Ohio lawmakers unveiled a sweeping data center bill Tuesday that reins in incentives and addresses several other public concerns.

Drawing on testimony from the Select Committee on Data Centers, Ohio state Sen. Brian Chavez put together a laundry list of changes and then grafted them onto a measure originally meant to study the issue.

It’s a significant revision of state policy, touching on tax breaks, nondisclosure agreements, water use and testing, utility billing, and potential impacts on local governments. Despite some quibbles, lawmakers and witnesses found a lot to like in the initial proposal. But given the rapid timeline Chavez envisions for passage — potentially moving to a vote on the Senate floor one day after introduction — opportunities to tweak the language are scarce.

Ohio state Sen. Bill DeMora, D-Columbus, complained about the rapid timeline.

“Anything the legislature does in a swift amount of time ends up being bad for everybody,” he said, “because there are always problems with it.”

What’s in the bill

Currently, data center projects can apply for an 100% sales and use tax exemption. It’s a discretionary program, but it has ballooned to roughly $1.6 billion in the last year. The proposal would generally cut that tax break in half, but projects that build on brownfields and bring their own power are eligible for a 75% tax break.

The bill also caps local property tax abatements for data centers at 50% and eliminates access to Ohio’s 30-year mega project job creation grant.

Data center developers’ use of nondisclosure agreements has drawn sharp criticism, and the bill includes a provision stating NDAs do not supersede public records law.

On the water use front, the measure directs the Ohio EPA to develop a water quality testing plan and report “any anomalies” detected as part of its water monitoring program. Data centers, meanwhile, would be required to track and report water usage to state regulators, and employ water conservation best practices including closed loop cooling systems.

Under the bill, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio would create a data center rate class. Similar to the data center tariff the PUCO approved for AEP Ohio last year, the move is meant to apply costs associated with power generation, distribution and transmission to data centers.

Another protection included in the proposal is a surety bond equal to the average salary of all a data centers workers over a ten year period. Chavez described the provision as a way to give “financial insurance to local governments and communities impacted by the development.”

Quibbles & pushback

The Ohio Manufacturer’s Association is currently challenging AEP’s data center tariff in the Ohio Supreme Court, and the group wasn’t thrilled with the idea of extending that approach to the rest of the state’s utilities.

Speaking on behalf of OMA, energy consultant John Seryak explained tariffs spread costs over an extended period of time rather than requiring developers to pay the full amount of their impact up front.

“We see that as pretty workable,” Seryak said, because there’s little opportunity to shift costs to other consumers.

But by implementing a separate rate class, those costs get spread over several years. Seryak pointed to one project in AES Ohio’s territory that would require roughly $230 million supplemental equipment.

“By the time that’s financed over 40 years, with return on equity and interest payments, it’s about $850 million. One project. This tariff would recover only $300 million of that,” he said.

Seryak also contends the tariff’s minimum demand payments could just juice the overall load forecast — forcing utilities to plan for greater capacity which is then spread across all ratepayers. Making data centers pay a minimum amount each month also reduces the incentive to use power efficiently.

Nolan Rutschilling from the Ohio Environmental Council Action Fund urged lawmakers to include explicit directives for the PUCO about an upcoming backstop auction.

The regional grid operator PJM Interconnection will hold the auction this September to secure 15 gigawatts of new power generation to meet growing demand driven by data centers. Those costs will get passed on, and PJM has urged states to develop regulations to ensure the costs are borne by data centers. Without them, the grid operator warned, “it is possible that these costs will be allocated to other consumers in the states, including residential consumers.”

“It’s entirely possible that this large load tariff could address that issue,” Rutschilling said, “but I’m urging just some clarifying language to ensure that it does and to ensure that the PUCO undertakes this matter in a timely fashion.”

Cathy Cowan Becker from Save Ohio Parks said there were many good provisions in the bill, but “we’d like data centers to meet their energy demand, at least some of it, with carbon free energy.”

Many facilities rely on diesel backup generators, “which are quite polluting,” she said while battery storage would generate no additional carbon emissions.

What’s next

Quibbles weren’t confined to public testimony. DeMora complained the bill “does nothing” on nondisclosure agreements. Instead of banning them, it simply states an NDA can’t “prohibit or otherwise limit a public record from being made available.”

“They might say that you can find out if there’s an NDA,” DeMora insisted, “but the bill does nothing to stop NDAs.”

Meanwhile, Ohio state Sen. Jerry Cirino, R-Kirtland, worried lawmakers might be doing something that’s “a detriment to data centers coming in and negotiating with local governments.”

The Senate Energy Committee is lined up to advance the bill Wednesday morning, with the goal of voting the measure through the full Senate later that day.

Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

The post Ohio Lawmakers Introduce Sweeping New Data Center Legislation appeared first on Cleveland Scene.

Big tech got the chance to make its case for data centers Thursday before Ohio lawmakers. The so-called hyperscalers — companies responsible for facilities with thousands of servers and footprints measured in football fields — insist they’re good neighbors and a vital part of Ohio’s economy.

Many lawmakers on Ohio’s Select Committee on Data Centers seem willing to hear out Meta, Amazon, Google and Microsoft. But many ordinary Ohioans have had enough. They’re furious about a string of projects shielded from public view by nondisclosure agreements. They worry about the facilities’ impacts on the environment and the power grid. They argue it’s absurd to hand out tax breaks to trillion-dollar companies.

The rising tide of public animosity and mistrust was on full display early last week. Ohio state Rep. Heidi Workman, R-Rootstown, tried to convey that frustration.

“You’re doing a terrible job actually selling your product,” she told the companies’ representatives. “Respectfully, you’re far behind the narrative on this.”

To put the trust deficit in context, Workman described putting a call out to her constituents the night before.

“Over 90% of the responses I received last night are basically telling me we do not want this, no matter what you say,” she said. “They say that they do not believe anything that the data centers are telling them.”

Although the companies readily acknowledged they could do better a job “telling our story,” it seems doubtful their testimony earned many converts.

Conserve Ohio, a group gathering signatures for a constitutional amendment halting new data centers, certainly wasn’t swayed. In a statement, the organization said the testimony “was tone deaf, empty with generalities, and provided no real answers.”

“We see and hear everything and know who they truly are. They do not fool us,” the group wrote. “Big tech is showing yet again that confidentiality, secrecy, and massive tax breaks are still their top priorities, not Ohio.”

Trying to allay concerns

The hyperscalers did their best to tamp down fears about water contamination, air pollution and rising energy costs.

Google’s Liz Schwab explained “our data centers leave watersheds more resilient, and we’re committed to replenishing 120% of the water we consume globally.”

She acknowledged adding chemicals to their internal water systems but compared it to putting chlorine in your pool to avoid algae. Each company insisted they’re not adding so-called forever chemicals to their systems.

Thor Underdahl from Meta explained the company is aiming to be “water positive” by 2030. Craig Sundstrom from Amazon Web Services said they’re pursuing the same target. Already in Ohio, he added, Amazon uses water for cooling their data centers just 3% of the year — their annual water use amounts to less than two car washes.

As for air quality, Sundstrom said that Amazon has upgraded its backup generators to meet “the most stringent EPA emissions requirements available.” He stressed those generators are also only permitted for emergency use.

“So, under federal EPA and then state implementation regulations, we can only run those for a finite period of hours every year.”

Every one of the companies offered some version of the “pay our own way” pitch Daniel Brown made for Microsoft.

“Our goal is that we do not increase electricity rates for other ratepayers,” he said. “We pay utility rates that are high enough to cover our costs, we pay costs associated with generation, transmission, and distribution upgrades, and we make sure that our costs don’t impact other ratepayers.”

Not quite getting there

As lawmakers began asking questions, though, holes began to appear.

Ohio state Sen. Shane Wilkin, R-Hillsboro, pressed the companies to explain what exactly “covering all the costs” or “we’ll pay our own way” meant to them. Microsoft may not want to raise consumer electricity rates, Wilkin said, but how does that square with the law of supply and demand?

“If there’s 100 megawatts and you need 50,” he said, “and there’s no more (power) brought on, you say, ‘Well, I’m paying for the 50 that I’m getting,’ is that fair to the residential consumers? And how does that not drive up the bills?”

“We don’t always control increases in rates as sometimes people assume,” Brown said, “but anything that we can control, we will pay for our fair share.”

The companies expressed support for a statewide version of the data center tariff recently implemented for AEP Ohio. That pricing agreement requires significant financial commitments on the front end to pay for new infrastructure as well as financial penalties if a data center closes before the end of the agreement.

Still, Sundstrom from Amazon, warned “rate-making is different than energy pricing.” Even with the tariff’s consumer protections in place, he said, outside factors like the COVID-19 pandemic or the war in Ukraine can influence prices.

“Those things are going to necessarily be out of, I think, our individual control, certainly out of the control of Amazon,” he said.

In a narrow win for data center skeptics, Brown told the committee Microsoft will no longer use nondisclosure agreements or seek property tax abatements for its development projects. Wilkin asked the other companies if they’d make the same commitment to forgo abatements. He got no takers.

Schwab, from Google, said those agreements are “a great example of how competitive we all are.” The deals are a way for companies to demonstrate their value to local communities, and she said Google has been responsible for some $21.8 billion in economic activity in Ohio.

“The local revenue and jobs are significant, so we’ll continue to push each other, right?” she said. “But at the end of the day, local governments and the local leaders where we operate will make that call.”

Later, Ohio state Sen. Bill Reineke, R-Tiffin, asked about nondisclosure agreements. Sundstrom defended them as “an important economic development tool,” and put the onus on local leaders.

“It’s a tool for local governments to use if they choose to use them or not,” he said, and encouraged the panel to ask local officials about NDAs when they testify.

“From our perspective,” he said, “they see it as a viable tool in order to foster the type of economic development discussions that they’re interested in having.”

The sales tax exemption

The most widely criticized tax break is Ohio’s sales and use tax exemption. Supporters note tax officials award the incentive on a case-by-case basis. But Ohio lawmakers attempted to repeal it as part of the most recent state budget. Gov. Mike DeWine vetoed that provision.

Last month, Signal Ohio reported the exemption cost the state $1.6 billion — or roughly 11 times original projections. Not long after, DeWine paused new exemptions.

Schwab sought to put a positive spin on the ballooning foregone revenue. “It is an indication of how successful Ohio has been at attracting this industry,” she said, and pointed to an Ohio Chamber report suggesting each incentive dollar brings back $2.10 in other tax revenue.

Each companies’ representative acknowledged they take advantage of the same sales tax exemption. Despite DeWine’s pause on new tax agreements, their existing tax breaks will not be affected.

“If Ohio continues to be successful at attracting data centers, or even if Ohio just sees reinvestment in its existing data centers, that dollar amount will go up, right?” Schwab said. “It’s a sign that companies are reinvesting and spending money on chips and servers in the state of Ohio.”

And that dollar amount could keep going up for a while. Sundstrom said Amazon’s exemption runs through 2055.

Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

The post Big Tech Defends Data Centers Before Ohio Lawmakers appeared first on Cleveland Scene.

A bipartisan measure creating new oversight for JobsOhio got its first hearing Tuesday. The bid for greater transparency comes after a podcast scandal that cost the former Ohio State University president his job. But the drumbeat began before that incident.

Former Gov. John Kasich structured the economic development agency as a nonprofit private corporation. JobsOhio holds the state’s liquor franchise and uses the proceeds to fund job creation efforts. But because it’s a private entity, JobsOhio isn’t subject to state sunshine laws.

There has always been grumbling about that lack of oversight. But until recently, Republican officials had largely defended the secrecy as crucial to landing deals with prospective companies.

Cracks began showing early last year. The Ohio Controlling Board considered an early extension of JobsOhio’s liquor franchise that would grant it control through 2053. The deal would cost the corporation nothing, and Attorney General Dave Yost publicly called on JobsOhio leaders to table the effort until they could provide Ohioans “proper consideration and a full explanation.”

The Controlling Board approved the extension in Feb. 2025.

Ohio state Rep. Tristan Rader, D-Lakewood, was sitting on the controlling board at the time, and the motion was approved over his objection. He’s now one of the sponsors backing the JobsOhio Transparency Act.

Rader stressed that he and his co-sponsor, Ohio state Rep. Justin Pizzulli, R-Scioto County, aren’t trying to hobble the corporation.

“JobsOhio can operate how they operate today under this bill,” Rader said. “It just after the fact, it allows us to see better how these things are being done, and what outcomes there are, and better tracking, better transparency, better accountability.”

“The bottom line here is this,” he added. “This bill is not about whether JobsOhio is successful or unsuccessful, it’s about whether Ohioans can evaluate that success for themselves.”

In a statement, JobsOhio Press Secretary Matt Engelhart said “JobsOhio appreciates our strong working relationship with state legislative leaders. We are committed to maintain our best-in-class transparency while ensuring Ohio remains competitive for economic development opportunities.”

New oversight

JobsOhio already faces regular auditing and produces annual reports. But critics complain the audits don’t reveal enough about JobsOhio’s inner workings, and the reports only describe outcomes in the aggregate.

Ohio House Bill 779 would replace that oversight with the standard two-year audits any other state agency or public entity receives from the Ohio Auditor. In addition, JobsOhio officials would testify annually before state lawmakers to detail the projects that received funding, how much they got, and where they’re located.

In an apparent response to the podcast scandal, the bill also requires JobsOhio to disclose information about any corporate sponsorships or media partners.

“If we can shine light on an organization,” Pizzulli said, “it gives public trust and transparency. I truly believe that had this bill been passed, we wouldn’t have seen such an embarrassment happen to our state.”

He explained he represents one of the poorest districts in the state and his constituents feel “a little offended” at the waste of money.

“Imagine what could have been done to a place like Scioto County and our local economic development had we been given $50,000 to help a few good paying jobs to lift people up out of poverty,” Pizzulli said.

The measure makes changes to future extensions of the liquor franchise as well. Rader explained legislative researchers estimated the most recent extension was worth roughly $16 billion. The proposal would require JobsOhio to pay fair market value for any future franchise rights.

Why it’s needed

Ohio state Rep. Phil Plummer, R-Dayton, wasn’t buying Pizzulli and Raders’ skepticism. He put it bluntly: have we increased jobs or had a net loss of jobs since JobsOhio began?

Rader and Pizzulli acknowledged there are more jobs now, but said JobsOhio’s role in creating them is murky. Rader described how a company in his district was getting ready to buy a $1.2 million piece of equipment. JobsOhio cut a check for a couple thousand dollars and then claimed credit for creating jobs.

The company is “very appreciative” Rader said, but the public deserves “a much more detailed, granular understanding of how these public dollars are being spent.”

Plummer seemed fine with a bit more transparency — “I don’t mind tweaking some things and flipping over a few rocks.” But he seemed unmoved by the sponsors’ doubts.

“They’ve been very successful in my opinion,” Plummer said.

Pizzulli and Rader contend there’s nothing wrong with JobsOhio’s mission, and if it’s doing as well as it claims, greater oversight will only bolster its reputation.

But the sponsors worry it’s not actually providing an adequate return on investment. Pizzulli described pitching JobsOhio to help with his local economic development agency, a major employer in his district, and a regional infrastructure strategy. Each time they turned him down.

“At some point, after enough conversations lead to nowhere, you begin asking a simple question,” he said. “Who exactly is Jobs Ohio accountable to?”

The information JobsOhio does share, “looks great on paper,” Pizzulli admitted, but he’s not sure it bears scrutiny.

“When you look closer, many of these projects were already happening independently before JobsOhio became involved,” he said. “In several cases, it appeared that a check was written after the fact, and the project was then counted as a JobsOhio success.”

People all over the state buy alcohol. But when Pizzulli sees his community continuing to lag behind others, he wonders whether JobsOhio “is truly serving all regions of Ohio equally or primarily concentrating resources in areas already experiencing growth and momentum.”

“My constituents are not asking for special treatment,” he said. “We’re just asking to not be forgotten.”

Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

The post Bipartisan JobsOhio Oversight Bill Gets First Hearing appeared first on Cleveland Scene.

More than a hundred Ohioans submitted testimony ahead of state lawmakers’ Select Committee on Data Centers’ single hearing for public comment.

Lawmakers heard an array of concerns about the proliferation of data centers around the state — the environmental impact, the cost of tax breaks, and the use of nondisclosure agreements to avoid public scrutiny.

Lawmakers also received pointed critiques from Ohioans who say elected officials have been too slow to respond to their frustrations, and their response thus far has been inadequate.

Many pressed lawmakers for a data center moratorium — a step lawmakers have so far been unwilling to take.

“The citizens are going to continue working to ban them if the legislative body doesn’t take action,” Stephanie Stock, the president of Ohio Advocates for Medical Freedom, warned.

Organizers are currently gathering signatures for a constitutional amendment prohibiting construction of data centers that consume more than 25 megawatts a month.

Broken trust

Many speakers made the drive from Adams County in Appalachian Ohio. They described a familiar pattern of new industries showing up in Appalachian communities to extract resources and leave residents with little if any benefit.

“I understand the importance of jobs; I understand economic development. I am not opposed to progress,” Emily Young told lawmakers. “I am opposed to communities being asked to accept risk before they have been given honest answers.”

No industry, she said, has asked local communities “to surrender the amount of land, water, energy, and local control” as hyperscale data centers have.

To many speakers, the epitome of those demands is the industry’s use of nondisclosure agreements to shield new developments from public input.

Jessica Baker from Williamsburg brought in 16 NDAs from a data center project in a nearby town.

She recited the officials — councilmembers, the mayor, fire chief, village engineer, and more — as she flipped through the documents.

Like Young, Baker insisted she doesn’t oppose technology or progress, she opposes the secrecy. And she expressed frustration that it fell to her to dig up answers.

“Everyday Ohioans should not have to spend their evenings submitting records requests and digging through utility filings just to understand what is happening around their homes,” she said. “That is why people elect leaders in the first place.”

Carl Setzer is uniquely qualified to talk about data centers, he shared. After working for a firm testing tech companies’ security systems, he started a company that grew into what he described as China’s largest craft brewery.

“I have dealt with private equity, I’ve dealt with cooling systems, I’ve dealt with wastewater management, I’ve dealt with IT,” he said.

Setzer said we’re in the midst of a speculative bubble, and “the reason why we need to build so many data centers yesterday,” is so private investors can cash out before the broader public realizes “there’s no there there.”

“Ohio residents are not in the way of progress,” he said. “We’re just anxious, and we’re afraid that we’re going to lose the little that we have left, to things that we never even asked for.”

Environmental concerns

Research scientist Stephen Petty worries about what’s in the water data centers use to cool their facilities.

Ohio state Sen. Shane Wilkin, R-Hillsboro, asked why state regulators’ permitting systems aren’t enough to protect residents.

“They’re effective for chemicals that are regulated,” Petty said. “They’re not effective for chemicals that are not regulated.”

Currently, he said, many materials including PFAS — microplastics known as forever chemicals — fall outside state regulations.

That discharge could present health concerns, but it could cost local governments, too, Petty warned.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently announced plans to rollback PFAS drinking water limits that were set to take effect in 2029.

But if PFAS eventually face regulation, and the chemicals have already been discharged into water systems, local governments could be on the hook for the cleanup.

Petty described a city in New Jersey that spent more than $30 million on technology to filter the chemicals from its municipal water system.

In addition to concerns about water contaminants, speakers voiced concerns about the scope of water use generally.

Nikki Gerber works for a canoe and kayak rental company in Adams County and she explained the region’s aquifers are some of the slowest in the state to recharge.

“We have many people with private residential wells,” Gerber said. “Well, are those wells gonna go dry? That’s their source of life.”

“Cows can’t drink bottled water,” she added. “Crops can’t grow off of bottled water.”

Other speakers complained about air emissions — particularly from backup generators.

Cathy Cowan Becker from Save Ohio Parks pointed to a Hilliard data center that will use a fuel cell system for backup power.

“It’s going to emit 1.5 million pounds of carbon dioxide per day,” she said. “The equivalent of if you took 66,000 cars, parked them on site, and let them run 24/7 next to hundreds of homes, an elementary school, a park, and the county’s largest animal shelter.”

Co-chairs’ thoughts

The committee’s Ohio House co-chair, state Rep. Adam Holmes, R-Nashport, acknowledged most speakers showed up to voice opposition to data centers.

“From the ground level, they’re all opponents, but I did pick up various different concerns,” Holmes said.

“That was really the intent of this whole process,” he added. “(To) understand specific concerns and specific areas that really don’t have oversight at the state level.”

Senate co-chair, state Sen. Brian Chavez, R-Marietta, said the process is working.

“I love the fact that we’re having the public come in and give their point of view and their opinions,” he said. “I just want to make sure that we’re not giving our own facts.”

Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

The post Data Center Opponents Give Ohio Lawmakers an Earful appeared first on Cleveland Scene.

Democratic candidate for governor Amy Acton raised $5.2 million during the first quarter of this year, and since joining the race for governor, she’s cleared $10 million, according to recently released campaign finance reports.

It’s an historic sum for the physician who led Ohio’s health department during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her campaign noted no previous Democratic hopeful has raised so much at this point in the calendar.

That announcement, which revised a previous quarterly fundraising total of $4.8 million, came after Republican Vivek Ramaswamy announced bringing in roughly $5 million from donors.

Despite that showing, however, money is likely a race Acton can’t win.

Although both candidates’ fundraising lands in the same ballpark when it comes to donors, Ramaswamy is a billionaire. Acton is not. In addition to raising $5 million in the first quarter, Ramaswamy cut his campaign a check for $25 million. That’s separate from the Super PAC supporting Ramaswamy, which has raised another $29.5 million thus far.

In a press release, Ramaswamy’s campaign described the candidate’s eight-figure cash infusion as making good on a campaign pledge to spend at least $30 million of his own money on the race.

Meanwhile, Acton’s campaign manager Phil Stein said Ramaswamy is “panicking.”

“He can continue throwing money at his campaign from the seat of his private jet, but Ohioans see right through his false promises,” he said.

Ramaswamy’s $25 million is structured as a loan, meaning he can use money his campaign raises to pay himself back.

Acton’s Q1

Acton garnered over 195,000 total donations in the first quarter, 43% of which came from individual donors. Stein said in a press release these numbers are “proof that Ohioans are ready for change.”

“Ohioans are sick and tired of struggling to make ends meet,” Stein said. “They want a Governor who understands what they are going through instead of claiming affordability is a “buzzword”, and they know Amy is the only candidate in this race who will lower costs and build a state where all of us can thrive.”

Some of Acton’s biggest individual sums came from labor PACs, including United Healthcare Workers East and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in Columbus. Acton also received donations from top executives at Amazon, Kroger, and Alpha Generation, an independent power producer.

Her biggest expense was about $1.4 million on digital advertising, nearly all of which went to Liftoff Campaigns LLC. According to POLITICO, the group launched in 2023 to help Democratic candidates align their campaign and fundraising messaging. Acton also spent about 50 bucks on digital ads on X.

The Acton campaign has taken every opportunity available to bash Ramaswamy for flying private. During the first quarter, Acton spent nearly $20,000 on airfare with commercial airlines.

That’s about half of what Ramaswamy spends each month to lease his jet.

Ramaswamy’s Q1

Among Ramaswamy’s big donors are leaders in finance, energy and real estate. He got five grand from an executive at an independent Pepsi bottling company, ten more from Sbarro’s CEO, and the leader of NetJets maxed out for Ramaswamy — giving the campaign $16,615.67.

The second biggest share of funding came in the form of a $290,000 transfer from Rob McColley’s campaign fund. Ramaswamy tapped the Senate President to be his running mate in January. The biggest contribution, of course, came from Ramaswamy himself.

In a press release, Ramaswamy’s campaign manager John Ewing bragged they were “resetting all fundraising benchmarks” and received support from 120,000 unique donors, 98% of whom gave less than $200.

“No gubernatorial campaign in Ohio history has ever put up numbers like this,” he said, “and it sends a clear message: Ohioans are fired up for Vivek, our campaign is growing, and we will win big in November.”

Even more notable is Ramaswamy’s campaign spending. During the first quarter, Ramaswamy spent $12.5 million — or roughly two-and-a-half times what he brought in.

The biggest share of the spending was a $10 million ad buy the campaign announced early last month. At the time, Ewing stated the ad blitz would continue until November.

Nearly $7 million of that total went to The Strategy Group, the Ohio firm that became embroiled in a $220 million ad scandal that contributed to the ouster of Department of Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem. On social media, The Strategy Group stated it only received about a quarter million dollars to produce the ads.

In the first quarter of 2026, Ramaswamy spent nearly $120,000 to lease a private jet. That brings his total spending on the private plane to more than half a million dollars since the campaign began. Notably, the aircraft is leased through a company which Ramaswamy himself owns called V Leasing LLC.

Ramaswamy’s campaign also racked up more than $162,000 in credit card bills during the quarter, including more than $96,000 in the most recent billing period alone.

The Ohio Capital Journal asked Ramaswamy’s campaign if V Leasing earns a return in the private plane arrangement and whether it could provide an itemized statement of its credit card spending. The campaign did not respond.

V-PAC

In addition to his own personal fortune, Ramaswamy stands to gain from the largesse of others. The Super PAC supporting his bid for governor, V-PAC: Victors, not Victims, has raised $29.5 million since the beginning of 2025. At the end of March, it had $23 million in cash on hand.

Super PACs can run ads supporting or opposing specific candidates, but they can’t coordinate with a candidate’s campaign or make direct contributions. The groups also have to report their donors, but there’s no limit on what those donors can contribute.

A single donor, Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass, has so far poured $20 million into V-PAC, including two $5 million contributions during the first quarter of 2026. Yass heads up the investment firm Susquehanna International Group and is worth more than $67 billion according to Forbes.

Back in 2024, when Ohio voters were considering an amendment that would’ve established an independent redistricting commission, Ramaswamy urged Ohioans to vote no. On social media, he complained the effort was being “funded by left-wing billionaires from out-of-state.”

The Super-PAC also received a quarter million dollars from the Scotts Company and $150,000 from the Sports Betting Alliance — a group representing online sportsbooks like DraftKings and FanDuel. A for-profit charter school operator called Pansophic Learning pitched in another $25,000.

Outside of a $3 million ad buy in March of last year, the Super PAC’s spending has been relatively modest. The biggest expense during the first quarter was three $150,000 digital ad buys supporting Ramaswamy spread out roughly every four weeks.

Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

The post Vivek Ramaswamy Holds Big Cash Lead Over Amy Acton After $25 Million Loan appeared first on Cleveland Scene.

By 2030, utilities around the country plan to spend $1.4 trillion building out the power grid, according to a study by the energy research group Powerlines. Eventually, much of that expense will likely show up on consumers’ monthly utility bills.

Powerlines reviewed quarterly earnings reports from 51 investor-owned utilities to produce its study. The five-year forecast represents a sharp increase compared with projections from just a year ago, and it comes as utilities around the country requested $31 billion in consumers rate increases in 2025.

“These two data points, the $1.4 trillion in capital spending over the next five years, and the $31 billion in rate increase request last year, that has not yet fully hit people’s utility bills,” Powerlines Founder and Executive Director Charles Hua explained. “We consider them both leading indicators for where the trend around utility and electricity affordability could go over the next coming years.”

Duke Energy which operates in southeast Ohio has the largest capital expenditure plan of any utility in the country. The biggest share of that $103 billion investment is headed for its utilities in the Carolinas and Florida. Duke plans to spend about $3.25 billion on upgrades in Ohio.

American Electric Power, which operates a utility in Ohio as well as 10 other states, lands at number five on Powerlines’ list of proposed capital expenditures. The company expects to spend $72 billion across its 11-state footprint. According to AEP’s fourth quarter earnings presentation in 2025, about $5.7 billion of that is planned in Ohio.

What’s a capital expenditure and why is it important?

Utilities operate as regulated monopolies, and they generate revenue a little differently than an ordinary business. To simplify a complex process, the utility spends money to deliver power and then takes the bill to state regulators to get reimbursed. Utility customers pay for that reimbursement through the rates approved by regulators that show up on their monthly bills.

But Hua explained there are two different kinds of utility spending.

“One is capital expenditures,” he said, “that is new power plants, new power lines, the poles and wires that make up our grid. And then the other category is operational expenditures, so anything from maintenance to labor to fuel costs.”

The important difference is that while utilities can get their operational expenses back, capital expenditures give them the same reimbursement plus a return. In effect, capital expenses are their opportunity for profit.

“That is also why they’re reporting these metrics in the first place to their investors and shareholders,” Hua explained. “Their shareholders recognize that that is what determines their profit margin.”

Compared to last year’s five-year outlooks, Powerlines found utilities are proposing about 20% more in capital expenditures. And while proposed projects don’t always come to fruition, the report noted over the last decade actual capital spending has been roughly 95% of the amount projected.

Hua explained that continual upward trend raises questions about the necessity of utilities’ investments and whether their figures are “padded” to achieve greater returns.

It’s a concern that has come up in Ohio before. During last year’s debate over Ohio House Bill 15, the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel and a lobbyist for the Ohio Energy Leadership Council, which represents industrial power users, warned utilities are making big investments in specific transmission projects that get lighter regulatory review.

In a committee hearing, OELC lobbyist David Proaño shared a report from the regional grid operator’s independent market monitor. It showed from 1998 to 2012, AEP never had more than eight of those projects come online in a given year.

Those figures jumped to more than 20 in 2013 and then cleared 100 in 2017. Last year, there were 315.

“They’re not reviewed for cost effectiveness. They’re not reviewed for necessity,” Proaño said at the time. “They trust these transmission companies to build it, because we’ll trust that you’re doing whatever you need to do to keep things reliable. That’s the only standard.”

The change Proaño and the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel were seeking didn’t make it into the final version of the bill.

Incentives

Hua stressed utilities still need to present their investments to state regulators, proving their expenditures were “prudent and reasonable,” or that the facilities they built are “used and useful.” So, $1.4 trillion in capital expenditures doesn’t necessarily translate to a $1.4 trillion increase in utility bills.

But if you look back over the past 10 years, Hua said, there’s a strong correlation between higher capital expenditures and rate increase requests.

“If history is any indicator,” he explained, “in general, when spending on capital expenditures has gone up over the last decade, so have rate increase requests as well as retail electric prices.”

To Hua, the problem boils down to incentives. Utilities get to determine what kinds of investments they make and the current system rewards new capital spending — not investments in operational efficiency.

Grid enhancing technologies, for instance, can improve the system’s overall efficiency by allowing more power through lines when it’s safe to do so, or better routing power to avoid congestion when demand rises. Those upgrades could pay for themselves, and even generate consumer savings, in “as little as several months” Hua said.

“But in general, we’re not fully deploying those solutions,” he went on, “largely because utilities don’t earn a financial reward or incentive for that.”

By the same token, he said, it’s unsurprising utilities are leaning into capital expenditures as demand from data centers skyrockets. For many years, demand had been relatively flat, making it harder for utilities to justify rate increases.

Powerlines found greater demand was the most commonly cited reason among utilities for new capital expenditures. Many also chalked up investments to improving system reliability. In the Southeast and West, in particular, utilities cited extreme weather including wildfires, hurricanes and winter storms.

The view from Ohio

According to the Powerlines study, the Midwest, which runs from Ohio west to Kansas and north through the Dakotas, will see the second largest share of capital spending, clocking in at $272.2 billion. For context, the South has the largest share with $572 billion.

In addition to Duke and AEP, the Powerlines report includes several other utility companies with a presence in Ohio, including FirstEnergy, AES Ohio, and the corporate parents of Ohio Gas and Columbia Gas.

Powerlines noted AEP is forecasting the largest load growth of any utility in the country, driven by data centers.

In a written statement, AEP Spokesman Scott Blake underscored that growth as justification for the company’s investments. Across the company’s 11 states, he explained, they currently have 37 gigawatts-worth of customer demand. By 2030, they’re expecting another 56 gigawatts on top of that.

“Efficiency upgrades alone cannot meet demand increases of this scale,” Blake said. “To maintain reliability, additional infrastructure such as new lines and substations is necessary.”

Blake noted AEP has “pioneered” new billing plans, known as tariffs, to ensure data centers pay for the infrastructure necessary to connect to the grid. That effectively bills a portion AEP’s capital spending plan to a specific class of customers, instead of spreading the cost across its entire customer base.

“AEP Ohio did this to protect other customers,” Blake said. “The protections are working so well that bipartisan legislation is now pending at the Ohio Statehouse to expand AEP Ohio’s protections to the entire state.”

AEP companies have filed similar tariffs in a total of eight states, and have gotten approval in four, including Ohio.

Blake added that the company “invest(s) regularly in grid efficiency and reliability,” and the $5.7 billion AEP plans to invest in Ohio will “improve reliability, shorten restoration times, and help control long‑term costs for customers.”

Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

The post Utilities Plan $1.4 Trillion in Grid Investments, Likely Pushing Bills Higher in Ohio appeared first on Cleveland Scene.

In January last year, Gov. Mike DeWine was on stage in an airplane hangar outside Columbus touting the “single largest job creation and new payroll generating project in all of Ohio’s history.”

Anduril, a defense contractor specializing in autonomous weapons systems, had just announced it would build its new Arsenal-1 production facility next door to Rickenbacker Airport.

DeWine explained Anduril promised to create more than 4,000 new jobs with an average salary of $132,000 over the next 10 years — surpassing even the Intel facility in terms of employment.

“The future of American air power will be made right here in the state of Ohio,” DeWine bragged.

But if that agreement is good for Ohio’s workforce and DeWine’s legacy, it’s perhaps an even better deal for one of the men running to succeed him.

According to his financial disclosure, Republican Vivek Ramaswamy has a stake in the venture firm 8VC. That firm has invested in every round of Anduril’s fundraising.

How Ohio landed Anduril

To land the Anduril deal, Ohio offered the company an incentive package worth more than $830 million. JobsOhio made a $310 million grant and the Ohio Department of Development pitched in a tax credit worth more than $452 million.

Both incentives are tied to Anduril’s hiring commitments.

Additionally, the Department of Development put $70 million toward infrastructure upgrades to support the new Arsenal-1 plant.

“Anytime we do a deal,” then Lt. Gov. Jon Husted said at the Anduril event, “it’s contingent upon the company delivering what they promised. And we have not been afraid in any circumstance, including with General Motors, to go claw back any incentives that they don’t deliver on in terms of job creation.”

Although state officials do often claw back incentives or reduce tax breaks, a December report from Ohio Auditor Keith Faber makes it clear that’s not the norm.

The review found 39 of 60 companies in the previous fiscal year weren’t in compliance with their agreements.

Over the past four years, Faber found dozens of companies receiving loans or tax credits from the Department of Development failed to meet their commitments, but state officials took no action.

In a statement, Department of Development spokesman Mason Waldvogel said the department shares the auditor’s “goal of ensuring public resources are used responsibly and transparently, but it’s also important to note that this audit reflects only a snapshot in time.”

He noted in the months since, the department has “modified or rescinded several tax credit agreements noted as being noncompliant in the auditor report.”

As a private entity, JobsOhio is not required to publicly disclose the same amount of information.

The organization releases monthly reports detailing the deals it has struck, but in a footnote explains those commitments “are subject to change per possible project modifications.”

Although the governor doesn’t have an explicit role in incentive decisions, they often take part in negotiations with high-profile prospective companies.

The governor also has significant levers to influence decision makers. The director of the Department of Development is part of the governor’s cabinet; the governor appoints JobsOhio board members to four-year terms.

If a company the governor favors, for whatever reason — financial, political, or something else — fell short of its commitments, the governor is in a position to influence the state’s response.

Alternatively, a governor might negotiate a longer or more generous deal with such a company.

8VC and Anduril

Anduril is operating at the intersection of artificial intelligence and modern warfare. The company promises a network of autonomous weapons systems that integrate seamlessly with soldiers on the battlefield.

Perhaps most important Anduril emphasizes the speed, scale, and cost at which they can operate. The company describes legacy defense systems that began development during the Cold War as “exquisite, costly, and slow.”

In contrast, Anduril says, it builds “lower-cost, more autonomous, mass producible vehicles and weapons.”

The company has drawn interest from some of the largest venture capital firms in the country.

In 2021, the company described raising $450 million in Series D funding. A year later it brought in $1.48 billion and then raised another $1.5 billion in 2024.

Last June, the company closed its Series G funding round with $2.5 billion, and it’s currently aiming to bring in another $4 billion.

That latest round of fundraising would push Anduril’s valuation to roughly $60 billion. Back in 2021, it was valued at just $4.6 billion.

Although another infusion of private capital suggests an initial public offering isn’t in the offing, company leaders have repeatedly said they plan to go public — likely meaning a windfall for investors who got in early.

Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale launched venture firm 8VC in 2015. The company has invested in every one of Anduril’s funding rounds, and Lonsdale’s 8VC company biography notes he personally was an early Anduril investor.

Ramaswamy’s Ohio financial disclosure indicates he has a stake in 8VC Fund III, L.P., but it says nothing about the current value of that investment.

The federal disclosure from Ramaswamy’s presidential run, however, shed a bit more light on his holdings.

When he filed those disclosures in June of 2023, Ramaswamy’s holdings in 8VC Fund III were worth somewhere between $500,000 to $1 million.

He held between $1 million and $5 million in a different fund described as 8VC Fund V, too.

That investment doesn’t show up on his more recent Ohio disclosure. In 2023, Ramaswamy also had a $50,000 to $100,000 on-demand capital commitment to 8VC Fund III that doesn’t appear on his current disclosure.

Ohio Capital Journal asked Ramaswamy’s campaign about his holdings and his plans for avoiding apparent conflicts of interest in office. Ramaswamy’s team didn’t respond.

What’s the big deal?

To critics, Ramaswamy’s connection to a private company receiving close to $1 billion in state incentives is unacceptable.

Innovation Ohio Research Director Terra Goodnight dismissed the financial disclosure as “the most honest thing” in Ramaswamy’s campaign.

“It shows exactly who benefits from his agenda: himself,” she said.

“Ramaswamy’s policies will use our tax dollars to line his own pockets — that’s just a fact,” she went on. “He likes to pretend to be an outsider, but he’s just one more corrupt politician looking to rip off Ohio.”

Cassandra Burke Robertson takes a more nuanced view. The Case Western Reserve University law professor heads up the school’s Center for Professional Ethics.

She explained conflicts of interest are context dependent. For instance, take a person who owns shares of an index fund.

“It’s kind of a classic example of you have a general interest in the market doing well, but you’re not beholden to any particular one (company),” Robertson said.

“You’re not likely to make any decisions based on the interest of any particular company, because your interest is so indirect and diffuse.”

On the other hand, she said, consider a person with a substantial share of their net worth and relatives’ jobs tied up in a family business.

“Then we would expect an ordinary public official to not make decisions that would be immediately affecting that business one way or the other,” she said, “because it would be too hard to put that interest aside, right?”

Robertson added that “relative value matters.”

A million dollars in a fund would be a big deal to her and many other Ohioans. But the same amount might not be that significant to a billionaire.

The future value of Anduril might be relevant as well. Robertson noted Palantir, another company borrowing its name from The Lord of the Rings, has seen its value rise dramatically since becoming a publicly traded company.

“So, I think there is a possibility that an interest that might look smaller up front could turn out to be bigger than it looks,” she said.

Forbes estimates Ramaswamy has a personal net worth of roughly $2.5 billion. About three years ago, he had at least $1.5 million invested with 8VC.

It’s not clear how valuable those holdings are now. What’s more, Ramaswamy’s potential stake in Anduril is mediated through an 8VC fund he doesn’t control. It’s also not clear how much of 8VC Fund III’s holdings are with Anduril.

Still, Robertson said it’s reasonable to ask for more transparency in that financial relationship.

Robertson explained a legal ethicist would judge a potential conflict of interest on whether a reasonable third party perceives a conflict.

Without additional information that’s not really possible. She said the field emphasizes that outside perspective because people tend to believe their financial interests won’t impact their decision making.

“People are notoriously bad at judging whether they themselves have a conflict,” Robertson said.

Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

The post Vivek Ramaswamy May Have Stake in Company Receiving More Than $830 Million From Ohio appeared first on Cleveland Scene.

Ohio Democratic U.S. Rep. Greg Landsman has filed national legislation to ensure data centers pay for their impact on the power grid. 

Landsman’s No Harm Data Center Act would require data center operators cover the cost of new energy infrastructure, prohibit elected officials from signing nondisclosure agreements and require a study of the facilities’ environmental impacts.

Ohio lawmakers are pursuing nearly identical changes at the state level. But data centers aren’t just going up in Ohio, and Landsman believes Congress needs to act.

“I don’t think anyone has any real faith that there’s going to be movement on this in Ohio,” he said. “If there is, that’s great. Either way, you need a federal framework for managing these data centers and protecting communities.”

President Trump bragged during his state of the union address about securing a “ratepayer protection pledge” from tech companies.

“We’re telling the major tech companies that they have the obligation to provide for their own power needs.” Trump said. “They can build their own power plants as part of their factory, so that no one’s prices will go up.”

But Landsman contends a promise isn’t good enough.

“You’re either with Big Tech or with our towns,” he said in a release. “A handshake and a promise from these tech companies is not enough. That’s why we’re leading the data center effort to make sure they pay, and that they negotiate their deals in public – no more NDAs.”

Still, Landsman’s plan would mean a dramatic increase in the role federal regulators play in setting utility rates for data centers. Ohio’s consumer watchdog worries that might make it difficult for the average ratepayer to make their voice heard.

How the bill works

Landsman’s proposal applies to data centers pulling more than 50 megawatts of power at peak demand. For context, in 2022, the average U.S. home needed a little less than 1 megawatt to keep the lights on for an entire month.

Connecting such a power-hungry facility to the grid isn’t as simple as plugging in a new a toaster or lamp. Landsman tasks the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with managing the process.

The measure directs the commission to charge the “full costs of constructing, upgrading, and expanding” the power grid to new data centers.

In a written statement, Ohio Consumers’ Counsel Maureen Willis praised the provision as a “core-consumer protection principle,” ensuring ordinary ratepayers aren’t forced to pay for the “extraordinary infrastructure costs associated with data centers.”

Data center owners would be on the hook for the poles and wires running to their own facilities, as well as the physical infrastructure necessary to make sure the broader power grid remains reliable for other customers.

Facility owners would also have to help shoulder the cost for new power generation to meet added demand.

All those costs would get applied to the rates they pay for power, and the measure prohibits utilities from shifting costs to other consumers.

“This is an essential safeguard,” Willis said, “at a time when rapid data center growth threatens to shift billions in system upgrade costs onto ordinary consumers.”

Landsman’s bill also invalidates nondisclosure agreements between public officials and data center operators.

He said they amount to an end-run around Ohio’s sunshine laws, by allowing investors to purchase land and negotiate tax breaks before community members have a chance to push back.

“These deals need to be entirely transparent,” Landsman said. “Not a little bit transparent, not kind of transparent, not mostly transparent, but entirely transparent. And that means no NDAs.”

Who sets rates?

The one bit in Landsman’s bill that gives Willis pause, however, is the expanded role for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Right now, FERC sets rates for high voltage electric transmission — think interstate highways — while state regulators handle rates for the lower voltage distribution network — think city streets.

Under Landsman’s proposal, FERC would assume all ratemaking authority, that is, transmission and distribution, when it comes data centers.

“We wanted to make sure that this was real change,” Landsman explained.

“I think people are getting a lot of lip service when it comes to these data centers in terms of protecting them from additional costs and the noise and the pollution in the soil and the water.”

“This would empower FERC to protect entire communities from the additional costs associated with the data centers,” he added.

Willis said that “while we strongly support the policy objective,” granting FERC exclusive authority over electric ratemaking “displaces” the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.

And it’s not as though state regulators have done nothing. For instance, last year, the PUCO approved a data center specific tariff for AEP Ohio.

Since then a bipartisan pair of state lawmakers have filed legislation to extend its provisions to other utilities around the state.

“A stronger and more durable framework,” Willis continued, “would preserve the no-cost-shift mandate while allowing the state commissions, including the PUCO, to implement and enforce the federal requirements.”

Landsman acknowledged the change would mean a lot more work landing on FERC’s desk. But “in the absence of state and federal leadership, the communities are having to do this on their own.”

“Individuals who have lived their entire lives next to a field that is now going to be a data center, are having to do this on their own,” he said, “and that is unreasonable.”

Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

The post Ohio Democratic Congressman Introduces Bill Requiring Data Centers to Pay for Energy Grid Impact appeared first on Cleveland Scene.

Ohio Republican candidate for governor Vivek Ramaswamy is telling voters he’ll roll property taxes back to “levels where they were before the end of the Covid pandemic.”

But think tank Innovation Ohio contends the idea would be a disaster for local services like schools, public safety, libraries and public health. The group estimates Ramaswamy’s plan would mean $6.6 billion in cuts for those agencies.

“Rolling back the tax base would mean deep, immediate cuts to schools, fire stations, and services in every county,” the report states.

Right now, grassroots organizers around Ohio are working to eliminate property taxes outright. State lawmakers take that effort seriously enough that they’ve passed a raft of major property tax reforms, with even more proposals working through committee.

Last year, a working group made of former lawmakers, school officials, and auditors spent months wrestling over property tax reform. Although they endorsed several of the bills lawmakers later approved, the effort was a showcase for just how difficult it is to balance interests when it comes to cutting property taxes.

If it’s as simple as Ramaswamy portrays it to be, wouldn’t someone have stepped in to untangle the knot already?

Can he do that?

Ramaswamy’s plan is light on specifics, and no governor can wave a magic wand to bring property taxes down. Ohio Capital Journal reached out to Ramaswamy’s campaign for details about his proposal but they didn’t offer any.

Instead, in a written statement, campaign spokesperson Connie Luck said “our campaign doesn’t take policy advice from the Democrat staffers who ran up an $8 billion state budget shortfall and lost 300,000 jobs 15 years ago.”

Howard Fleeter, an economist and school funding expert, was left scratching his head. Property taxes had been climbing for years, even before the pandemic. Does Ramaswamy really want to go back to the middle of the pandemic or does he mean before it? Is he talking about tax rates or the amount homeowners actually pay? Does his plan apply to residential property only or does he include taxes on public utilities’ property?

“I think the burden is on Ramaswamy to show his work here,” he said.

Ramaswamy’s website does little to answer Fleeter’s questions. Instead, it vaguely promises a plan “designed to protect taxpayers while maintaining stability for local communities.” Ramaswamy insists new construction won’t be impacted, existing debts will be honored, and local governments will operate “with greater discipline.”

The website says his plan “builds on recent reforms that limit automatic tax increases.”

Lake County Auditor Chris Galloway said that measure, Ohio House Bill 186, might offer a way to achieve a kind of rollback. Galloway was part of last year’s property tax working group and advocated on behalf of H.B. 186. The measure limits future property tax increases to the rate of inflation. Originally the bill was forward looking, but an amendment pushed the baseline year back to 2023 — ratcheting taxes down further in many parts of the state.

“Can we roll back to pre-COVID levels? Yes,” Galloway said. “It would be an extension of what was accomplished under H.B. 186. Basically, instead of 2023 levels, it’s going back to 2019.”

But he warned there’s no way to cut that deep without making sacrifices.

“Costs for everyone have gone way up since 2019. That includes local governments,” he said. “So, slashing their revenue means slashing services. That can be done, but people are going to have to decide what they want to do without.”

When lawmakers passed H.B. 186, for instance, they decided they didn’t want to do without. Instead, they pulled $360 million from the sales tax holiday fund to keep school districts from losing money.

And as a practical matter, winding the clock back to 2019 doesn’t return tax bills to 2019 levels — it just changes the starting point for capped increases. Under the H.B. 186 model, property tax bills aren’t supposed to outpace inflation, but there has been a lot of inflation in the last six years.

If Ramaswamy is serious about lowering property taxes, Galloway said, he should take an even more radical approach.

“Want to lower taxes? Get school funding off our property tax bills,” Galloway said.

He made a similar pitch to the property tax working group but got no takers.

Galloway envisions the state completely taking over the education system. Instead of 600-plus local districts Galloway would have less than 100. That would mean dramatic reductions in administrative jobs and potential savings from consolidating transportation, collective bargaining units and school facilities.

“You could save billions of dollars,” Galloway said. “All of that takes political will and heavy lifting, but it is quite doable.”

Totaling the bill

Innovation Ohio’s report sets aside questions of means to focus on the potential consequences of Ramaswamy’s idea.

To get to its $6.6 billion estimate, Innovation Ohio started with recent Ohio Department of Taxation reports detailing millage rates and assessed property values. With that, the group calculated an initial estimate for 2025 and then used the same method for the two previous years — comparing their estimates to actual collections. The estimates came in about 2% high, so they lowered the 2025 calculation to match. Innovation Ohio included utility-owned property in its estimate as well, projecting the prior year’s total forward based on the most recent growth rate.

But that just gets to a figure for 2025. If Ramaswamy wins the election, and embarks on his plan to lower property taxes, it won’t happen until he takes office in 2027. To get to an estimate for 2027, Innovation Ohio took the 2025 figure and applied the three-year average growth rate of 5.1%.

With that math, the group estimates property taxes would amount to $27.2 billion in 2027. In 2021, Ohio collected $20.6 billion in property taxes. Innovation Ohio used that year as its baseline (Ramaswamy didn’t indicate one) because it’s “the last year before pandemic-era property value increases began working through Ohio’s tax system.”

What that would look like

About 60% of Ohio’s property tax dollars go to schools. The Innovation Ohio report notes dialing back to 2021 funding levels right now would mean cutting school funding by $2.4 billion. By the time Ramaswamy could put his plan into action, that figure would be $4 billion, based on Innovation Ohio’s projections.

“School districts would have no choice but to lay off teachers and staff, increase class sizes, and eliminate programs,” the report reads.

Because many districts use voted levies to service debt taken out for capital expenses like school construction, “a rollback would leave those obligations unfunded and could force school closures or indefinite deferral of building repairs.”

The report notes Ohio’s townships in particular would feel the pinch when it comes to public safety services. Unlike cities, townships can’t levy income or sales taxes. So if property taxes get cut, townships can’t turn to some alternative revenue source to replace the lost funding.

“Voters in townships across the state have approved 3,190 levies specifically for police, fire, and EMS services,” the report states.

Libraries get more than half their funding from property taxes. County health, developmental disabilities, and senior services agencies all rely on property taxes to fund basic operations.

And Innovation Ohio contends the harm doesn’t stop with direct cuts. Cutting off a reliable source of revenue source will make it harder for local governments to borrow money and potentially lead to a downgrade in credit ratings. The group warns if local governments are pinched, state bond ratings could suffer, too, “from the cascading instability at the local level.”

“That means higher borrowing costs for years to come,” the report states. “Communities would pay more for less as future infrastructure projects become costlier to finance.”

Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

The post Vivek Ramaswamy Promises Property Tax Rollback. Report Says Billions in Public Service Cuts Would Result appeared first on Cleveland Scene.

Three Ohio Republican lawmakers are introducing legislation to place “guardrails” on the state’s sports betting system, including stopping online/phone gambling, limits on wagers, banning the use of credit for betting, and limiting advertisement.

They warn that gambling is as addictive as illegal drugs, costs Ohio citizens enormous amounts of money, and threatens the integrity of sporting events.

Clinical Director of Addiction Services at Lindner Center of Hope Dr. Chris Tuell explained among addictive behaviors, gambling has the highest suicide rate.

He added that the number one reason for divorce isn’t infidelity, it’s financial problems.

“This is Narcan,” he said, holding up the small plastic nasal spray. “We don’t have a spray for problem gambling. We don’t have a pill for problem gambling.”

Ohio state Reps. Riordan McClain, R-Upper Sandusky, Gary Click, R-Vickery, and Johnathan Newman, R-Troy, acknowledge that sports betting is here to stay. But they want to place restrictions on what, how, and where Ohioans can wager.

“The fact is that most betters do not win,” McClain said, citing statistics that only about 5% of sports bettors make money over the long term.

“That means roughly 95% of Ohioans who are betting make deposits, not withdrawals,” McClain said.

Click asked, “Is it really worth the taxes that we gain to risk people’s lives, their mental health, their personal well-being, their families, their homes? I don’t think it is.”

“So, while we’re not going to roll back the clock to what it was before,” he went on, “we’re going to put some common-sense consumer protections in place to protect Ohio citizens.”

The legislative language for the lawmakers’ ideas is still getting hammered out, but they’re expecting to file two proposals: one focused on consumer protections and the other on sports integrity.

Consumer protections

Newman described Ohio’s current sports betting landscape as a freeway with “no lines on it, no speed limits on it, no off ramps.”

“What we’re trying to do is provide some lines on the freeway, some guardrails, some off ramps, and some speed limits to rein in some great harms that we see,” he said.

The consumer protection measure will place restrictions on how much Ohioans can wager and how often they can do so in a day.

It will also bar bettors from using credit cards or other forms of debt to place wagers.

Sports books would face new limits on where and when they can run ads, and they would not be allowed to offer financial incentives to get people involved.

“The comparisons to drugs here are so unbelievably obvious,” Center for Christian Virtue President Aaron Baer said. “Where they’re like, hey, just come get a taste, right? And then, you’ll see you like it, and then you’ll come back for more and more.”

Perhaps most significantly, though, the lawmakers want to limit betting to Ohio’s casinos — effectively prohibiting Ohioans from placing bets on their phones.

“When you combine the addiction of gambling with the addiction one of these devices,” Click said, holding up a cellphone, “it’s synergistic in a bad way. It multiplies upon itself.”

Tony Coder, CEO of the Ohio Suicide Prevention Foundation, explained suicide often happens when an individual is alone.

“Therefore, language that restricts sports betting only within casinos, rather than on a phone while sitting alone at night could prevent that,” Coder said.

“Those are lonely moments, and they can intensify as one dwells on their own thoughts and there is no one there to help that person find help.”

Sports integrity

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.SUBSCRIBE

McClain, Click, and Newman are also concerned about impact sports betting could have on the games themselves.

“Think of how much outrage we feel when a ref misses an obvious call,” Newman said.

“We feel the outrage. Do we really want the rest of our lives to be watching every bad call from a ref going, who’s in his ear? Who’s calling him? Who’s threatening his family? Do we want that?”

The sports integrity bill will prohibit any in-game bets as well as any wagers on college sports.

It does away with what are known as ‘prop’ bets, too.

Those are wagers based on a particular player’s statistics in a given game — for instance, touchdowns scored, strikeouts thrown, or three pointers made.

In an executive order, Gov. DeWine already prohibited prop bets for collegiate sports but stopped short of doing the same for professional contests.

The measure will also eliminate parlay bets, where a bettor string together several different wagers into one.

Those bets offer higher returns, but the odds are stacked heavily against bettors.

Road ahead

For all the sponsors’ legitimate concerns about financial losses and mental health impacts tied to gambling, however, they’re likely to face an uphill climb.

Legislation that made sports betting legal in the state passed overwhelmingly in 2021.

Click noted there are many lawmakers who have misgivings about gambling. He pointed to the failed effort last year to legalize online casinos as part of the state budget.

McClain acknowledged that in his conversations with colleagues, “the initial response certainly is mixed, but there is support for this.”

He added that while the governor hasn’t endorsed their legislation, there are elements in the proposals that he’s supported in the past.

Originally published by the Ohio Capital Journal. Republished here with permission.

The post Ohio Republican Lawmakers Propose Major New Sports Betting Restrictions appeared first on Cleveland Scene.