COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) 鈥� A federal appeals court upheld the racketeering convictions of former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and an ex-lobbyist on Tuesday in a $60 million bribery scandal described as the largest corruption scheme in state history.
The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati represented a win for the Department of Justice, which had secured after a yearslong investigation. Householder, a Republican, , and lobbyist and former Ohio Republican Party chair Matt Borges was .
Acting U.S. Attorney Kelly A. Norris said the appeals panel鈥檚 unanimous decision 鈥渁ffirmed the strength of the government鈥檚 evidence, the correctness of the jury instructions, and the fairness of the proceeding.鈥�
Householder was convicted of masterminding a $60 million bribery scheme funded by Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. to elect allies, secure power, pass a $1 billion bailout of two of its affiliated nuclear plants and then defend the bill, known as House Bill 6, from a repeal effort.
Prosecutors had described Borges鈥� primary role in the scheme as working to thwart a ballot campaign aimed at repealing the tainted legislation. Specifically, he was accused of paying $15,000 to someone who was helping spearhead the effort in order to get inside information. The referendum ultimately failed to make the ballot.
Scott Pullins, a long-time legal and personal adviser to Householder, called it a 鈥渟ad and disappointing day鈥� for both men and their families and supporters, and 鈥渆ven a sadder day for constitutional free speech and the rule of law.鈥�
He said in a Substack post that Householder "raised undisclosed, unlimited donations for a 501c4 organization that supported him and his political allies鈥� 鈥� just as speakers before and after him have done. 鈥淏ut the federal government singled only Mr. Householder out for prosecution.鈥�
Householder has a couple long shot legal options remaining: He could ask for a review by the full Sixth Circuit, or seek what鈥檚 known as certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping for consideration by the nation鈥檚 highest bench. Both types of requests are rarely granted.
A message seeking comment was left for Householder's criminal defense attorney.
failed on all six claims he brought in hopes of a reprieve. He alleged erroneous jury instructions, insufficient and inadmissible evidence, violations of his right to counsel, judicial bias and that his sentence was unreasonable for the circumstances.
The 65-year-old Householder argued that the government was wrong in describing what he had engaged in as a . Instead, he cast the money that flowed from FirstEnergy into a network of secret dark money accounts that he controlled as legal campaign contributions. Federal prosecutors charged that the money was given to Householder in exchange for the passage of House Bill 6, providing the necessary quid pro quo to make his conduct illegal.
Householder had also faulted U.S. District Judge Timothy Black in his appeal, asserting that he failed to properly instruct the jury that an agreement is necessary to prove bribery and that Householder needed to have agreed he would take action 鈥渙n a specific and focused question or matter鈥� at the time that agreement was struck.
The judicial panel said all of his claims failed.
hinged on three technical points of law. All failed, as well, though he could also ask for review by the full appellate court or the U.S. Supreme Court.
However, Circuit Judge Amul Thapar wrote in a concurring opinion that each of Borges' contentions 鈥渞aises tricky and unresolved issues in honest services fraud jurisprudence.鈥�
鈥淎nd here, Borges has a good argument his conduct fell within a murky middle: perhaps objectionable, but not clearly illegal,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淯ntil the Supreme Court revises its caselaw, however, we must follow its precedent.鈥�
Dennis Belli, Borges鈥� attorney, noted a part of Thapar's concurrence that said "(t)he Tinkerbell strategy 鈥� clap if you believe he鈥檚 guilty 鈥� doesn鈥檛 cut it when we think about criminal convictions.鈥�
鈥�'Tinkerbell strategy' aptly describes the prosecution鈥檚 use of an alleged violation of a misdemeanor statute in the Ohio Elections Code to obtain a felony racketeering conviction of Borges in federal court,鈥� Belli said, noting that his client denies that the statute even applies to his conduct. 鈥淚 will be studying the 64-page ruling closely and thoughtfully, and will advise my client regarding his options going forward.鈥�
___
Bruce Shipkowski contributed to this report from Toms River, N.J.
Julie Carr Smyth, The Associated Press
