policy and standards, inadequate clinical faculty, and decline in program completion rates.

When opening their Connecticut location, they were met with resistance from the Board of Nursing due to their troubles from the Tempe Campus. The Nursing Board revoked their approvals for the College’s Hartford Campus because the Board stated they were not transparent about what was happening in Arizona. The Hartford campus ultimately opened, however the agreement with the college and Connecticut Board of Nursing is missing public documents, and according to a local news investigation, both parties had a “desire to avoid litigation.” ⁴

In 2022, the college faced a lawsuit in Texas where a group of 20 students alleged the school was committing fraud and violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The group of students stated the school was overcharging for classes, making classes more difficult in an attempt to fail them, which includes testing on subject matters that were never taught.

Arizona College of Nursing recently received program approval from the Ohio Board of Nursing. Time will tell to see what arises from the school.

Another local school worth naming: Hondros College of Nursing.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

It’s marketing promises “the better way to become a nurse,” but its reputation tracks closely with Arizona College of Nursing’s — and so does its price tag, which runs well above what nursing education should cost. Hondros is a subsidiary of American Public Education, Inc. (NASDAQ: APEI), and like its counterpart, it front-loads costs and bills students monthly instead of by semester — a structure that keeps students on the hook longer and makes it harder to walk away once they’ve started paying.

Life doesn’t pause for a nursing program.

Family emergencies, a new baby, a financial crisis — these things happen, and sometimes school has to wait. But Hondros isn’t built to accommodate that reality. Buried in the contract every student signs is a clause stating that once the term has started, you owe a percentage of tuition regardless of whether you finish — drop out, take a leave, doesn’t matter. So on top of tuition that’s already inflated, students who hit a life crisis get hit with a bill for classes they never completed.

Entrapping a student with debt then placing a burden on them if they need to excuse themselves from school is NOT “The better way to become a nurse” rather the better way for Wallstreet to take advantage of people who want to better their lives.

I know this struggle personally.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

I failed prerequisites, failed out of classes, dropped out at one point — and still made it through to earn both my LPN and RN licensure. That story isn’t unique. Plenty of nurses carry a version of it, along with struggles that never make it into a conversation. Which is exactly why piling more pressure onto students already fighting to get through nursing school is the wrong move. But that’s what for-profit schools like Hondros do. On top of the financial burden, they enforce rigid course-repeat policies: score below a “C,” or withdraw from a class, and you get exactly two chances to pass it. Miss both, and you’re done — no matter what was happening in your life at the time.

I believe in perseverance, because I’ve lived it. There’s something to be said for a person who fails, then claws their way back and succeeds anyway — it forges a kind of resilience you can’t fake. Give me a nurse who stumbled through a hard class but refused to quit. That failure isn’t a red flag. It’s proof they don’t give up when things get hard. That’s exactly who I want at my bedside.

Furthermore, evidence suggests nurses who repeat courses are not “bad nurses” in any stretch, if anything predatory policies such as the two-strike rule only further exacerbates the nursing staffing issues that the country faces.⁵ Institutions beat them down even before they enter an already toxic practice. In education we need to be supportive, and nurture the next generation of healthcare professionals, rather than beating them down.

Graduating from Hondros doesn’t end the problem — it just moves it further down the road.

Many healthcare employers hesitate to hire from for-profit schools like Hondros over accreditation concerns, and graduates who want to pursue a BSN often hit a wall: reputable universities won’t accept transcripts from schools without national nursing accreditation. That accreditation comes from one of two bodies — ACEN or CCNE. Hondros has neither. What it has instead is ABHES accreditation, a different (and less widely recognized) standard. The result: many bachelor’s programs simply won’t take Hondros credits, pushing graduates back into another for-profit school just to finish their degree. Take Ohio State’s own admissions criteria, screenshotted below — it explicitly requires a nursing program accredited by one of the recognized bodies, not just any accreditor.

I never completed Hondros’s program myself.

Get 20% off for 1 year

Get 20% off for 1 year

I’ve talked to enough students and nurses who did graduate from the Hondros program — the same word comes up again and again: awful. And you don’t have to trust my word for it. Spend ten minutes on Reddit or any nursing forum, and you’ll find the same story on repeat: students at for-profit schools describing an education that took their money and gave little back in return.

That’s the real cost of private equity’s grip on nursing education — it preys on people whose only crime is wanting to do good in the world. Nurses don’t choose this field for the money. They choose it to advocate for people, to show up in the moments no one else will. So to every school marketing itself as “the better way to become a nurse”: prove it. Live up to your own words.

Stay Angry.

1. https://searchlightcap.com/portfolio/arizona-college-of-nursing/

2. https://arizonacollege.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/AZC_Catalog_BSN_20260101_No26_V1b.pdf

3. https://www.tri-c.edu/paying-for-college/tuition-and-fees/index.html

4. https://hartfordbusiness.com/article/arizona-college-of-nursing-gets-green-light-to-open-east-hartford-campus/

5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30865153/

We have a couple of updates on the Cuyahoga County Council District 5 race between Courtney Scheff and current County Councilman Michael Gallagher.

After our first piece came out, Gallagher reached out to me directly to talk about the race and some of the issues I raised. He said we hit on several things that he believes are important, and he appreciated that somebody was paying attention to a County Council race that normally would not receive much coverage.

That meant a lot to us because that is exactly why The Angry Ohioans exists. These local offices control real money and make decisions that affect people across the county, yet most voters hear almost nothing about the candidates until a mailer shows up at their house.

Scheff also made a public statement explaining where she stands.

So let’s get into it.

What Is the Proposed 0.15% Sales Tax?

Cuyahoga County is facing another problem involving taxpayer funding for Progressive Field and Rocket Arena.

The Gateway Economic Development Corporation manages the two facilities. Under agreements dating back to the 1990s, the public is responsible for at least part of the major repairs and capital improvements. Gateway currently receives money from the county’s so-called sin tax on alcohol and cigarettes, which voters have renewed and extended over the years.

The problem is that the sin tax brings in roughly $13 million a year, and that money is divided among Progressive Field, Rocket Arena, and the Browns’ stadium. Repair costs have increased substantially, and Gateway has said Progressive Field and Rocket Arena could require approximately $150 million in repairs through 2029. The city and county already provided another $40 million in late 2024, and most of that money has either been spent or committed. Signal Cleveland and Ideastream Public Media have reported extensively on the problem.

One idea being discussed is an additional 0.15 percentage-point county sales tax. Cuyahoga County’s current combined sales tax rate is 8%, according to the Ohio Department of Taxation. The increase would bring that rate to 8.15%.

That means an additional 15 cents in tax on every $100 in taxable purchases, or another $1.50 for every $1,000 spent. That may not sound enormous on one purchase, but it would apply across taxable purchases throughout Cuyahoga County.

Based on the county’s projection that its existing 0.25-percentage-point sales tax would raise about $4 billion over 40 years, a 0.15-point increase could generate roughly $60 million per year. Actual collections would rise or fall with taxable consumer spending, and this remains an estimate rather than a formal revenue projection tied to enacted legislation.

This is not currently an approved tax. It is one of the ideas being discussed as local officials look for a long-term way to pay the Gateway repair bills. The especially contentious part is that County Council could potentially approve the increase without first putting it before voters. Gallagher told me that it would take six votes on the 11-member council.

Courtney Scheff’s Opinion: No Sales Tax Increase Without Voter Input

Scheff publicly stated that she does not support taking money away from basic county services to pay for sports facilities. She also said she does not support increasing the county sales tax without voter input, especially when other possible funding options have not been fully explored.

Her argument is that the county may have legal obligations created by decisions and lease agreements made in the 1990s, but those obligations do not justify quietly passing another sales tax increase.

Scheff laid out several alternatives. Those include asking voters to expand the existing sin tax, creating a special financing district around the Gateway facilities, working with the City of Cleveland on admissions-tax options, and asking the teams to lobby the state to tax sports betting for the purpose of funding sports facilities.

Her preferred solution is the sports-betting tax.

Scheff also called for a series of public hearings involving the teams, county residents, local stakeholders, and government officials. Her position is that the public should be able to hear why the county is responsible, what the projected repair costs are, and what the advantages and disadvantages would be for each funding option before County Council makes a decision.

So Scheff’s position is clear: Do not cut basic services to fund the facilities, and do not impose the additional sales tax without giving voters a say.

Michael Gallagher: “Hell No”

When I asked Gallagher directly whether he would vote for the 0.15-point sales tax increase, his answer was simple:

“Hell no.”

Gallagher said he does not believe there are currently six votes on County Council to pass it. He also said the teams had been encouraged to approach council members about the proposed increase, but that the idea quickly ran into political resistance.

His public position has been consistent. Gallagher previously called the proposed increase “absolute insanity” and said voters in his district have had enough of taxes.

However, Gallagher is not arguing that the county can simply walk away from the Gateway problem. He believes the ownership arrangements and lease obligations leave the county and the City of Cleveland responsible for maintaining the facilities. In other words, saying no to another tax does not make the repair bills disappear.

Gallagher has proposed using money from an existing 0.25% county sales tax that was extended for 40 years to pay for a new jail and work involving the Justice Center. His legislation would add stadium maintenance as an allowable use for money left after those justice-related obligations are met.

Gallagher estimates that approximately $25 million a year could be available for the sports facilities. That amount is Gallagher’s estimate and could change substantially depending on what the county eventually does with the jail, courthouse, and Justice Center.

Gallagher also supports continuing to push the state for an increase in the existing sin tax. His basic argument is that the county already extended a sales tax for 40 years and should use money available within that structure before coming back to residents with another tax increase.

Scheff and Gallagher arrive at different alternatives, but they agree on the most immediate question: Neither candidate supports County Council imposing the proposed 0.15-point sales tax increase without voter approval.

Campaign Finance Update: Courtney Scheff

Scheff Courtney County Council 2026 Postprim

652KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Attached above is Scheff’s complete 2026 post-primary campaign-finance report.

Scheff began the reporting period with $8,426.67. Her campaign received $18,145.00 in monetary contributions, bringing its total available funds to $26,571.67.

The campaign spent $1,369.77, leaving Scheff with $25,201.90 in cash on hand. It also received $831.52 in in-kind contributions, consisting of food, drinks, and postage Scheff personally provided for the campaign. The report lists no outstanding campaign loans or debts.

Of the money Scheff raised during the period, $8,080.00 came through an April 23 fundraiser. Her largest single contribution was $5,000.00 from the Committee to Elect Chris Ronayne. She also received $1,000.00 from the CSD Freedom Fund PAC, $500.00 from the North Shore Federation of Labor PAC, $500.00 from the Cuyahoga Democratic Women’s Caucus, and $250.00 from UFCW Local 880 PCE, along with contributions from individual donors and other Democratic campaign committees.

That $5,000 contribution from County Executive Chris Ronayne’s campaign committee, along with the $100 contribution from Friends of Dale Miller, the current County Council president, raises legitimate questions.

In our original article, I raised the question of whether Scheff would provide an independent check on the county executive or become another reliable vote for his administration. A contribution does not answer that question by itself, but it is relevant information for voters when one of the central issues in this race is independence from the county administration.

Campaign Finance Update: Michael Gallagher

Michael Gallagher 2026 Post Primary Campaign Finance Report

3.99MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

We now have Gallagher’s complete 2026 post-primary campaign-finance report, and it clears up the missing information from our original review.

Gallagher began the reporting period with $14,310.15. His campaign received $37,890.00 in monetary contributions, giving it $52,200.15 in total available funds.

The campaign spent $3,975.64, leaving Gallagher with $48,224.51 in cash on hand. It also reported receiving $6,030.00 in in-kind contributions.

Gallagher’s largest reported contribution was $5,000 from Michael and Mary Maloof. Six other donor entries gave $2,500 each: Lou Nekola, Kevin and Sharon Kilbane, Joe Ferreira, Louis and Valerie Joseph, Arthur and Olena Pusch, and Tre Bleu Holdings LLC.

Those seven donor entries provided $20,000, more than half of everything Gallagher raised during the reporting period. When the six contributions of $1,000 are included, approximately $26,000 of Gallagher’s $37,890 came from 13 donor entries. This is a campaign with a strong financial advantage, but a substantial amount of that advantage came from a relatively small number of large donors.

Gallagher also received $1,000 from Laborers Local 860 PCE and $100 from Heat and Frost Insulators Local 3.

Political committees also appear in the report. Boosters for Perciak, the campaign committee associated with longtime Strongsville Mayor Tom Perciak, contributed $1,000. Friends of Gordon Short contributed $200.

One contribution deserves additional scrutiny. The report lists $2,500 from Louis and Valerie Joseph. Public information identifies Lou Joseph as the president and CEO of the Brewer-Garrett Company. Brewer-Garrett has done business with Cuyahoga County, including an approved county contract in 2023 to upgrade building-automation systems at county facilities. The company also previously received larger county contracts for energy-conservation work in county buildings. Brewer-Garrett identifies Lou Joseph as its president and CEO, and county records document the company’s contracting history.

That does not prove an illegal contribution, a quid pro quo, or an actual conflict of interest. Gallagher is one member of an 11-member council, and the 2023 contract was approved through the county’s Board of Control. However, when the head of a company that receives county work contributes $2,500 to a sitting county councilman, voters have every right to know about it and ask whether Gallagher has voted on legislation involving that company.

The report also includes $2,500 from Tre Bleu Holdings LLC. I could not establish from the filing or available public information who controls that company or whether it has any business before the county. The contribution may be completely routine, but a business entity giving one of the campaign’s largest contributions deserves more explanation than just the name of the LLC.

There is also a $100 contribution from Democrat Patrick and Laura Kelly.

Comparing the Two Campaigns

Gallagher raised $37,890.00 during the reporting period, compared with Scheff’s $18,145.00. That means Gallagher raised $19,745.00 more during the period.

Gallagher finished with $48,224.51 in cash on hand, compared with Scheff’s $25,201.90. Gallagher therefore holds a cash advantage of $23,022.61 and has nearly twice as much money available heading into the general election.

The reports also show that neither campaign is spending heavily yet. Scheff spent only $1,369.77, while Gallagher spent $3,975.64. Both candidates are still building their reserves for the general election.

My Take

I am really sick of government mismanagement followed by another tax increase.

I understand that Cuyahoga County may have legal obligations under agreements made decades ago. Frankly, I do not care. Conditions have changed. If the county cannot meet those obligations with existing money, without gutting basic services that government is actually supposed to provide, then maybe it is time to challenge those agreements.

I would rather see the county fight this in court, risk defaulting on an outdated agreement, and force everyone back to the negotiating table than continue raising taxes on the people of Cuyahoga County. At some point, somebody in government has to be willing to say no. Maintaining sports facilities for ultra-billionaires who own teams for fun should not come before public safety, health services, transportation, and the basic responsibilities of county government.

Chris Quinn, the editor of Cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer, has also raised an important point about who uses these facilities. The fans do not come exclusively from Cuyahoga County. People drive in from Lake, Summit, Medina, Lorain, and other surrounding counties to attend games. Yet Cuyahoga County residents are expected to carry the tax burden.

How the hell does that make sense?

These stadiums are also increasingly playgrounds for people with disposable income. Going to a professional sporting event is expensive. Tickets are expensive. Parking is expensive. Food and drinks are expensive. Yes, teams run promotions and offer cheaper seats, but attending games regularly is still not affordable for a lot of working people.

So who pays the tax? Everybody.

Who regularly gets to enjoy what the tax is funding? A much smaller and generally wealthier group of people.

I am also not convinced that putting the tax before voters solves the problem. It sounds democratic, but we have to be honest about who actually votes in Cuyahoga County elections. Turnout in many Cleveland neighborhoods can sit in the well under 50%, while communities like Bay Village, Solon, Beachwood, Rocky River, Westlake, and Pepper Pike can produce turnout over 80% during presidential years.

The people most likely to vote on a stadium tax are also more likely to be able to afford tickets, parking, concessions, and the tax itself. Meanwhile, poorer residents who will still pay the tax every time they make a taxable purchase may never hear that the issue is on the ballot.

That is not an excuse for people failing to vote. It is an indictment of the pathetic voter engagement we see from the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party and other political institutions that claim to represent these communities. Putting the tax on the ballot does not automatically make the outcome fair when participation is so uneven.

In that environment, “let the voters decide” can become a political scapegoat. County officials avoid taking responsibility, wealthier and more politically engaged communities make the decision, and the cost is passed across the entire county, including to the people least able to afford it.

Just stop. The sales tax is already 8%. That is enough.

The original sin tax may have been poorly designed. It failed to grow with inflation, and it no longer produces enough money to cover the obligations created by these agreements. Fine. That does not mean the automatic answer should be another countywide tax.

Between the options currently being discussed, I prefer Gallagher’s proposal because it does not immediately increase the sales tax. He wants to use money from the existing 0.25% sales tax extension before asking residents for more.

But we already know the 0.25% extension was approved by County Council without going to voters.

Which was a campaign promise from the Ronayne campaign that he totally lied about and almost immediately walked back upon winning his election.

There is also a moral problem with both candidates’ alternatives. Scheff prefers taxing sports betting, while Gallagher supports increasing the existing sin tax on alcohol and cigarettes. In either case, the government would be relying on revenue disproportionately connected to addiction and destructive behavior.

One national study found that the heaviest 10% of drinkers consume 55.3% of all alcohol. That does not mean every heavy drinker is addicted, but it shows how dependent alcohol sales are on a relatively small number of people drinking enormous amounts. The same problem exists with cigarettes and gambling.

If these taxes funded addiction treatment, healthcare, or smoking cessation, that would at least connect the revenue to the damage being caused. Using money from people smoking, drinking excessively, or losing money gambling to repair sports facilities for billionaire team owners is a completely different moral calculation, and I do not support it.

So. Find the money that already exists. Negotiate harder with the teams. Bring the surrounding counties into the discussion. Challenge the old agreements if necessary. Make the billionaire owners pay more. If none of that works, then tell Gateway and the teams that Cuyahoga County cannot afford it.

What I want to hear from Scheff, Gallagher, and every member of County Council is whether any of them are willing to draw that line. Not another financing district. Not another carefully designed tax. Not another ballot issue that allows elected officials to wash their hands of the decision.

Just say no. We cannot afford it. If the teams or Gateway disagree, then fight it out.

Stay Angry.

This continues our analysis of races we are watching across Northeast Ohio. We are going to look at congressional races, Ohio House races, county council races, Ohio Senate races, and possibly a few judicial races as well.

But we are staying close to home first. We want to begin in places we know best, with communities we know, and with candidates we are familiar with before expanding outward.

Our next race is the Cuyahoga County Council District 5 race between Courtney Scheff and Michael Gallagher.

This is part of the larger work of The Angry Ohioans: comparing races around Northeast Ohio, looking at who is running, what they have done, what they say they will do, and who is funding them. The goal is not to rubber-stamp candidates or hide behind “vote blue no matter who.” The goal is to build a clear picture of who wants power, what they plan to do with it, and how voters can hold them accountable after Election Day.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Courtney Scheff

Courtney Scheff is a Navy veteran, attorney, former prosecutor, and 14-year North Royalton resident with experience in military law, civil litigation, and the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office.

Her background includes service in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, work as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, and community leadership through the North Royalton Democratic Club, PTA, MOMS Club, AARP Tax-Aide, and local civic organizations.

Scheff is a candidate focused on working families, public safety, core county services, strong public schools, unions, affordable health care, and fair treatment under the law.

Michael Gallagher

Michael Gallagher is the incumbent Cuyahoga County Council representative for District 5, first elected to County Council in 2010 and serving since 2011. His public service background includes 11 years on Strongsville City Council, including three years as Council President, service as a Southwest General Hospital trustee and Finance Committee chair, and a 30-year career with the 8th District Court of Appeals, where he retired as Deputy Court Administrator.

Gallagher is an experienced local official focused on public safety, county finances, juvenile justice, jail staffing, and serving as a check on county executive power.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

On the Issues

Policy count from their websites: Scheff 4, Gallagher 0.

Courtney Scheff

Protect Property Taxpayers: Scheff says she wants to consolidate duplicative programs, cut unnecessary projects, and focus county spending on essential services in order to control costs and prevent future property tax increases.

Matt’s Take: I would like to know which duplicative programs Scheff wants to consolidate and which projects she considers unnecessary. I support balancing the budget, and I think it is one of the most important things Cuyahoga County can do, but this needs more detail because Gallagher is making a similar argument and both plans feel either vague or haphazard right now.

Laura’s Take: “Consolidate duplicative programs” and “cut unnecessary projects” are pretty vague, and are frankly baseline fiscal policy that should be in effect anyway as a core tenant of tax money stewardship. These statements are not policy positions backed by anything substantive. The largest avoidable cost in this county is a jail that climbed from $550 million to nearly $900 million in cost. If protecting taxpayers does not start with rooting out the corruption there, it is not a plan.

Promote Safer Communities: Scheff says she supports law enforcement while also promoting accountability and safe policies that protect residents and taxpayer dollars.

Matt’s Take: This is very similar to Gallagher’s framing on public safety, and “supporting law enforcement” by itself is not really a policy. It may reassure voters who think Democrats want to defund the police, but it needs more substance about what she would actually do.

Laura’s Take: “Support law enforcement” and “accountability” are generally what our public officials should be doing, but its vague language that doesn’t identify a problem or propose a real solution. Basically, this framing suggests that Scheff may be more commited to preserving the status-quo.

There are real issues in Cuyahoga county. The most glaring are the sheriff’s overtime issue, a jail construction with over $400 million in cost overruns, and a jail under state investigation where people keep dying. I would expect a former prosecutor like Scheff to produce a sharper, more policy-forward answer informed by her time in that office.

County overtime hit almost $40 million last year, and the sheriff’s department contributed north of $20 million of that number, with overtime hours nearly doubled since 2017. But, hiring 40 deputies to decrease overtime may be wrong solution in this case, and one fact settles it. After the County Executive’s office took control of the sheriff’s budget, overtime came in under budget for the first time in years, down more than 4,000 hours, with no new deputies hired. The problem was not that they were understaffed, it was that nobody watching the till.

In 2025, nearly half of the county’s 50 highest-paid employees worked for the sheriff, and 10 of them out-earned him. One deputy retired in 2024 after booking nearly $200,000 in overtime, which turned a job that pays about $89,000 into a $312,000 payday in a single year. That is well above the roughly $175,000 salary the County Executive earns, and because Ohio counts overtime toward your pension, that spike pays out for life (News 5 Cleveland, Feb. 2026). The overtime was approved with a rubber stamp, and I mean that literally. A supervisor had a stamp made of the sheriff’s own face and used it to sign off on overtime until the sheriff found out and banned it. Misappropriating taxpayer funds seems to be a game to some County employees.

This is called the corruption. Before this county hires 40 more people into that system, someone should explain why the overtime vanished the second the Executive looked at the books. Candidates for County Council need to present a plan on rooting out the corruption. Otherwise, as a voter, I’d assume they are running to ensure it continues.

Subscribe now

Prioritize Core Services: Scheff says she wants to make sure residents continue to have access to essential county programs, including health services, social services, child protection, and senior support, especially as federal and state funding declines.

Matt’s Take: This seems connected to her property taxpayer argument about consolidating duplicative programs, which is also similar to Gallagher’s position. Clarification is still needed, but prioritizing core services as federal and state funding declines is a clearer contrast with Gallagher’s more cuts-and-consolidation framing.

Laura’s Take: (Illegal) Government clawbacks, and federal funding decreases are real and are forcing city, state, and county governments to make increasingly harder decisions. Its not a sustainable situation for homeowners who are stacked under increasing property tax bills across the state. There is a need to raise revenue to protect essential public service programs and my take on these policies are that neither candidate is specific enough about what the county will do about that aside from raising property taxes, which is not sustainable for most Cuyahoga County homeowners.

Invest in Public Goods to Promote Economic Growth: Scheff says she supports investing in roads, bridges, public hospitals, and parks to create jobs, strengthen neighborhoods, and attract new businesses.

Matt’s Take: Investing in roads, bridges, hospitals, and parks is critical, but Cuyahoga County needs to think bigger than basic maintenance. The question is how we use public investment to move the county into the 21st century, modernize communities, attract growth, and do it without burying taxpayers in new debt.

Laura’s Take: Our local infrastructure is not in good shape. I acknowledge its harder make headways under this Presidential Administration. I’d like to see a plan for how the County can claim a larger share of federal infrastructure funding. Luckily we currently have TWO Republican Senators representing us. How would candidates hold them accountable for delivering federal dollars for these critical local projects?

Michael Gallagher

Quick note on Mike Gallagher: Mike does not appear to have a campaign website, and honestly, he does not seem to be running much of a campaign. I am trying to make this as fair as possible, but from what I can find, he seems to be running on incumbency and an Irish last name while doing very little to tell voters what he has done, what he believes, or what he plans to do next. So I am going to compile this from the bits and pieces I can laboriously find across the internet, because he is not making it easy. Here is a link to a talk he had at the Strongsville GOP.

Public Safety and Sheriff Staffing: Gallagher has proposed hiring 40 additional sheriff’s deputies, arguing that the county can reduce overtime pressure inside the sheriff’s department and save money long-term. His analysis says the added hires could offset roughly $6.7 million in overtime and produce about $1.4 million in annual savings, while also addressing staffing problems tied to jail operations, inmate transports, electronic monitoring, and Cleveland inmates being held in the county jail.

Matt’s Take: I like this because it is an actual plan with actual numbers and actual proposed savings. Cuyahoga County clearly has a spending problem, and without real checks, balances, and cost controls, it is going to keep digging itself into a deeper hole.

Laura’s Take: As I said previously, the overtime issue is ridiculous and needs to be addressed. It is not apparent to me that hiring 40 extra Sheriff’s Deputies would help this issue fiscally because the County Executive has reduced overtime by 4,000 hours just by taking over the books. If there is a public safety issue this would solve, I would like to see Gallagher’s data on that. More Deputies doesn’t necessarily mean safer streets. I’d like to see how.

Jail and Justice Center: Gallagher supports moving forward with the new jail project, but argues that delays and political fighting drove the cost from earlier estimates of roughly $550 million to around $1 billion. His position is that the county waited too long, allowed politics to interfere, and now has little choice but to proceed because every month of delay adds more cost to taxpayers.

Matt’s Take: This is exactly what is wrong with government: they tell taxpayers one number, it balloons into another, and by the time it is done this could easily become a $1.5 to $2 billion project. Gallagher should be pushing to pull the plug, reset the process, and force this back into a real budget, but that may require more political courage than anyone in county government wants to show.

Laura’s Take: Translation - The jail is a Project Labor Agreement job, so the roughly $900 million in construction goes to the Cleveland building trades, whose business manager already welcomed the funding vote. Gallagher chairs public safety and sat on the steering committee that planned the project, and Council has already extended the county sales tax for another forty years, to 2067, to pay for it. Stopping now would cost the trades their biggest contract in years and force Council to admit it got played. So the real position from Gallagher is not really rooted in fiscal discipline, its ensuring he keeps the money moving and keeps Council bought in, even after prosecutors called the process illegal after the price blew past $900 million. Through all of it, his answer to critics is to put the "blinders on" and build.

Juvenile Crime and Juvenile Court Funding: Gallagher says juvenile crime is one of the county’s major public safety problems and has pushed for more support for juvenile court programs. He argues the county missed an opportunity by refusing to fund roughly $1 million in recommendations from a committee he helped put together, which included judges, prosecutors, public defenders, court advocates, and others working on juvenile justice issues.

Matt’s Take: Spending $1 million to fund another committee feels silly when Cuyahoga County has so many underdeveloped, gutted-out, poorly invested-in, high-crime areas that everyone keeps neglecting. This feels like missing the forest for the trees, and it is easier to miss that broader failure from places like Strongsville. Seems like a dog whistle for the Strongsville GOP.

Laura’s Take: Look who's on the committee he suggested: judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and court advocates, every one of them inside the system the money would fund, and not one parent, kid, or neighborhood voice from where crime actually happens. A panel built from the people who run the system will always find that the system needs more money. Groups like this are often founded as fronts for municipal systems to a). Seem like they are working to solve problems, and b). rubber stamp solutions that benefit themselves, their buddies, or the status quo. If Gallagher was really serious about addressing juvenile crime he would make sure there is money to support community organizations and programs that actually address poverty, recidivism rates, and youth engagement. He would be active in parent communities and include them in any process that is being build to address the issue.

County Spending and Budget Discipline: Gallagher argues that Cuyahoga County does not have a money problem as much as a spending problem. He says the county should focus on its core responsibilities: public safety, the courts, and health and human services for residents who cannot provide for themselves. He also says he voted against the county budget for the first time in his elected career because he believed the spending priorities were wrong.

Matt’s Take: I 100% agree with this. Cuyahoga County has a spending problem, and county government should be focused on its core responsibilities.

Laura’s Take: This is an area I agree with Gallagher. We do have a spending problem, but more than that, we have a spending priority problem.

Property Taxes and County Planning: Gallagher says the county has not done enough planning for the possible elimination or major reduction of property taxes in Ohio. He argues that while the county’s general fund may not rely as heavily on property taxes as schools and local governments do, the county would still face serious pressure from libraries, Metroparks, developmental disability services, and other property-tax-supported entities if that revenue disappeared.

Matt’s Take: The property tax petition did not get enough signatures this time, but this issue is not going away, and I agree with planning for the future. If county leaders are waiting until property tax revenue is actually gone before developing a real plan, or even an outline, shit, even a mood board, then they are being irresponsible.

Laura’s Take: Gallagher is probably right here. I think

Consolidating Services: Gallagher says the county should look at consolidating services, especially in areas like homelessness, health care, and mental health, rather than simply continuing to fund many separate nonprofits and programs. His argument is that the county may be able to deliver services more efficiently if it reduces duplication and coordinates programs more directly.

Matt’s Take: Scheff also talks about consolidating services, but she seems more careful about protecting health care and mental health, though we still need more detail from her. For Gallagher, I agree with cutting costs and being fiscally responsible, but homelessness, health care, and mental health are very different animals that need to be handled with extreme care, and we should be funding treatment centers, supporting professionals with a clear goal, and not just slapping them together with whatever other service you want to gut.

Laura’s Take: No, no, no, no, and no. "Consolidation" and "reducing duplication" are the words you reach for when you want to move money away from the small nonprofits that actually know their neighborhoods and hand it to preferred contractors (likely friendly with county government) who do not. The nonprofits fighting homelessness in this county are not duplication. They are the only people in this equation who know your block, your shelter, your name. Coordinating them into one county contract does not make the help more efficient. It makes your taxpayer money easier to steer. Cuyahoga County should be putting more into the organizations that work these communities every day, not less, and it should stop pretending that funneling dollars upward to people who have never set foot on the street they are paid to fix is a reform.

Mental Health and the Jail: Gallagher argues that the jail has effectively become one of the largest mental health facilities in Ohio because a large share of people in the jail have psychological problems. He says the county needs better coordination around mental health care, especially after the loss of the county’s only psychiatric emergency department.

Matt’s Take: This is 100% it. People with mental health issues are being treated like criminals and locked in jail because society has nowhere else to put them, but mental illness and criminal behavior are not the same thing and should not be treated the same way.

Laura’s Take: I agree with Matt. But Gallagher is vague here, and I have no idea what he believes the plan should be to address this. Both candidates should present their plans to address it.

Sports Facilities and Public Subsidies: Gallagher is critical of the county’s financial obligations tied to professional sports facilities. He says the county owns or is financially tied to major facilities, has borrowed money to meet those obligations, and cannot afford endless public handouts to teams. He points to his vote against funding for the Guardians’ stadium work as an example of saying no to additional taxpayer support.

Matt’s Take: 100%. Can we please stop using public money to fund professional sports teams, especially when the Guardians are one of the most profitable teams in baseball. They can fix their own damn stadium with the money they make from $8 shitty hot dogs, $15 beers, and $7 boxes of popcorn. But, County Council is debating adding 0.25% sales tax to give the sports teams more of a handout? Give me a break. Someone fight the insanity please? Please!

Laura’s Take: I agree with Gallagher here. How much have we funded billionaire sports owners while people in this county can’t pay mortgages, rents, and our schools are critically underfunded by the state. Sports owners who want upgrades should pay for them with their own profits, just like any other business would be expected to.

Summary: Scheff vs Gallagher

Matt’s Take

The first thing that stands out in this race is that Mike Gallagher has years and years of public service history online, but if you actually want to understand who he is, what he has done, or what he plans to do next, you have to dig for it. The fact that an incumbent county councilman does not appear to have a professional campaign website, updated pictures, clear policy pages, or even a basic page linking to articles about his work, accomplishments, or legislation is complete bullshit.

It makes it look like he is not taking this race seriously. Maybe he thinks he can skate by on incumbency. Maybe he thinks his name recognition is enough. Maybe he knows Courtney Scheff is going to be a tough candidate and has decided his time is up. Or maybe he just does not care about running a real campaign. Whatever the answer is, it bothers me. I went looking for a website, and if one exists, I am already pages deep into Google and not finding it. His Facebook does not tell voters much either. For a sitting county councilman, that is unacceptable.

And yes, parades do not decide elections. But when Mike Gallagher shows up with two people walking with him, and Courtney Scheff shows up in Berea with around 20, that tells you something. It does not prove who is better on policy, and it does not mean she will win. But it does show who is building a team, who is putting in the work, and who is making the basic effort to show voters, “I am taking this seriously.”

With that said, Mike Gallagher does serve an important role on Cuyahoga County Council. He is one of the few people on council who appears willing to function as an actual check and balance on County Executive Chris Ronayne. Ronayne has his crew, and too many people seem perfectly content to fall in line with whatever the executive wants. County Council is not supposed to be a rubber stamp. They do not need to fight the executive on everything, but they are supposed to challenge, question, and check him when necessary.

With that said, Mike Gallagher does serve an important role on Cuyahoga County Council. He is one of the few people on council who appears willing to function as an actual check and balance on County Executive Chris Ronayne. Ronayne has his little crew of people who go around, take pictures with him, and just agree with him.

And then you have the geriatric, old-ass Council President Dale Miller, who is completely out of touch. Why the hell is he council president?

County Council is not supposed to be a rubber stamp. They do not need to fight the executive on everything, but they are supposed to challenge, question, and check him when necessary.

That is one of my biggest concerns in this race. Without Gallagher, Cuyahoga County risks turning into a blank check for the executive branch. Spend, spend, spend. Approve what the executive wants. Protect the relationships. Keep the party machine happy. That is not healthy government.

Courtney, on the other hand, seems much closer to Ronayne, and I do worry that Chris is supporting her because he sees her as an ally. That worries me in a county where one-party control can easily become a system of friends, campaign relationships, and political favors. Cuyahoga County cannot become a place where everyone knows each other from the campaign trail, everyone protects their reputation inside the party, and nobody wants to challenge outrageous bullshit because it might upset the wrong people.

I also wish Courtney had more depth to her policies. Right now, too much of it reads like pithy Democratic talking points without enough substance behind them.

But here is the other side of it: Courtney Scheff is one of the most brilliant people I have ever met in politics. Courtney and I have had numerous conversations over the years, some more than an hour, some close to two hours, about politics, policy, the Democratic Party, and the state of things in this county. I cannot think of many people I have spoken with who are as honest, candid, detailed, and serious about policy as Courtney.

She is brilliant, hardworking, and honestly overqualified for this job. She more than has the intelligence, her work ethic, or her ability. My question is whether she would be willing to break from Chris Ronayne and the county party structure when the moment calls for it.

Because besides those connections and that concern, there are very few people in the Democratic Party I respect more than Courtney Scheff.

Laura’s Take

I don’t know either of these candidates personally. So, I am filtering my assessment through a lens of a 23 year public policy and public affairs career, a public policy master’s degree, and over a decade in politics. People want someone who will fight for them. If either is interested in bringing more attention to, or in invigorating, these races with energy, help voters understand how they are being screwed right now and propose bold policy solutions for solving the county corruption problems. People are tired of maintaining the status quo, they are tired of being screwed, and they want to know someone is fighting for them.

Stay Angry

When I first started The Angry Democrat and The Angry Ohioan, there was doubt.

Not doubt about what I believed. Doubt about putting it all out there unfiltered. Doubt about opening myself up to criticism. Doubt about talking publicly about candidates, races, corruption, and practices inside the Democratic Party that are unethical, unsavory, hypocritical, or just plain fucking stupid.

And I got criticism. Enough of it that, at times, it made me feel like I was on an island.

Why am I doing this? Does this actually matter?

This week, a few things happened that made it a lot easier to say, yeah. It matters. This needs to exist.

The first thing might seem small, but it meant something.

I was driving north on 71, towing my camper, and I stopped at a random rest stop. That is where I ran into .

We exchanged a few words. I introduced myself. And he said Northeast Ohio needs what we are doing up here. It is about time somebody is doing it.

That means a lot coming from someone who probably has the thickest skin in the industry. This is someone who has been taking on everyone from Mayors Suburbs to political insiders, and he was on his way to a pretrial where, from what he said, he basically told them to fuck off, he is not taking a plea deal, and he is going to fight bitch-ass Jerry Cirino tooth and nail.

So yes, that meant something.

The second thing was Graham Platner.

The Angry Democrat

They Knew and Endorsed Him Anyway

For months, we’ve been telling Angry Democrat readers who Graham Platner actually is. Not the working-class oyster farmer on the yard signs. A candidate two Democratic Socialist organizers found at his home in Sullivan, packaged by the strategist who built Zohran Mamdani’s campaign, and sold to a national donor base as an everyman …

Read more

a month ago · 8 likes · 1 comment · Laura Rodriguez-Carbone and The Angry Democrat

and I got a lot of pushback for criticizing Graham Platner. A lot. And the hypocrisy around it was pretty amazing to watch.

We knew Platner was going to be an issue. Ever since the Nazi tattoo, we were asking the same basic question: what the hell is the Democratic Party doing?

Then everything else kept piling on.

And even through all of that, through the same “vote blue no matter who” hypocrisy, we continued being critical of that candidate and the Democratic Party for supporting him.

Then the other day, we were justified in our skepticism.

Now, on a dime, everybody starts turning. Everybody starts abandoning Graham Platner. People who were fine looking past it suddenly want distance.

The Angry Democrat

The Invention of Graham Platner

Democratic operatives recruited an oyster farmer, got him funded, and packaged him as a grassroots movement with no organic roots…

Read more

2 months ago · 8 likes · The Angry Democrat and Laura Rodriguez-Carbone

But we never supported him. We knew he was going to be an issue. But damn was the gas…lighting.

The third thing was Chris Quinn’s rant on Today in Ohio about corruption in the Democratic Party.

That is what pushed me to write this message.

We are not going to stop.

and I are committed to building something, especially in Northeast Ohio, that actually reflects the will of the people and the betterment of our communities. We are going to call out hypocrisy regardless of the pushback. We are going to talk about the Democratic Party when the Democratic Party deserves to be talked about.

And it deserves to be talked about.

So here is a reminder of just some of what has happened in less than a year.

DaveBrock was reelected chair of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party. He originally ran on a platform of reforming the party and the endorsement process.

His original pitch was about strengthening voter contact and improving turnout.

Now he is deeply entrenched in the same structure he once claimed he wanted to change.

Matthew Ahn Endorsement Proposal

The party has become insulated inside a tight group of people, and people paying into the system that also pays his salary.

The county party took around $108,000 from a candidate and still endorsed in that race. At the very least, that is an appearance of impropriety. At worst, it looks like absolutely unethical backdoor dealing.

My opinion: It is disgusting and extremely messed up that Dave Brock didn’t have the wherewithal to not endorse in that race.

Good candidates have been pushed out of races. People have been threatened with their reputation and standing in the party if they run, or if they do not drop out, or if they get in the way of what certain people want. I even heard that a female candidate was told they would win if they showed more skin.

The party is financially weak. The fundraising efforts have failed. Even after hiring Sherrod Brown’s own fundraiser, the party has not made the kind of fundraising inroads it should have made. The chair is now paid a salary, guaranteed for another four years, but the party still does not look financially sustainable in the way it should.

And certain neighborhoods have basically been abandoned.

The Rooster

The Cleveland conundrum

This post is too long for email. Please open your browser to view in full…

Read more

6 months ago · 18 likes · 2 comments · Ky A. Hoga and D.J. Byrnes

Then, just like Graham Platner, the party is allowing other candidates to become an obvious future problem.

Nicole Sigurdson is running in a district with one of the largest Jewish populations in the state. She has made comments on social media that Jewish voters have every right to find offensive. She has pleaded ignorance. And she was endorsed by the Cuyahoga Democratic Party.

Either she was absolutely ignorant of what she was saying, which makes her unqualified to represent that district, or she knew what she was saying, which also makes her unqualified.

Trust me, she is going to be an issue. Ineffective at best. Incompetent at worst.

So yes, we are going to double down.

We are going to keep writing The Angry Ohioans. We are going to keep examining candidates. We are going to keep calling out every side. We are going to keep talking about transparency.

Because we are way past “vote blue no matter who.”

We are way past pretending this cabal, this power structure, this influence network, this corruption, this insider baseball, this backdoor trading, this behind-the-scenes nonsense is just normal.

It is ruining our party.

It is ruining Northeast Ohio.

It is hurting people’s lives.

It is failing to provide the services people need.

It is milking and squeezing regular people until they cannot take it anymore.

And nobody seems to care.

We care. And you, the readers, care.

Stay Angry.

So we are going to compare races around Northeast Ohio, look at who is running where, what they have done, what they say they will do, and who is funding them. The goal is to build a clear picture of who is trying to represent Ohio best, what policies they are willing to fight for, and how voters can hold them accountable after Election Day.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Meet Megan Coy

Megan Coy is running for State Representative in Ohio House District 17. She is a registered nurse and Olmsted Falls City Councilwoman At-Large. Her campaign focuses on healthcare, transparency, communication, and community service. Coy has a background in public health, nursing, health education, and local government.

Meet Mike Dovilla

Mike Dovilla currently represents Ohio House District 17 and previously served in the Ohio House from 2011 to 2016. He serves as Vice Chair of the House Finance Committee and has worked in state government, federal appointments, consulting, nonprofit leadership, and the U.S. Navy Reserve. He lives in Berea.

Campaign Finance: Post-Primary 2026

The most recent Post-Primary campaign finance reports show a major money gap in HD 17.

Megan Coy reported $24,328.93 cash on hand, after raising $6,538.29 and spending $493.88 during the Post-Primary period.

Mike Dovilla reported $160,013.48 cash on hand, after raising $18,101.07 and spending $53,893.09 during the same report period.

Dovilla has about 6.6 times more cash on hand than Coy.

Share The Angry Ohioan

Share The Angry Ohioan

On the Issues

Policy count from their websites: Coy 5, Dovilla 5

Megan Coy

Healthcare: Coy supports HB 289, the Ohio Health Care Plan, which would create and operate a universal health care coverage system for all Ohio residents. Her campaign frames this through her experience as a registered nurse seeing insurance denials, unaffordable prescriptions, hospital access problems, and transportation barriers.

Matt’s take: I support universal healthcare, but it has to be done in a sustainable, financially responsible way. Two thumbs up from me.

Laura’s take: I support universal healthcare and think we need it as a federal option. I’d like to see the numbers on what paying for it in Ohio would cost, but if we can do it and remove the ability of predatory providers and PBM’s from abusing the state system (as they currently are), I’d say it seems like a system that might save us money in the long run. Let’s go for it!

Public Education: Coy supports reviewing and strengthening the Fair School Funding Plan, argues Ohio’s public school funding system has been broken for decades, and criticizes the expansion of private school vouchers as worsening the funding problem for public schools.

Matt’s take: I fully support ending taxpayer-funded private school giveaways with no real checks and balances, but any public school funding fix has to address the divide between haves and have-nots while holding failing systems accountable.

Laura’s take: I’d like to see something more aggressive. Ohio’s school funding system is unconstitutional and it’s important we level the playing field for kids no matter where they live. There should be a constitutional amendment writing the cost-based Fair School Funding formula into the Ohio Constitution, enforceable in court, binding on every future General Assembly. Not one public dollar should benefit a private school. Those resources belong in public classrooms.

Affordability: Coy’s affordability platform focuses on housing costs, groceries, child care, prescription drugs, wages, and property taxes, with stated support for more safe affordable housing, targeted property tax relief, and budgets that prioritize working families over special interests.

Matt’s take: This is a pithy plan. Lowering costs sounds great, but how do you do it without a real plan for housing supply, economic growth, wages, and the actual cost drivers?

Laura’s take: In today’s political climate, these issues need to be on the floor in the Ohio State House everyday. I’d like to hear more from Megan on how we can realize some of these goals

Voting Rights: Coy supports expanding ballot drop boxes, making Election Day a holiday, automatic voter registration, and ending gerrymandering, arguing that elected officials should not be drawing the maps that protect their own seats.

Matt’s take: 100%. Elected officials should not be drawing the maps that decide whether they get to keep their own seats.

Laura’s take: 100% agree with all of this.

Reproductive Rights: Coy supports protecting the reproductive rights Ohio voters added to the state constitution in 2023 and says she would advocate for access to reproductive care, drawing on her background in public health, nursing, sex education, and petition work for the reproductive rights ballot issue.

Matt’s take: I’m for it. I campaigned hard and helped with the ballot initiative.

Laura’s take: I’m with Matt and similarly helped with Issue 1. Once Ohio voters have spoken on the Constitution nobody in the statehouse has any right to change the rules. We need to uphold the law and expand access.

Mike Dovilla

Veterans and Military Families: Dovilla emphasizes his Navy Reserve background and legislative work on military and veterans issues, including proposals on reservist support, disabled veterans’ homestead exemptions, scholarships, paid military leave, overseas military voting, veterans services modernization, and protections for military families.

Matt’s take: If veterans services are anything like the rest of government, with outdated technology and broken systems, then modernizing them is 100% needed. A vet leading this initiative should only be a positive.

Laura’s take: As a person with a long line of veterans in her family spanning the history of this country, veterans services are very important to me. Our nation has abandoned our veterans and service providers in Ohio for veterans are struggling because of Federal clawbacks and disinvestment of funding. That is wrong and needs to change. Noting that Mike was a Trump appointee during one of his administration my hope is that he will fight back publicly against cuts and firings at the VA that have happened and are slated to happen. I commend him for his service but the best way to serve our veterans is to provide for the benefits they’ve earned. I’d like to see his plan for that.

Government Reform: Dovilla’s platform centers on audits, transparency, fraud prevention, agency oversight, and taxpayer accountability, including Medicaid audits, inspector general authority, limits on administrative rules, the Open Ohio checkbook-style transparency initiative, pension penalties for certain public corruption crimes, and performance audits.

Matt’s take: I’m 100% for transparency, audits, and an open-book government where we can search every nickel spent, but don’t use “reform” as a dog whistle. Do it right and get the shit done.

Laura’s take: Medicaid is a hot button issue for me. I grew up on Medicaid and know that families who are on it are struggling. Current Medicaid requirements in Ohio mean most people on it already work unless you are a child or elderly or sick. Medicaid audits are usually a buzzword for benefits decreases and scapegoating recipients. I don’t support that. The people committing fraud with Medicaid are providers and PBM’s and if you are truly concerned about fraud in that program, that’s where you will spend your time.

Education: Dovilla supports public school funding increases, school choice, local control, charter school accountability, fiscal transparency for school districts, teacher pay tied to advanced degrees in relevant subject areas, and higher education workforce pathways. His official House page also lists high-quality education as one of his legislative priorities.

Matt’s take: I like parts of this, but the charter school piece is completely nonsensical. You cannot send over a billion dollars to private operators and then pretend you are fully funding public schools unless you can explain exactly where that money comes from and who gets shorted.

Laura’s take: I see so many red flags here. Dovilla is Vice-Chairman of the House Finance Committee that abandoned the Fair School Funding Plan in the last budget. I want Representative Dovilla to define high quality education, because draining public classrooms to subsidize private ones does not meet any definition I know.

Economic Development: Dovilla’s economic platform focuses on lower taxes, balanced budgets, business-friendly policy, energy reliability, cybersecurity, tourism, manufacturing, agriculture, and state-level job creation, including his support for HB 96 and energy-related legislation.

Matt’s take: I agree government probably overspends, but you cannot lower taxes, balance the budget, fund public schools, and send taxpayer money to charter schools without the math breaking somewhere. So which is it, more debt or mass cuts to services? And which services?

Laura’s take: Dovilla supported/wrote HB 96, the state budget that abandoned the Fair School Funding Plan and shortchanged Ohio’s public schools by billions while handing a flat income tax cut giveaway to Ohioans earning six figures. Underfunded schools had to turn to local levies to survive, property taxes in Ohio climbed to ridiculous levels, and now Dovilla campaigns on property tax relief for a problem he caused. His platform reads like a boilerplate anti-regulation policy checklist. If Ohio re-elects Dovilla expect schools to continue to deteriorate, corporate charter school companies to get richer, and no regulation on industry including AI Data Centers. Like Matt, I believe an itemized budget showing how this bananas policy proposal actually balances the state budget would be helpful.

Property Tax Relief: Dovilla makes property tax relief a top issue, pointing to 2025 budget and legislative changes aimed at levy oversight, school district cash carryovers, owner-occupancy credits, permissive homestead exemptions, and reforms to county budget commissions and local government efficiency.

Matt’s take: We need property tax reform, period. If you have to pay the government forever on a house you supposedly own, then you never truly own it, and that entire system needs a serious revamp. But hasn’t the state been lowering the tax responsibility of huge companies while passing it to the middle class?

Laura’s take: You’ve got to be kidding. Mike Dovilla’s version of property tax relief sends the bill to your kid’s school by forcing districts to spend down reserves and making counties fund his tax breaks. Shifting the burden is not lowering it. We need relief the state pays for: fully fund the Fair School Funding Plan so schools stop asking for tax levies, restore the 12.5 percent rollback the Kasich ended for new levies in 2013, expand the homestead exemption with the state reimbursing schools in full, and cap property taxes as a share of household income with the state refunding anything above the cap.

Endorsements: Coy 13 vs. Dovilla 7

Coy has 13 organizational endorsements, including Democratic, labor, nursing, veterans, gun safety, LGBTQ+, young voter, and women’s political organizations.

Dovilla lists 7 organizational endorsements after removing individual elected officials, including Republican groups, Buckeye Firearms Association, Ohio Value Voters, real estate investors, and Sheet Metal Workers Local 33.

Summary

Megan Coy vs. Mike Dovilla is a pretty standard Democrat vs. Republican race. There is some overlap on the problems they identify, especially affordability, education, property taxes, and the economic pressure Ohioans are feeling. The difference is in the solutions, and those solutions mostly fall right down party lines. Some of that has merit on both sides.

Dovilla is the incumbent, and that gives him a real advantage. He has experience, institutional knowledge, committee influence, a legislative record, name recognition, and the ability to point to actual bills and budgets he has worked on. But that also means voters have to look closely at what he has already done, who benefits from it, and whether his math maths, especially when he talks about cutting taxes, balancing budgets, funding public schools, and supporting charter schools at the same time.

Coy is running a more standard Democratic platform: healthcare, public education, affordability, voting rights, and reproductive rights. Some of it is still too vague for me, especially on affordability, where I want to see more specifics on how she would actually lower costs. But on healthcare, she does something I appreciate: she points to a specific bill, HB 289, and ties it directly to her experience as a nurse. That is the kind of policy connection voters should expect from every candidate.

This is going to be an interesting race. HD 17 has been trending blue, and this may be one of the better chances Democrats have to flip the seat. But Dovilla is not going to be easy to beat. He will have money, name recognition, incumbency, and the full weight of Ohio Statehouse Republicans behind him. I fully expect them to do everything they can to hold this seat.

Stay Angry

Greek mythology is full of collapses that did not come from invading armies or divine punishment. They came from within, from pride, division, and blind spots that leaders refused to see until it was too late.

These stories are thousands of years old, but the warnings feel uncomfortably familiar when held up against the modern Democratic Party.

Today’s Democrats face no shortage of external challenges. The deeper threat, the one that echoes through the myths of the House of Atreus, Icarus, Laocoön, Athens, and Pandora, comes from inside the house.

These ancient stories were not written for Democrats.

The lessons might as well have been.

1. A Party at War With Itself: The House of Atreus

The House of Atreus is one of mythology’s most infamous implosions.

Atreus murdered his nephews. Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter. Clytemnestra killed Agamemnon. Orestes killed Clytemnestra. Every generation tore itself apart.

The family did not fall because of an enemy. It fell because it could not stop fighting itself and that dynamic is painfully recognizable.

The Democratic Party is not a unified institution. It is a coalition of factions that often seem more interested in battling each other than representing the voters who put them in office.

Progressives pull one direction. Moderates pull another. Activists and establishment figures speak different political languages entirely.

From the outside, the tension is obvious. It is difficult for a party to claim it speaks for the country when it cannot agree on how to speak to itself.

The House of Atreus reminds us that internal conflict does not simply weaken a political institution. It defines its downfall.

2. Overreach and the Righteous Fall: Icarus

Icarus is remembered for one mistake.

He flew too close to the sun. His wings were brilliant. His intentions were pure. He ignored the limits of the moment. The wax melted. He fell.

The Democratic Party often repeats this pattern. It pushes sweeping cultural or policy shifts with the assumption that the public will simply adjust.

Sometimes the country does. Sometimes it does not.

And when it does not, the backlash is fierce.

Healthcare reforms, environmental regulations, and education policies, even when well intentioned, can trigger resistance when rolled out too quickly or without clear communication.

The party’s challenge is not its ambition. It is the assumption that ambition alone protects it from consequences.

Icarus teaches that good ideas still need guardrails.

3. Warnings Ignored: Laocoön and the Trojan Horse

Laocoön saw the wooden horse and immediately understood the danger.

He warned Troy. He insisted. He shouted. He was ignored. Troy paid the price.

The Democratic Party has its own Laocoöns. Organizers, strategists, working class voters, minority communities, and local leaders raise concerns about messaging, economic anxiety, or the way certain policies land with everyday families.

These warnings are often dismissed not because they are wrong, but because they are inconvenient.

When people inside the party say that a message is not connecting, or a policy is confusing, or a strategy is alienating voters, those signals should be treated as guidance, not noise.

Troy did not fall because the Greeks were clever.

It fell because it silenced the one person who saw the danger clearly.

4. The Arrogance of Being Right: Athens

Athens once believed it was the intellectual and moral center of the world.

That confidence led to the disastrous Sicilian Expedition during the Peloponnesian War. The campaign was launched on the assumption that Athens was too smart, too righteous, and too powerful to fail.

It failed spectacularly. and the city never recovered.

The Democratic Party often carries that same energy.

It assumes that being right is enough.

It assumes that demographics guarantee victory.

It assumes that moral arguments automatically persuade.

It assumes that voters will naturally align with the party because it sees itself as the moral center of American politics.

Athens learned that strategy matters. Humility matters. Showing up matters. A party cannot rely on righteousness alone.

It must earn trust, not assume it.

5. Blind Spots and Unintended Consequences: Pandora

Pandora did not intend to unleash disaster. She opened a container she believed held something small and harmless. Curiosity felt natural. The moment felt insignificant. Yet once the lid lifted, forces she never imagined escaped into the world.

Sickness, conflict, and hardship poured out faster than she could react. What began as a simple choice became the spark for a chain of consequences she could not contain.

Her story shows how downfall often begins. Not with a dramatic collapse. Not with an obvious mistake. It begins quietly, with a decision that seems safe until its effects spread far beyond the moment. Pandora’s act did not destroy the world in an instant. It weakened it, unsettled it, and changed it in ways that could not be undone.

The Democratic Party faces a similar danger. Policies meant to help can create frustration or confusion. Programs designed to support families can become bureaucratic obstacles.

Regulations meant to protect communities can end up hurting small businesses. Each initiative starts with good intentions. Each aims to solve a problem or offer support. But when the consequences ripple outward in ways the party did not anticipate, the political cost grows. Trust erodes. Voters feel the impact long before leaders recognize it.

Pandora reminds us that vulnerability rarely arrives through a single catastrophic event. It emerges through accumulated outcomes that escape control. Her story teaches that leaders must examine not only what they intend, but the world they create once their decisions are released.

Once the lid is open, the consequences do not return to the jar.

The Shared Warning: The Threat Comes From Within

All five myths point to the same idea.

Powerful institutions are rarely destroyed from the outside. They collapse because of division, overreach, ignored warnings, strategic arrogance, and blind spots.

The Democratic Party is not doomed. But, it IS vulnerable.

The vulnerabilities look a lot like the ones that brought down mythology’s greatest houses and cities.

If the party wants to avoid repeating these ancient collapses, it must realign itself with the people who once trusted it without hesitation.

It starts with unity. Not performative unity. Real unity built on shared goals that matter to everyday life.

Voters want stability, clarity, and representatives who can walk out of a room with one message instead of five.

It requires listening. Slowing down. Hearing concerns before rolling out major shifts. Recognizing that real people live with the consequences of political decisions.

It demands taking internal warnings seriously.

Feedback from working class voters, minority communities, and local leaders should be treated as essential data, not noise.

It means abandoning the belief that moral clarity equals political strength. Athens learned that righteousness without strategy is a losing formula.

It requires an honest focus on outcomes. Not intentions. Outcomes.

If a policy is not working, fix it. If it is confusing, simplify it. If it is hurting the people it was meant to help, change course.

Downfall is not fate. But, it becomes fate only when the warnings are ignored.

Stay Angry.

Guest Writer: This article was contributed by a local Angry Patriot.

The Angry Democrat welcomes submissions from local writers and community members who want to contribute thoughtful commentary on the Democratic Party, our democracy, public policy, and issues affecting Northeast Ohio and beyond.

Interested in writing for us? Contact us at admin@theangrydem.com.

Let’s get this out of the way:

I’m not a Democrat. I’m not a Republican either. I’m not a socialist, a communist, a member of the far right, or “fascism curious.”

But for nearly a decade, I proudly identified as a Democrat.

During those years I worked on campaigns, administered elections, advised candidates, managed operations, raised money, built organizations, watched and took part in how politics functions behind the scenes.

Some stories aren’t mine to tell. Others are too important to keep to myself.

So first, thank you to Matthew, Laura, and everyone at The Angry Democrat for inviting me in.

I was raised to believe that when you’re invited into someone’s home, you bring a gift. This essay is mine.

What I’m about to say will probably make some people uncomfortable. That’s okay.

One advantage of no longer belonging to a political tribe is that you no longer have to pretend certain conversations aren’t worth having. Sometimes the people furthest from solving a problem are the ones who benefit most from pretending it doesn’t exist.

If you asked me where I would begin fixing the Democratic Party, I wouldn’t start with messaging.

I wouldn’t start with polling.

I wouldn’t start with social media.

I wouldn’t start with all the points already being made here, there, and everywhere.

I’d start with how campaigns spend money.

I’d start with the approved vendor lists.

For people outside politics, an approved vendor list sounds harmless. Legislative caucuses and party organizations often maintain lists of consultants, campaign managers, printers, digital firms, media buyers, mail houses, compliance professionals, and other vendors they recommend to candidates.

On paper, the idea makes sense.

Campaigns are expensive. Candidates are often first-time office seekers with little experience. There are elections every year, not just the “big” ones. Having a list of professionals who understand election law, campaign finance, messaging, and field operations can prevent costly mistakes and help campaigns launch.

Those are legitimate reasons for these lists to exist.

But systems created for quality control can slowly become systems that protect incumbents, not elected incumbents, but institutional ones.

Over time, approved vendor lists can become less about identifying the best people for the job and more about directing work toward people with longstanding relationships inside the organization. Whether that’s intentional or simply the natural result of years of familiarity almost becomes beside the point.

The outcome is often the same.

The circle gets smaller.

Innovation becomes harder.

New talent struggles to break in.

The losses stack up.

First organizationally.

Then electorally.

A Pattern That Became Hard to Ignore

I’ve managed, consulted on, or performed contract work for more than seventy-five campaigns for public office. Only one happened to be a state legislative race in Ohio. I normally shy away from them partially because of where I live and a personal apprehension against driving longer than an hour for work unless it’s for “someone special.” But because I spent years working around campaigns, managers frequently asked me questions about legislative races that required using approved vendors.

Over the last decade, I’ve seen several versions of these lists.

One pattern always stood out.

It’s surprisingly easy to map where many of these vendors are located and notice how frequently they come from districts represented by influential members of leadership or individuals with longstanding relationships inside the caucus.

Maybe that’s coincidence.

Maybe it’s simply where experienced political professionals happen to live.

I’m not alleging corruption or kickbacks because I don’t have evidence to support that claim. I can only speak to spending decisions I observed firsthand that raised questions for me.

Politics asks voters to trust institutions every day.

Institutions should be just as willing to examine the incentives they’ve built for themselves.

These lists often cover nearly every aspect of a campaign.

Campaign managers. Consultants. Printers. Yard signs. Mail houses. Digital advertising. Streaming television. Broadcast media. Fundraising. Campaign merchandise. Sometimes even billboard companies.

To the average voter, none of this probably sounds very important.

But it’s how we communicate with them.

If an organization continues producing similar campaigns with similar strategies and similar outcomes, it would seem reasonable to ask whether the systems producing those campaigns deserve another look.

Doing the same thing over and over while expecting dramatically different results is not a campaign strategy.

When the question “what has changed?” is met with the answer of “nothing,” you get a very predictable result.

Consistency vs. Conformity

To be fair, approved vendor lists don’t exist solely to enrich political insiders.

Sometimes they’re designed to steer work toward union-friendly businesses that align with Democratic values.

Sometimes they’re intended to ensure campaign staff understand compliance requirements.

Sometimes they’re meant to create consistency across dozens of legislative races happening simultaneously.

Those are all defensible goals in their own way.

The problem begins when consistency becomes conformity.

One story has stayed with me for years.

Several legislative campaigns changed managers during the middle of an election cycle. The incoming managers naturally assumed the people before them had underperformed and left the campaign. And they acted like it. Issues weren’t their fault. It was the fault of their predecessor for not developing the campaign properly.

That wasn’t the case.

From what I saw, the original managers had simply fallen outside the approved vendor structure.

The frustration they described to me upon first hearing of their inevitable departure was genuine.

They believed their work mattered less because of their place within the system.

Too many people come away believing that social relationships matter more than ability and knowledge.

“Socializing is working.”

Imagine spending months building relationships through hard work, organizing volunteers, raising money, and winning a competitive primary, or making the campaign competitive, only to lose your job because someone higher up preferred a different arrangement.

A different arrangement that placed a loyal hand or obedient novice to control the flow of campaign cash.

To be clear, I don’t know whether that practice still exists under today’s Democratic leadership in Ohio, and I sincerely hope it doesn’t.

If it has ended, that’s progress worth recognizing.

But if the practice continues, it represents one of the most anti-worker practices I’ve witnessed inside a party that proudly describes itself as pro-worker and believing there is dignity in labor.

Winning Requires Better Questions

And yes, Republicans have preferred vendors too.

Political parties are institutions. Institutions build networks.

The difference is that Republicans in Ohio have spent the better part of the last three decades winning.

Organizations that are losing have even greater reason to question long-standing assumptions.

If Democrats want different outcomes, they have to become comfortable asking uncomfortable questions.

Could more competition among vendors lower costs?

Could opening campaigns to newer consultants and vendors produce fresher ideas?

Could rewarding results instead of relationships create stronger candidates?

I don’t know.

But I know those questions deserve to be asked. This isn’t about punishing experienced consultants or longtime vendors.

Many are exceptionally talented and have earned every opportunity they’ve received.

Campaigns don’t exist for consultants. They exist to persuade voters.

Every dollar spent inefficiently is a dollar that isn’t reaching another neighborhood, another volunteer, another persuadable voter, or another future candidate.

Organizational incentives aren’t an inside-baseball issue.

They shape the voters’ experience.

They shape who the elected official will be.

Create Opportunity, Not Scarcity

It’s about creating room for the next generation to compete.

The Democratic Party doesn’t need fewer experienced professionals.

It needs more.

More campaign managers. More digital strategists. More organizers. More communications professionals. More mail firms. More printers. More entrepreneurs building campaign technology. More people with new ideas who aren’t forced to wait for someone else to retire before getting a chance.

Healthy organizations create opportunity.

Unhealthy ones protect scarcity.

Conclusion

None of this alone will fix the Democratic Party.

It won’t suddenly win legislative majorities.

It won’t solve every messaging problem.

But changing incentives changes culture, and culture eventually changes organizations.

And if something doesn’t change soon, we’ll be past the point of changing.

I agreed to write this only if my name was attached to every word.

If criticism is worth making, it’s worth owning.

If someone has a problem with what I’ve written, they’ll know exactly who wrote it and can voice their displeasure to me directly.

Dan Crowder: 440-665-7816.

Stay Angry.

Guest Writer: This article was contributed by a guest writer.

The Angry Democrat welcomes submissions from writers and community members who want to contribute thoughtful commentary on the Democratic Party, our democracy, public policy, and the future of our communities.

Interested in writing for us? Contact admin@theangrydem.com.

Another four years.

And none of this was surprising, because nobody ran against him.

But when the chair of one of the most important Democratic counties in Ohio wins another term without a real challenge, the obvious question is why.

From what I have heard from people across the party structure, including Central Committee members, Executive Committee members, precinct people, and local Democratic club leaders, some people did not stay out because everything is great.

They stayed out because they did not want to be in the crosshairs.

They did not want retaliation.

They did not want to lose access.

They did not want to become the next person whispered about, frozen out, or punished.

If that is true, then that is a problem. Not just for Dave Brock. For the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party should be the place where democracy is practiced, not just preached. Real elections. Real debate. Real accountability. Real competition. Count the votes and respect the result.

So congratulations, Dave.

You have the position. You have the title. You have the salary. You have another four years.

Now here is what I want to see.

1. Reform the Endorsement Process

The first priority should be the endorsement process.

Personally, I think the party should end endorsements in contested Democratic primaries.

Party endorsements before voters decide put a thumb on the scale. They create insider lanes. They make non-endorsed Democrats feel like outsiders. They turn the sample ballot into a weapon. And the party has already chosen the candidate before the public gets a real say.

Matthew Ahn has put forward ideas to reform the endorsement process. From what I understand, his proposal is meant to be a compromise that preserves a role for the Executive Committee while opening the process enough for more people to run.

That should be discussed.

Matthew Ahn Proposal

I still believe the best answer is no endorsements in contested Democratic primaries. But if the party refuses to go that far, then the process should at least become fairer, more open, and less punitive.

One idea worth considering is allowing multiple endorsements in a race. If the party insists on endorsing, it should be able to say more than one Democrat is qualified. That could bring more candidates into the sample ballot process, increase participation, and potentially create more revenue for the county party.

But my position remains simple.

No endorsements in contested Democratic primaries.

Let voters decide.

2. Write a Real Mission Statement

The second priority should be a clear mission statement.

Not just, “We need to elect more Democrats.”

That is not enough.

The Cuyahoga County Democratic Party should clearly define what it stands for. What kind of Democrats are we trying to elect? What values are we organizing around? How do we treat candidates? How do we treat dissent? How do we hold leadership accountable?

If the party cannot answer those questions, then it is nothing more than a ballot operation and an endorsement machine.

The party needs a statement of ideals that members, candidates, committee people, and voters can point to and say, this is what we are supposed to be building.

3. Make the Party Visible

The third priority should be culture.

The Cuyahoga County Democratic Party should be more public-facing, more welcoming, and more involved in the communities it claims to represent.

Too many people experience the party as something hidden behind closed doors. They see it when someone knocks on their door, asks for money, or hands them a sample ballot outside a polling location.

That is not enough.

The party should be at community events, fairs, festivals, parades, schools, union halls, senior centers, neighborhood meetings, local clubs, and public forums.

It should host trainings. Recognize volunteers. Recruit candidates. Help people understand how to run for office. Give people a reason to feel like they actually belong.

The resources are there.

Money. People. Energy. Creativity. Willingness to work.

But those resources have to be organized around something bigger than protecting the existing structure.

The Democratic Party should be a home.

Now Surprise Us

Congratulations, Dave Brock.

You won another four years.

Now show what the party really is.

Reform the endorsement process.

Write down the values that hold people within the party from top to bottom accountable.

Open the doors and build a party people can actually see, join, trust, and call home.

Stay Angry

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Current chair Dave Brock has released a campaign video making his case for another four years. I am not sure if anyone is officially running against him, but that is one of the questions worth asking.

The chair position is now a paid role, reportedly around $80,000 a year. I am not sure what other benefits, expenses, or compensation may be included. I also do not know the details around health care or other benefits. Since payroll goes through the Ohio Democratic Party, I would assume some benefits exist, but that should be clarified.

Because this is a paid leadership position inside one of the most important Democratic counties in Ohio, it is reasonable to look at the public discussion around his tenure.

I looked through the comments on Dave Brock’s post and the related discussion on my own page. The responses were mixed, but there were clear themes on both sides.

The Case For Dave Brock

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Dave Brock clearly has supporters.

On his own page, the comments were mostly favorable. In the comment sample I reviewed from Dave’s page, roughly 58.8% of unique commenters were supportive, while 11.8% were critical, 11.8% were mixed or constructive, and 17.6% were unclear.

On my page, the support was lower but still present, with roughly 25% of unique commenters supportive, 37.5% critical, and 37.5% unclear.

Several people said he deserves another term, thanked him for his leadership, or described him as the right person for the job. Supporters pointed to his work during a difficult period for the party and argued that he has helped rebuild parts of the organization.

Some commenters credited him with supporting the creation of new clubs and caucuses, improving organization, and helping bring more grassroots activity into the party.

There were also comments saying he has been personally responsive and helpful. One commenter described an internal party issue involving harassment and credited Dave’s leadership with helping push the party toward better bylaws, a code of conduct, and a sanctions process.

Supporters also argued that some of the criticism may come from people who did not receive endorsements or who are frustrated with outcomes that may not be entirely under the chair’s control.

The argument for Dave: He has support, some people believe the party is better organized than it was before, and there are Democrats who believe he has done enough to earn another term.

The Case Against Dave Brock

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

There were also clear criticisms.

The biggest concerns were around pre-primary endorsements, low voter engagement, and the feeling that insiders still have too much influence over the process. In the comment sample I reviewed from Dave’s page, roughly 11.8% of unique commenters were critical. On my page, where the discussion was framed around whether Dave deserves another four years and whether anyone else is running, roughly 37.5% of unique commenters were critical, while another 37.5% were unclear, largely because the discussion also included whether I had been blocked or whether the post visibility had changed.

Some commenters questioned whether the party is open enough to grassroots voices. Others raised concerns about whether non-endorsed Democratic candidates are treated fairly or whether the endorsement process discourages candidates from running again.

There were also comments from people who felt the party has become less welcoming or more factional than it used to be. Some described feeling like outsiders, even after years of Democratic activism or public service.

Another criticism was responsiveness. Some people said Dave is responsive and accessible. Others said they have had the opposite experience. That split itself is worth noting, because it suggests people are having very different experiences with the county party depending on where they sit inside the organization.

Another concern raised in past endorsement debates was the approximately $108,000 transferred from Jeff Crossman’s prior campaign account to the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party before he sought the party’s endorsement for a judicial race. The issue was not whether the transfer was legal, but whether a six-figure contribution from a candidate should have been clearly disclosed to executive committee members before an endorsement vote.

The Angry Ohioan

Cuyahoga Democrats Endorse

The field for the May 5th primary is getting more settled by the day, especially after the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party executive committee met on February 7 to issue its endorsements…

Read more

6 months ago · 4 likes · 3 comments · The Angry Democrat

That concern became sharper for some critics because the race later cleared out, with two judges dropping out and Crossman facing no Republican opponent, effectively putting him on track to take the bench in 2027. For those already skeptical of the endorsement process, it became another example of why more transparency and/or clear ethics guidelines are needed.

The argument against another term: Some Democrats still feel shut out, the endorsement process remains controversial, and there is dissatisfaction with how open and democratic the county party feels.

What The Comment Sections Showed

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The two comment sections had different tones.

On Dave’s page, the discussion leaned more supportive. That makes sense. His page is naturally going to attract people who support him, know him, or want to publicly back his reelection.

On my page, the discussion was more skeptical and mixed. That also makes sense. My post was framed around whether he deserves another four years, whether the party is better now, and whether anyone else is running.

Neither comment section is a perfect sample.

But together, they show a fair picture.

Dave Brock has real support.

He also has real critics.

And there appears to be a meaningful group of Democrats who are dissatisfied, distrustful, or at least open to hearing from a challenger.

The Question

The question is not whether Dave Brock is liked or disliked.

The question is whether the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party is stronger, more open, more effective, and better positioned than it was four years ago.

If the answer is yes, then Dave Brock has a case for another term.

If the answer is no, then Democrats should hear from someone else.

And if the answer is somewhere in the middle, then the chair election should be a real conversation about what worked, what did not, and what needs to change.

So that is the question:

Does Dave Brock deserve four more years?

Stay Angry.

And Wow!

This is not just about one camera, one police department, or one city contract. This is about whether local surveillance tools can become part of a larger regional, statewide, or national surveillance architecture.

The question now is how these systems connect, who can search them, who can export the data, and whether the public understands that a local camera can become part of a much larger network. So I took a bit of a dive to figure out how this works.

This Is Not One Camera. It Is a Data System.

Flock cameras are automated license plate readers. They capture a vehicle, read the plate, and can log information like make, model, color, location, time, and other identifying vehicle details.

A single Flock camera is one thing. A citywide network of them is another. A network connected to other cities, other agencies, drones, body cameras, CAD systems, police reports, real-time crime centers, and third-party platforms is something else entirely.

That is the part people need to understand.

The surveillance system does not have to be one literal giant database to function like one. It can be a federated system. That means the data may stay in separate platforms, but a software layer can query, display, or match those systems together.

So Flock data can stay in Flock. Drone video can stay in a drone platform. Body camera data can stay in Axon. Dispatch data can stay in CAD. ShotSpotter can stay in SoundThinking. Ring and Nest footage can remain behind separate request systems. But if a real-time crime center, fusion platform, or agency dashboard can connect to those sources, then the person using it can experience it like one operational system.

That is the issue.

Not one database on paper. One searchable surveillance environment in practice.

How This Could Work Technically

The architecture is not that complicated.

A city or police department buys separate tools. Flock for license plates. Axon for body cameras. Fusus for real-time crime center integration. Palantir for data fusion. ShotSpotter for gunshot detection. Drones from Skydio, DJI, BRINC, or DroneSense. Ring or Nest footage through request systems. CAD and RMS for dispatch and police reports.

Each system collects its own data.

Then an integration layer connects them.

That integration layer can use APIs, scheduled exports, webhook alerts, live video feeds, cloud-to-cloud permissions, partner integrations, or manual data imports. It can match records by plate number, timestamp, GPS coordinates, address, case number, incident type, vehicle description, or person.

That is how a license plate hit can be connected to a police report, a drone flight, a 911 call, a nearby camera, and a map view inside a real-time crime center.

This does not require every camera in America to be “pinged” manually in real time. What is more likely is that systems feed metadata into cloud-based indexes or agency-controlled datasets, then authorized users query those datasets through permissions. From the user’s perspective, it looks like one giant searchable system, even if the data is technically separated underneath.

The Cleveland Problem

Today in Ohio (see audio above) discussed more than 160 immigration-related searches showing up in Cleveland’s Flock audit logs long after the city said it had turned on safeguards meant to block immigration-related searches. Cleveland’s explanation was that fire and EMS drones had “accidentally” been swept into Flock’s national search network, and that out-of-state agencies running broad immigration-related searches caused those drones to appear in the logs.

If Cleveland devices can accidentally end up inside a national search network without anyone noticing for months, then who actually understands this system?

Truthful-ish Is Not Good Enough

This is where private companies and public agencies can be truthful-ish.

A company can say the data is permissioned.

A city can say it turned off certain searches.

A police department can say it controls its sharing settings.

A vendor can say the system has audit logs.

The government does not have to build the entire surveillance state itself. Private companies build the tools. Cities subscribe to them. Police departments use them. Other agencies request or access data through permissions. Then everyone points to someone else when people ask who is responsible. OR… my favorite, someone smart decides to just make an integration software that is a searchable surveillance stack.

The company says it is just the vendor.

The city says it is just a tool.

The police say it is just public safety.

And somehow, the network keeps growing.

The Abuse Is Already Happening

In Shaker Heights, public records reportedly showed enormous numbers of Flock searches, including immigration-related searches, which forced a policy change. In Texas, members of Congress raised concerns that Flock technology was reportedly used in a nationwide search connected to an abortion investigation. In Kansas, a police chief used Flock license plate readers hundreds of times to track his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend.

This is what happens when powerful search tools exist, when access is broad, and when oversight is weaker than the technology.

The original justification may be stolen cars, warrants, missing people, or violent crime. But once the infrastructure exists, the use cases expand. Immigration. Abortion. Personal stalking. Political monitoring. Protest tracking. Data fusion. Predictive policing. Whatever comes next.

Once surveillance infrastructure is built, it rarely gets smaller.

The Real Question for Ohio

This is why Ohio needs to get technical before it gets too comfortable.

The issue is not just a camera taking a picture of a license plate. The issue is the network architecture behind it. Flock ALPRs (Automated License Plate Readers) turn vehicle sightings into structured data: plate number, time, location, vehicle description, agency, camera, and search history. Once that data is stored, it can be queried, shared, audited, exported, or connected to other systems through permissions, network-sharing settings, APIs, and data-fusion tools.

The University of Washington report lays out three basic pathways for access:

• Front door sharing: One agency directly shares its camera network or data access with another agency.

• Back door access: Another agency’s searches can still surface data, even when there is no clear or explicit sharing agreement.

• Side door searches: An authorized agency runs a search on behalf of another agency, including federal immigration enforcement.

That means the real safeguard is not simply whether your city says, “We do not share data.”

The better questions are:

• Can another agency access the system directly?

• Can another user or network reach the data indirectly?

• Can an authorized agency search it on someone else’s behalf?

Because if any of those are true, then the protection is not the written policy. The protection is only as strong as the weakest access point in the network.

That is why “we have controls” is not good enough. Controls only matter if the public knows who has access, what settings are enabled, what networks are connected, what searches are logged, what data is retained, and whether those logs are independently reviewed.

A single license plate reader may feel local. But when the data can be searched across jurisdictions, matched over time, and used to build movement patterns, it becomes something much bigger. It can reveal where someone lives, works, worships, gets medical care, attends meetings, or visits friends. That is not just public driving. That is a behavioral map.

Ohio should not wait until after more abuse happens. We need clear laws on retention, warrants, out-of-state sharing, federal access, immigration enforcement, abortion enforcement, audits, public reporting, and penalties for misuse.

Because once the surveillance stack is built, it will be used.

So tell me where you fall. Is this safety? Is this surveillance?

Is the problem the cameras, the access, the data-sharing, the public-private partnership, or the entire system?

But in the meantime...

Stay Angry

How do we feel about Flock cameras?

The common phrase is that technology is moving faster than society knows how to deal with it. But the truth is, we have been asking this specific question for a long, long time. Books have been written about it. Political theory has wrestled with it. Science fiction has put it on the silver screen. We have seen authoritarian regimes use surveillance across the globe, and then we sit here in America, the land of the free, and somehow we are still not sure where the line is.

Government surveillance. Private surveillance. Cameras on every corner. License plate readers tracking where we go, when we go there, and what vehicle we drive. The reason this is such a complicated conversation is because it is always framed around safety. And safety is important. Nobody wants stolen cars, kidnappings, violent crime, or people with warrants just driving around with no way for law enforcement to find them.

But safety is not the only thing happening here.

And that is why I want to ask the question about flock cameras.

What Are Flock Cameras?

Flock is a private company that, honestly, has built a brilliant business model. Municipalities and police departments can rent these cameras for a yearly fee, and Flock handles a lot of the logistics. The cameras are placed around cities to monitor vehicles coming in and out of town, traveling through neighborhoods, or passing through certain intersections.

These are automated license plate readers. Their main job is to scan your plate and put it into a searchable database, but they can also log the color, make, model, bumper stickers, and even unique dents on a vehicle.

This is not just a camera taking a random picture. This is a system creating a searchable record of movement. Your license plate connects to your registration. Your registration connects to you. Then the system can build a pattern of where a car goes, when it goes there, and direct who has access to that information.

That is a massive amount of data.

And the back end of this system can be used by police departments and, depending on the sharing settings, other agencies. Cleveland, for example, has about 100 Flock license plate readers in high-traffic areas, and Signal Cleveland described the system as one that captures images of vehicles and stores them in searchable databases that law enforcement agencies can share with each other.

So the question is not just whether this can catch criminals.

Of course it can.

The question is what kind of surveillance infrastructure we are normalizing in order to do it.

Big Brother is Here?

We have talked about Big Brother forever. George Orwell gave us the phrase everybody knows from 1984: “Big Brother is watching you.”

That line is so familiar that it almost feels like a cliché now. But maybe that is the problem. We got so used to the phrase that we stopped paying attention to the thing it warned us about.

The way I have always thought the government would subvert aspects of the Constitution is not necessarily by doing everything directly. It would be by pushing surveillance into private companies, then letting public agencies access the system after the fact.

But that is exactly why this public-private arrangement is so concerning. It is civilian surveillance infrastructure, but with the branding of a private technology platform. It is government power assisted by corporate data systems. It is not just a police officer sitting in a cruiser watching one intersection. It is a networked system that can be searched, shared, and expanded.

And once that system exists, the question becomes who gets access, who watches the watchers, and what happens when the definition of “public safety” changes.

I know people trying to get this information from their local governments. It is like pulling teeth. I will tell you more when I can.

There Is Abuse

This is the part people need to understand. The concerns are not theoretical.

In Shaker Heights, activists said public records showed the city’s Flock camera data was searched nearly 700,000 times between January and April, with only about 1,000 of those searches coming from the Shaker Heights Police Department. Spectrum News reported that nearly 300 searches mentioned immigration or ICE, and that Shaker Heights changed its policy after concerns about immigration-related searches.

That is the concern. A city installs cameras for local safety, then suddenly data can be searched far beyond what residents thought they were agreeing to.

There was also a case involving a Texas search for a woman authorities claimed had self-administered an abortion. Members of Congress wrote to Flock’s CEO saying Texas authorities reportedly used Flock’s automatic license plate reader technology to conduct a nationwide search, reviewing footage from more than 83,000 cameras, including cameras in states where abortion is protected.

That is not a slippery slope. We are down the hill.

There are also the personal abuse cases. In Sedgwick, Kansas, a police chief used Flock license plate readers 228 times over more than four months to track his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend’s vehicles. He also used his police vehicle to follow them out of town.

The Institute for Justice has reported that police have used automatic license plate reader networks to track romantic interests at least 16 times in recent years.

So “What are you worried about?”

Is It Safety, or Is It Surveillance?

Share The Angry Ohioan

So my question is simple.

What do you think this is?

• Is this surveillance, or is it safety?

• Is it for the greater good?

• Do we sacrifice a little privacy and freedom for security?

• Does the good outweigh the potential abuse?

• Are we comfortable being monitored and tracked this way?

• Is this just part of a larger corporate surveillance network, where Ring cameras, Flock cameras, police databases, private companies, and government agencies all start linking together into one giant web?

And even if it is, do we believe the old line that you have nothing to worry about if you are not doing anything wrong?

I do not.

The surprising thing is that this is not some futuristic technology we never saw coming. This is not virtual reality or AI suddenly arriving from nowhere. Surveillance cameras, government monitoring, and license plate tracking are not hard to understand. We have been warned about this for generations in books like 1984, in political theory, in science fiction, and in the real-world history of authoritarian governments.

And yet, when it shows up as a subscription service for cities, we somehow still do not know what to do with it.

Where I Fall

Share The Angry Ohioan

I do not want to give up privacy or freedom for the feeling of security.

Maybe that puts me in the minority.

Maybe I am being overly sensitive.

Maybe I live a privileged enough life where crime is not something I have to think about every hour of the day. Maybe people in higher-crime areas feel differently and welcome these cameras because they want any tool available to help protect their neighborhoods.

That is why I am asking the question instead of pretending there is no debate.

But personally, I think the problem is the cameras themselves. Not just the public-private partnership. Not just the access. Not just the policy. The cameras are the infrastructure. Once they are installed, the pressure will always be to expand them, share the data, connect the systems, and justify the next use case.

We see people voluntarily installing consumer-facing surveillance products. We see cities voluntarily subscribing to these systems. We see law enforcement agencies building searchable databases of our movements. We see private companies sitting between the public and the government.

And we call it safety.

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe this is one of those technologies where the benefits outweigh the risks. Maybe this is the cost of living in a modern society. Maybe the answer is not removing the cameras, but stronger rules, better oversight, shorter retention periods, audit trails, warrants, and strict limits on who can access the data.

But I keep coming back to the same thing.

Once the surveillance infrastructure is built, it rarely gets smaller.

So what do you think?

• Is the problem the public-private partnership?

• Is it the access?

• Is it the cameras?

• Is it only abuse, or is the system itself the abuse?

Tell me where you fall.

But in the meantime...

Stay Angry

This is what I call the post-election hangover. Everybody is running on adrenaline all the way up to Election Day. Some people are reporting. Some people are reading everything they can. Some people are campaigning. Some people are supporting candidates. Some people are candidates themselves. Then, when it is all over, everybody has to decompress.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

I guess that is what I was doing. But I am back!

I have been trying to get back into the habit of writing, but what I did not realize was how much of my time after the election would be spent on the phone. Candidates, constituents, donors, activists, people all around Northeast Ohio. I have had dozens of conversations since Election Day with people asking what I thought happened, what went right, what went wrong, and what all of this means moving forward.

And there is one theme that kept coming up.

The Democratic Party has lost its way.

Now before anyone gets sassy with me, let me be clear. I am a Democrat. I am writing this because I want a better Democratic Party. I am writing this because I still believe the party can be better than this. But over and over again, from people across different races and different sides of these fights, I am hearing the same thing.

There is something fundamentally wrong with the party. There is something wrong with what it says it stands for, how it operates, and how it treats the people who are actually trying to participate in the process.

This Is Not Just Sore Losers Talking

Share The Angry Ohioan

Share The Angry Ohioan

The first thing I had to do was take the source of the dissatisfaction seriously, but also honestly.

A lot of the people calling me were people who supported candidates that lost, or candidates who lost themselves. And yes, that matters. There are hurt feelings after a campaign.

There is frustration. There might be a little narcissism too. Someone will say, well, it could not have been MY fault!

It had to be the party.

It had to be the endorsement.

It had to be the machine.

It could not have been my campaign, my policies, my strategy, or the possibility that I am just not good at this.

I would be blind not to acknowledge that is a possibility.

But I also got calls from people who won. I got calls from people who were on different sides of these races. I talked to people who had very different perspectives on what happened. And that is why I cannot just dismiss this as people being bitter because they lost.

Because the same criticism kept coming up.

The Democratic Party is not acting in a democratic manner.

That is the through line. Whether people won or lost, whether they were endorsed or not endorsed, whether they were inside the process or pushed outside of it, there is a growing belief that the party is saying one thing and doing another.

It says it supports democracy, then stacks the deck in primaries.

It says it wants participation, then punishes people for running.

It says it wants strong candidates, then refuses to even pick up the damn phone when candidates reach out.

It says it wants the voters to decide, then uses endorsements, sample ballots, union power, corporate PAC money, and insider relationships to shape the field before most voters even know who is running.

That is a problem.

The Thumb on the Scale

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Over and over again, people talked about the same things. Thumbs on the scale in certain races. Too much outside influence from corporate PACs. Unions picking candidates. Weak Democratic leadership. Party leadership that will not communicate, will not organize properly, and in some cases will not even return a damn phone call (looking at you ODP).

That is absurd. It is disrespectful. And more than that, it reveals the disconnect between what the party says it wants and what it actually does.

If you really believe in democracy, then you should want more people to run. You should want more people involved. You should want more voices in the process.

But what I keep hearing is that if someone runs outside the preferred structure, they are treated like a problem. If they challenge an endorsed/incumbent candidate, they are treated like they are betraying the party. If they question the process, they are told they are creating division.

The county parties and the state party need to understand that this is becoming a serious problem.

Do Not Pat Yourself on the Back for 22 Percent Turnout

You cannot pat yourself on the back for a 22 percent turnout and act like everything is fine. I know people want to compare turnout to other primaries. I know people want to point to vote-by-mail programs. I know people want to say the operation worked. And sure, in some ways, it did.

But 22 percent is still abysmal.

That means most people did not participate.

One of the most dangerous things happening right now is that more and more people involved in this process are looking at the Democratic Party and saying, maybe I am just independent now.

These are not people who were never involved. These are not people who never cared. These are people who supported the party, donated to the party, ran for office, volunteered, knocked doors, made calls, showed up, and believed they were part of something.

People are not saying they suddenly love Republicans. They are saying they are sick of a party structure that tells them to shut up, accept the process, support the chosen candidate, and “vote blue no matter who.”

That is not sustainable.

The Solution

Support My Work

Support My Work

Support My Work

People always ask for “solutions”, so here they are.

First, listen. Actually listen. Not performative listening. Not “we hear your concerns” bullshit. Real listening. Pick up the phone. Talk to candidates. Talk to activists. Talk to people who lost. Talk to people who won. Talk to people who feel pushed out. Understand leadership is not just about protecting the institution. It is about earning trust from the people inside and outside of it. And making people feel part of the team even if they lose.

Second, stop endorsing in primaries and obviously putting thumbs on the scale. I do not care if unions endorse. I do not care if outside groups endorse. I do not care if individual elected officials endorse. That is their choice. But the party itself should be fighting for fairness in the Democratic process, not narrowing the field before voters get to decide.

Third, understand the urgency. This is not some minor complaint that will disappear because the endorsed candidates won their races.

Winning does not mean the process is healthy. Winning does not mean people trust you. Winning does not mean resentment is gone.

If anything, the calls I have gotten over the past week tell me the opposite.

There is a real problem here. It is growing. And if the Democratic Party keeps ignoring it, mocking it, dismissing it as sore losers or bitter, or pretending it is just a distraction, then the party is going to keep pushing people away.

Stay Angry

First things first, I want to congratulate everyone who ran in Ohio yesterday. Win or lose, running for office is not an easy thing to do. It should be commended. More people should be encouraged to weather the storm, jump into races, put their names out there, and make their case to voters. So if you ran, thank you.

I also want to thank everyone who joined the live stream last night. Around 80 people jumped on to watch, and I really appreciate it.

The biggest takeaway was simple.

The sample ballot reigned supreme.

David Brock, the Chair of the CCDP, said in his post-election statement, “All the endorsed candidates won last night in part because of the ongoing professionalization of party operations.”

That is exactly what happened. The party operation worked. Brock also thanked Representative Chris Glassburn for his “continued stewardship of our Sample Ballot program,” and said the success was so overwhelming that it is “now being imitated all over this county.”

Let’s look at some races I was watching.

Ohio’s 7th District Was the Poindexter Show

Obviously, the first race I was watching was Ohio’s 7th Congressional District, where Brian Poindexter won the Democratic primary. The race was officially called at 11:09 p.m., but honestly, you could see where it was heading much earlier in the night.

At the beginning, Ed FitzGerald was up, and then it looked like Poindexter and FitzGerald were running neck and neck. But as more votes came in, Poindexter started building a wider and wider margin. By around 9:00 or 9:30, the trend was pretty clear. I thought they were going to call it earlier, but I guess they wanted to make sure.

In the end, Poindexter won by almost 10,000 votes. That is not some barely-there victory. That is a clear win. It was the Poindexter Show, and now he moves on to November.

Brock framed that win as part of a bigger opportunity for Democrats in Cuyahoga County, writing, “With Brian Poindexter’s victory, along with Congresswoman Shontel Brown’s, we have a genuine chance this cycle to make our entire county’s Congressional delegation Blue.”

Now we get to work in Cuyahoga.

State House Races I was Watching

In State House District 18, Davida Russell dominated. She won with 72.8% of the vote and beat the second-place candidate by more than 10,000 votes. Davida was the endorsed candidate in that race, and she won it easily. Davida will go on to face Maureen Lynn.

In State House District 19, things were much more interesting. Nicole Sigurdson was the endorsed candidate, and early in the night she was sitting around 51% of the vote. But as more votes came in, that margin started shrinking. Cheryl Perez started out in second place and eventually ended in third. Dionna Gore crept up through the night and overtook Perez for second place.

But there is no prize for second place.

Nicole won the race and now moves on to November to face Ed Hargate.

In State House District 20, Eugene Miller, also the endorsed candidate, won with more than 50% of the vote. Again, the sample ballot power showed up. Again, the endorsed candidate won. Eugene will face Donna Walker-Brown.

Kent Smith Moves On in State Senate District 21

Kent Smith won his primary against Dolores Gray Ford, 68.2% to 31.8%. I was watching their League of Women Voters forum, and Kent Smith just has what it takes.

He is a strong communicator, a staunch Democrat, and he has a lot of legislative experience. No disrespect to Dolores Gray Ford, but this race felt pretty obvious to me once you watched them side by side. Kent Smith is somewhat of an institution in my view, and now he moves on to November against Mikhail Alterman.

The Angry Ohioan

Ohio’s 21st State Senate District: League of Women Voters Forum

Does a Good Communicator Make a Good Legislator…

Read more

4 months ago · 2 likes · 1 comment · The Angry Democrat

Judge Vodrey and the Common Pleas Race

In the Court of Common Pleas race, Judge Vodrey was the endorsed candidate, and regardless of endorsements, He is one of the nicest people I have ever met. He beat Gallagher handily with 65.7% of the vote.

There was some concern that the name ‘Gallagher’ might carry weight, and I do think it probably did to some degree. But in the end, this was not much of a competition.

As much as I complain about the world being unfair sometimes, I do not think the world is so bad that voters would fail to reelect Judge Vodrey. Honestly, if that had happened, it might have made me doubt humanity a little bit.

Vodrey moves to the general against Timothy W. Clary.

Congrats to Judge Vodrey.

County Council Races Went the Way of the Endorsement Too

In County Council District 3, Martin J. Sweeney won with more than 50% of the vote. He was the endorsed candidate, and I do not think many people doubted that the Sweeney name and the Sweeney political machine would be able to power through.

And while we are talking about the Sweeney name, I have to say this. His daughter, Bride Rose Sweeney, who is running for State Senate, is in my personal opinion one of the best legislators in the game. She is brilliant, hard-working, smart, politically savvy, and an excellent legislator. I cannot wait to see what she does in the Senate and where she goes from there.

County Council District 11 also went to the endorsed candidate, Christine McIntosh, who won with 42.3% of the vote. This was a much closer and much more watched race. Honestly, this must have been a nail-biter until all the precincts reported.

Shirley Smith finished with 32.2%, and Ebony Spano finished with 25.5%. Only a few hundred votes separated them. That is a real, competitive race. And credit to all three candidates, because from where I sat, this looked like a hard-fought and well-run race across the board.

A Little Bay Village Voyeurism From Afar

And finally, because why not, a little Bay Village voyeurism from afar.

Malaak Rashid is now going to be your central committee member for Bay Village, Ward 1, Precinct B.

Congrats to Rashid.

Sometimes these smaller races tell you just as much about local politics as the big ones. Central committee seats matter. Party structure matters. These are the positions that shape endorsements, local organizing, and the internal direction of the party. People ignore them until they realize that a lot of power starts there.

Brock also made a point to thank “the 800+ people who ran for our Central Committee,” writing that serving the party “requires a level of devotion and sacrifice that makes all future successes possible.”

And that is true. Central committee races are not glamorous. Most voters barely know what they are.

The Bigger Lesson From Cuyahoga County

The total turnout for Cuyahoga County was 22%, with around 190,000 ballots cast out of roughly 863,000 voters.

Brock said turnout “exceeded expectations” and surpassed turnout in the 2022 and 2024 primaries. He also noted that Cuyahoga County surpassed turnout in both Franklin and Hamilton Counties, driven in part by what he called an “intentional, and enormous, increase in Vote-By-Mail ballots.” According to Brock, Cuyahoga County had “nearly 4 times as many people vote-by-mail” as Franklin County.

It means the operation was not just Election Day sample ballots. It was vote-by-mail. It was turnout. It was party infrastructure. It was a coordinated effort that clearly worked.

Brock ended his statement by saying, “On to November and let’s win there.” (see his full statement below)

And I say LFG! The primaries are over. The winners are moving on. It is time for the party to back the Democratic candidates, because there is still a hell of an uphill battle in this gerrymandered state.

But that does not mean we stop analyzing what happened. It does not mean we stop calling balls and strikes.

That is the point of The Angry Democrat and The Angry Ohioan. The point is to keep the conversation flowing, even when it is uncomfortable, and even when it is about our own party. Only then can we self reflect and make sure upsets like 2024 never happen again.

Congrats again to everyone who ran, and congrats to everyone moving on to November.

But in the meantime...

Stay Angry.

Tonight, I’ll be going live around 7:45 after the polls close.

You can watch at theangrydem.com, theangryohioan.com, or on Facebook, YouTube, and X.

I’m just going to be hanging out, watching the results come in, giving my comments, and maybe having a few guests swing by as the night unfolds.

Subscribe now

Below, I’ll include some resources that may help you before you head to the polls.

Google your county name and “Board of Elections.” Your local board of elections usually has everything you need, including polling locations, sample ballots, candidate lists, and basic voting information.

https://www.waynecountyoh.gov/

https://www.boe.ohio.gov/ashland/

https://www.boe.ohio.gov/medina/

https://boe.cuyahogacounty.gov/

And please, take a few minutes to look at your sample ballot before you go.

Know who is actually running in these races. Do not just walk in and let the first name you recognize make the decision for you.

There are candidate lists available, and Vote411 from the League of Women Voters is another great resource. It can show you polling locations, sample ballots, candidate information, and what you need to bring with you to vote.

It may be raining, so take an umbrella.

The best times to go are usually outside the rush hours.

Avoid before work, lunch, and right after work if you can.

If you go during one of the random slower parts of the day, you will probably be in and out.

And honestly, this is a midterm primary, so it should not be anything like waiting in line during a presidential year.

Also, remember, if you are one of the people that hasn’t mailed in their ballot yet, you need to drive it to the ballot box. You cannot mail it or it will not be counted. It needs to arrive on or before election day

The Statewide Races I’m Watching

The first race I’m watching is the Republican primary for governor.

Vivek Ramaswamy is the endorsed GOP candidate, but Casey Putsch, also known online as Casey the Car Guy, has been getting a lot of support on social media. He has not raised a ton of money, so the question is whether that online energy actually translates into votes.

I do not think the real question is whether Vivek wins. I think the real question is how much he wins by. That margin will tell us something about how real the online grassroots energy around Casey actually was, and the actual popularity of Vivek.

The attorney general race between Elliot Forhan and John Kulewicz. John is the endorsed Democratic candidate, and Elliot has some baggage. I do not know if everybody knows the actual stories behind Elliot Forhan’s baggage, but to be perfectly honest, it seems like some of it was overblown and turned into a smear campaign. He definitely has people who strongly support him, but I do not know if that will be enough to overcome the Democratic endorsement.

See some Elliot news below

The Angry Ohioan

Leave Mom out of this...

I met Matt a few months ago. He reached out after his social media feed had been serving up some of my POWW! Protect Ohio Women at Work videos. I knew Matt’s name because I had heard good things about him as a candidate. We did a fun interview talking about my 13 years as legal counsel to the House Democrats and how it ended with Allison unceremoniously…

Read more

3 months ago · 5 likes · Sarah Cherry

Then there is the Secretary of State race, which is probably the one everyone is paying attention to statewide. Bryan Hambley is running against Allison Russo. Russo is the establishment Democrat, the House Minority Leader, and basically the party’s candidate. Hambley is the grassroots candidate. He has built a strong campaign, raised a hell of a lot of money, and created real energy around his race.

If Brian Hambley wins, it will be considered an upset, but also somehow expected. I know that sounds contradictory, but that is exactly how this race feels. If Allison Russo pulls it off, that will also feel natural because she is the party-backed candidate. But it would also feel a little unnatural because Hambley has clearly built something real.

See my interview with the candidates below

The Angry Ohioan

Russo and Hambley: Two Democrats. One Office. Same Questions.

I recently sat down with former State House Minority Leader Allison Russo and Bryan Hambley. Both are Democrats running for Secretary of State here in Ohio…

Listen now

6 months ago · 7 likes · 1 comment · The Angry Democrat

Northern Ohio Congressional Races

Obviously, I’m watching Ohio’s 7th District. There are eight candidates in this race, and they are going to be splitting up votes like a Thanksgiving turkey.

Ed FitzGerald

Brian Poindexter

Michael Eisner

Scott Schulz

Laura Rodriguez-Carbone,

Ann-Marie Donegan

Keith Mundy

John Butchko

I can see this race going a lot of different ways. There are definitely candidates people consider favorites, but I do not know how far that goes when you have this many people dividing the field. This could be a blowout, or it could be a total toss-up where almost anyone can win.

See my interviews and write ups below

I’m also watching Ohio’s 9th Congressional District Republican primary, which is fascinating.

The incumbent is the Iron Babushka (tm ) herself, Marcy Kaptur. But Republicans are throwing a lot at this seat because they think she may be vulnerable.

Josh Williams, Derek Merrin, Alea Nadeem, Madison Sheahan, and Charles Kinsel are all in the mix.

And they are raising serious money. Williams has raised around $800,000. Merrin has raised around $760,000. Nadeem has raised around $700,000. They are fighting like hell over there because they think this is their shot.

To be perfectly honest, I would not bet against Marcy Kaptur no matter what the political landscape looks like or how much money Republicans raise.

Derek Merrin may be the favorite to win the primary, but Josh Williams has raised more money, and Nadeem could possibly slide in if the others split votes.

Who knows, maybe one of the other candidates catches just enough support to squeak through. It is almost like Ohio’s 7th District, but for Republicans.

Ohio’s 14th District is another one I’m paying attention to. On the Republican side, Nicole Frenchko is to primary David Joyce. It ain’t gonna happen, but she is out there.

On the Democratic side, Maria Jukic, Carl Setzer, and Bill O’Neill are competing for the nomination. What surprised me most is how little money has been raised in that race. Maria is the top fundraiser with only about $21,000. Carl has around $13,000. Bill O’Neill did not raise anything. I do not know if the plan was just to win the primary without fundraising, but considering the year Democrats may have, I expected a lot more money to go into that race.

See my interviews below

The Angry Ohioan

Ohio’s 14th District: Three Democrats, Three Very Different Visions

Hey everyone, Matt Diemer here, The Angry Democrat…

Listen now

4 months ago · 3 likes · The Angry Democrat

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

The Local Races That I am Looking Forward To

Moving into the local races, there are a few statehouse races I’m watching closely.

House District 18 is one of them. Gabe Crenshaw, Samuel Gruber, Peter Hoffman, and Davida Russell are all competing for the Democratic nomination. That is a race worth watching because these local primaries are where the future of the party actually gets shaped, whether people want to admit it or not.

House District 19 is another big one. Dionna Gore, Cheryl Perez, and Nicole Sigurdson are all competing for the Democratic nomination. Nicole is the endorsed candidate in that race, but I would not count out Dionna or Cheryl. Nicole has been carrying some baggage that I do not think she has fully shaken, and that has rallied a lot of people against her.

There is also a Democratic write-in candidate in House District 19, Azaadjeet Singh. To be perfectly honest, I did not know about him until he texted me a couple days ago, but I wish him well.

State Senate District 21 is also interesting to me. Kent Smith, the incumbent, is facing Dolores Gray Ford. I watched their League of Women Voters forum, and you can read my write-up in the link below. It should go without saying that Kent Smith, being the incumbent, is also the endorsed candidate.

Read my LWV roundup below

The Angry Ohioan

Ohio’s 21st State Senate District: League of Women Voters Forum

Does a Good Communicator Make a Good Legislator…

Read more

4 months ago · 2 likes · 1 comment · The Angry Democrat

County Council Races to Watch

Cuyahoga County Council Districts 3 and 11.

In County Council District 3, incumbent Martin J. Sweeney is facing Anise Mayo. I do not think this is going to be much of a competition. I expect Sweeney to run away with it. But trust me, I love surprises.

County Council District 11 is much more interesting. Shirley Smith, Ebony Spano, and Christine McIntosh are all running for the seat, and there was no endorsement in that race. I have met each of them on multiple occasions, and I think this is going to be a very interesting race to watch once the results start coming in.

Tonight, We Watch the Results

Again, I’ll be going live around 7:45 after the polls close to watch the results come in. You can watch at theangrydem.com, theangryohioan.com, or on Facebook, X, and YouTube.

Make a plan.

Look up your polling location.

Check your sample ballot. Know who is running.

Bring an umbrella if it is raining.

Vote.

And, Stay Angry.

Share The Angry Ohioan

Party endorsements in a primary are not some harmless little process. They are a power move. They consolidate control inside the party. They create candidates who are loyal to the party structure. And then the party uses its own resources, along with the collective power of every other endorsed candidate, to give one person an unfair advantage before voters even get a real chance to look at the field.

That is what happens when the party sends out sample ballots to households and hands them out at the polls with only one name listed in a race where multiple people are running. That is not voter education. That is not neutral guidance. That is the party putting its thumb on the scale for a candidate picked behind closed doors by a few hundred people, then trying to decide the fate of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, and sometimes millions of Ohio voters.

This is exactly why I wanted to highlight Dionna Gore’s campaign and the criticism being thrown at her. Because what she did was not disgraceful. It was not deceitful. It was not some dirty trick. She understood the game being played, and she decided to fucking compete.

The Power of the Sample Ballot

The sample ballot matters. Everybody in politics knows it matters. People stick it on their fridge. They carry it with them to the polls. They use it as a guide when they vote. That is why the party uses it. That is why endorsed candidates want to be on it. That is why everyone is suddenly clutching their pearls when Dionna Gore made her own.

She put the candidates she supports on her sample ballot, and she put herself on it in the race where she is not the endorsed candidate. That is absolutely acceptable. Honestly, it is smart. It is one of the only ways a non-endorsed candidate can fight back against a party machine that already decided who it wants voters to choose.

But instead of admitting that, people tried to turn it into some scandal. They called it disgraceful. They called it a dirty trick. They acted like voters are too stupid to tell the difference between the official Democratic Party sample ballot and Dionna Gore’s campaign literature.

That is what pisses me off.

If you look at both ballots side by side, you can clearly tell the difference. One is branded with the Democratic Party. The other is Dionna Gore’s ballot. Different colors. Different logos. Yes, it has a similar structure because it is a sample ballot. It lists candidates who are going to be on the ballot. That is literally the fucking point.

People are not that stupid. They know what they are holding. If they are holding a ballot that says Dionna Gore, then they know they are looking at Dionna Gore’s campaign material. Acting like voters are helpless idiots who cannot read a logo or understand a campaign piece is not protecting democracy. It is insulting the constituents.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

They Are Mad Because It Diminishes Their Power

The real problem is not confusion. The real problem is power.

People are not mad because voters might be tricked. They are mad because Dionna Gore’s sample ballot might actually work. It might diminish the effectiveness of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party’s sample ballot. And yes, that is the phrase people are throwing around like it is some moral indictment.

But let’s translate that for what it really means…

“We pick the candidates, not the voters. Do not interfere with our power.”

The Cuyahoga County Democratic Party wants to maintain control of the primary process. They want to squeeze out people who are actually running. They want to use endorsements, sample ballots, and insider relationships to narrow the field before voters get to make their own decision. Then when a candidate pushes back using the same basic tactic in a transparent way, suddenly that candidate is the problem.

Give me a break.

The hubris is unbelievable. The lack of self-reflection is almost impressive. To say you support democracy while being angry that a candidate made her own sample ballot is laughable. To act like the party’s preferred candidates deserve every institutional advantage, but a non-endorsed candidate is somehow dirty for trying to compete, is exactly the kind of insider bullshit people are sick of.

Trying to associate Dionna Gore’s tactic with MAGA, deceit, or something beneath a Democratic candidate is absurd.

What is deceitful is pretending the endorsement process is some pure democratic exercise when it is often a small room of insiders trying to shape the outcome before regular voters show up.

What is deceitful is pretending the party’s sample ballot is just a helpful tool, while everyone knows it is a weapon.

What is deceitful is acting like voters are being protected when what is really being protected is the power of the party machine.

And the fear tactic is obvious. They want to guilt people into believing that questioning the endorsed candidate is somehow disloyal. They want to make it seem like looking at non-endorsed candidates is reckless. They want people to believe there is one acceptable choice, and that choice just happens to be the one party insiders already picked for them.

That is not democracy. That is control.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Look at Every Candidate

I am writing this because people need to look closely at all the candidates, not just the endorsed ones. An endorsement does not mean someone is the best candidate. It means they won the endorsement. That is it. Those are not the same thing.

Vote based on your ideals. Vote based on the candidate. Vote based on who you think will actually represent you. Do not let party insiders tell you who the acceptable choice is, then guilt you, shame you, or scare you into falling in line.

And in Ohio 19, there are three candidates. Dionna Gore is one of them. Cheryl Perez is another non-endorsed candidate, and Perez really deserves a look too.

That should not be controversial. That should be the bare minimum.

Stay Angry

Matt and I stayed in touch and chatted from time to time.

Recently, Matt heard from one of his readers about Allison Russo’s campaign consultant Rachel Rossi going after MY MOM on Facebook and telling my mom that I was in a “mental health crisis.“

And that is what brings me to The Angry Democrat/Ohioan today as a guest blogger! And I’m angry!

Let’s get into it…

This is Rachel Rossi. Allison Russo pays her $6,000/month as her campaign consultant. A candidate running to be my state representative pays Rachel $2,700/month. A few other Statehouse folks have her on the payroll, too.

Several days ago, Rachel Rossi found a five day old comment by my mom on a public Facebook page, Summit County Progressive Democrats. They held a forum and then endorsed Dr. Bryan Hambley for Secretary of State. Mom commented about Dr. Hambley’s experience in healthcare and about Russo’s vote with Republicans for the gerrymandered state maps. Pretty tame comment.

Rachel, who I’ve known for 15 years since she was a kid fresh out of college, comes along five days later and she knows this is my mom. And she says this (I’m choosing not to further Rachel‘s agenda by showing her entire comment):

(Can you believe this 36 year old woman telling a 72 year old woman what to do with her 49 year old daughter?)

Around midnight, my mom calls me from my stepdad’s phone. You get a late night call from them like that and you worry. I immediately answered.

She says, “Who’s Rachel Lynn?” Rachel Rossi was going by Rachel Lynn on Facebook. I tell her that’s Allison‘s campaign manager and we discuss what just happened.

We hang up. She calls me back a minute later. “Sarah, isn’t this just what Allison did to Elliot Forhan?”

Me: 🤯 [WHOA]

Also me: 🥱 [yawn] I’ve been dealing with terrible things from these people for almost 3 years now. Initially, this seemed like just one more.

But I woke up the next day pretty pissed about it, so I made a video about what Rachel did. And people immediately responded with outrage. I typically get a lot of views and good engagement on my posts but… GOING AFTER A PERSON’S MOM! This struck a nerve with people.

Later, I talk to my friend on the phone and she says… well, she says a lot of choice words. But she points out not only did Allison’s campaign manager call you mentally ill like Allison did with Elliot Forhan, but they told your MOM that… just like they did with Elliot Forhan.

PEOPLE, when I tell you that my mind was blown… 🤯 A full day had passed almost and I had not seen the obvious. Allison Russo‘s campaign ran the same play on me that she ran on Elliot Forhan!

So who the hell is Elliot Forhan?

Let’s do a quick overview for people who don’t know. He was a Democratic member of the House. He and another member had words, loud words as I understand it. They had a disagreement about Elliot putting up an Israel flag in his office space, Allison‘s chief of staff asking him to take it down, and Elliot commenting on it on social media.

The other member said in public statements that she did cry but that she cries when she’s angry. Then, it seems like Allison took the opportunity, using this brief argument he had with the other member, to just drop a bomb on him. Allison found Elliot annoying and she wanted him out of her hair. But what she did was absolute political malpractice and resulted in hours and hours of unnecessary pain and wasted time over the next several years— causing me to frequently wonder, “Is anyone raising money and trying to win elections?!” But we’ll get to that...

Back on this day in November 2023, the bomb Allison dropped was a 20-page memo she wrote about Forhan calling him violent and suicidal. That was the gist of it. The rest of the pages were padding for the headline: violent and suicidal. (Because apparently he had made comments such as, “Just shoot me.”)

The timeline is super condensed. I think Forhan and the other member had the argument and the next day Alison has this memo written about him, and she releases it to the press! (Because that’s what you do when you think someone is suicidal, right!?) But before she releases it to the press, she has a member of her leadership team call Elliot’s moms and tell them that their son is in mental health crisis! And that he’s suicidal!

Elliot has two moms. He’s very close with them. He performed their marriage ceremony in fact—not that long ago! And they are bewildered and upset by this news. Over the coming days, they speak to their son, confirm that he is not in fact suicidal, and they begin what turns out to be a very long legal battle that is still going on.

Representative Juanita Brent gets involved a few days later. That is an unfortunate part of the story. She appears to think that Forhan was driving by her house. That seems to be false or a mistake on her part. They end up in court over a civil stalking protection order and after many months—and after he loses his primary reelection—a court says the case has “no merit” and Forhan is “exonerated.” (Full disclosure: I like Rep. Brent and think she has done a lot of good work and some downright heroic opposition to the hideous racism in that Statehouse. Had Allison not instigated a witch hunt against Forhan, I think this all could’ve been avoided—avoiding drama like this is the job of a leader.)

This was a full on court case culminating in a one day trial. They had depositions. Allison Russo walked out of her first deposition without answering questions. She was ordered by the court to sit for another deposition. She refused to answer questions again, and had to attend a contempt hearing where she was ordered by the court to answer the question. It was high drama, unnecessary drama.

April 10, 2024 court decision:

I wasn’t at the House anymore when any of this happened, but I knew Elliot a little bit at this time. I had worked at the House and staffed the Ballot Board. Allison had appointed Elliot to the Ballot Board actually against my recommendation. I didn’t think he was ready and thought we could have a more experienced appointee. She appointed him and he did fine. But, we all knew Rep. Forhan was a little different.

Words like “neurodivergent” and “on the spectrum” were thrown around. But people liked him and no one thought he was violent or suicidal. What Allison did to him I believe was a result of her impatience with and rage at his difference. He can be great and he can also be highly annoying and rigid and self-righteous. But there’s no excuse for falsely calling a person violent and suicidal.

So all of that was two years ago in 2023 and 2024. Forhan is now on the ballot on Tuesday, attempting to become our Democratic nominee for Attorney General. (Full disclosure: I am voting for the other Democrat, John Kulewicz, for AG. Elliot and I have become friends, but for many reasons, I think John is the better candidate.)

So journalists are writing stories about the current race and all of these old headlines about Forhan and stalking and violence and suicide are being resurrected, because they’re still out there and journalists repeat them and link to them. They don’t link to the end of the story where Elliot was “exonerated,” they link to the beginning of the story repeating the false allegations by Allison Russo.

Since the end of 2024, Elliot Forhan has been suing the House of Representatives, Allison Russo, and other elected officials and some staff members in their official and personal capacities. He is suing them for defamation and a few other claims in two courts at the same time, the Ohio Court of Claims and the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, because of immunity issues that have to be resolved. If the Court of Claims determines these people are not personally immune from suit, then the Cuyahoga County case against them as individuals will proceed. (I am a lawyer, but not in this case, and I don’t claim to be an expert on these things.)

Some depositions have taken place in the current lawsuit. Forhan deposed Allison Russo again and you can listen to the whole thing here. She has some pretty wild ideas about what is and isn’t “work” and she says “I don’t know” well over 100 times, mostly about things I’m sure she knows.

Trial is set for… ELECTION DAY! That’s right, November 3, 2026. Whoever said judges aren’t political is a comedian.

And that, my friends, is the short version of the Forhan story.

Let’s go back to the main point here.

What is up with Allison Russo and MOMS?!?

There is another parallel between Elliot’s and my experience with Allison. Right after Matt and I recorded our interview in mid-February, he and I were texting about Allison’s response to it (that needs its own entire response post), only I couldn’t get back to Matt immediately because I was in a hospital in Toledo with my mom who had just had a heart attack. (She’s doing great now! She grumbles about going to cardiac rehab because there are too many “old people,” but she goes and she’s doing great.)

Earlier that week, I had decided not to invite her to a secretary of state campaign event, because I thought maybe the stress of Allison’s conduct toward me was getting to her. Then on Friday the 13th, she had a heart attack.

The parallel: sometime in the first few months of Elliot’s conflict with Allison, one of his moms ended up in the emergency room for heart issues. I don’t have children myself, and I can only imagine what it’s like to see your kid suffer. But I know we can’t protect our loved ones, our parents, from the stress we go thru. And that sucks.

Donna and I will both tell you we’re tough as nails and we are. But she was upset that night and couldn’t sleep. And I was upset that night that this woman Rachel—who I have known for 15 years, who had been my friend—lied to my mom to hurt her and hurt me and stop us from speaking out about her political campaign client, Allison Russo. It’s low.

Here’s what Elliot told me about how he felt when Allison Russo told his moms he was mentally ill:

“It hurt me that they did that to my moms. Especially because there’s no way they believed what they were saying about me— you simply would not send a memo like that to the PRESS if you truly thought a person was suicidal. But beyond that, it’s such a perversion of our, not just our Democratic values… I remember after I was sworn in in 2023, I was sitting on the floor of the House Chamber and Mike DeWine was making his very long State of the State speech and he kept returning to this point: ‘I want to make the state of Ohio number one in mental health!’ So, it’s not just our Democratic values, it’s our values as Ohioans, as decent people! And here is Allison Russo, as a Democratic leader, abusing that value, perverting it for her personal political gain. It’s offensive.”

Bonus: When I called Elliot to ask him to give me a quote, his wife Nicole offered the following:

“I remember that his moms were frantic for a short time. They called Elliot and couldn’t reach him right away so they called me and texted me something about suicide which I just found strange! And by the time I saw that a few minutes later, they had already reached him, learned that he was fine, and texted me that he was fine. Then they came up to visit that weekend, and I remember that we watched the movie Singin’ in the Rain. And Elliot laughed during the movie. And his mom was like “I’m so glad he’s laughing.” Not because it was surprising that he was laughing—that was normal. But they had just been given this huge scare. And they were sitting here seeing how wrong it was.”

I’ve met Elliot’s moms. They are wonderful loving people and Democratic activists, and they dwell in the greatest place on earth—Athens, Ohio. As their friend, I am offended that Allison put them thru that.

I am running against Allison for Ohio Democratic Party State Central Committeewoman, Senate District 25. After what Rachel did, I challenged Allison to a debate. Allison has refused to respond, refused to face me, and refused to address this dirty tactic by her highly paid henchwoman. (And it is not the first one. It’s been a long nine months.) But I haven’t given up and I’ve reserved space for a debate in the Columbus Main Library Auditorium on Monday at 11:30 AM.

Clever use of the POWW! logo if I do say so myself…

Allison has been asked one question as far as I can tell about her treatment of me and former Rep. Forhan— at an Indivisible forum where I was sitting silently in the audience in the sanctuary of a local church. I posted that question, her response, and my after-the-fact response here. TLDR: Why didn’t she have half the smoke for real violence in the workplace as she had for a member who annoyed her?

Matt posed the question: Is this politics as usual? I have to say… on the one hand, yes. The effect on one’s family is often cited by potential candidates or people newly in office as a reason not to run. But that usually involves the things said to and about the candidate. What makes this different is Rachel Rossi sought out my mom and commented TO her ABOUT me. That’s another level in my experience. Very unprofessional. Very low. And Rachel has now deactivated her Facebook account. Did she do that out of shame, acknowledgement of a mistake? Or did she do it because the dirty work was done, had its effect, and now it was time to zap the evidence? I don’t know which.

Let’s close with a word from Mom:

You can hear more from Donna here and here.

Thanks for reading! Thanks, Matt, for the always interesting discussion.

I’ve tinkered with Substack, but my POWW! headquarters is really on Facebook and you can find me at all the usual spots (my linktree). Happy voting! Leave my mom alone!

And STAY ANGRY!