RICHLAND COUNTY — It’s easy to forget the pro-renewable energy YouTube advertisements, commercials, yard signs and seemingly innumerable mailers which flooded Richland County in advance of the May primary election.
This is especially true given the $750 million firehose of attack ads dominating the lives of Ohio voters in advance of Election Day in less than two weeks.
What makes the May primary different from today in Richland County is clear.
The citizen-led ballot initiative, which would have overturned a county commissioners ban on commercial wind and solar projects in 11 townships, was about as local as an issue could get.
Most of the money behind those advertisements, however, was not.
By the time the polls closed, the pro-solar coalition had spent more than 20 times the money of its opposition. The coalition was fueled by more than $400,000 in outside cash and in-kind assistance, including $250,000 in advertising fueled by a New York-based PAC.
Bipartisan leaders at the Richland County Board of Elections confirmed it was the largest influx of outside money in a local election they had ever seen.
Yet, the flow of outside influence ran both ways.
While pro-solar advocates relied upon hundreds of thousands of outside money, public records reveal local anti-solar efforts coordinated directly with top Ohio political strategists linked to the oil and gas industry.
The May election showed what Knox County residents had already seen with the controversial Frasier Solar project: rural central Ohio zoning fights are no longer decided just at township trustee meetings.
They are being engineered through campaign finance mechanisms inside and outside the state of Ohio.
Pro-solar and wind initiative helped by Ohio advocacy group
Commercial wind/solar projects became a political issue in Richland County after the Board of County Commissioners in July 2025 approved a ban on such work in 11 of 18 townships.
The unanimous decision came after trustees in those 11 townships asked for the ban.
These restricted areas include Bloominggrove, Franklin, Jackson, Jefferson, Mifflin, Monroe, Perry, Plymouth, Sharon, Troy and Weller townships.
Unincorporated areas in Richland County where economically significant and large wind farms and large solar facilities remain unrestricted are Cass, Butler, Sandusky, Springfield, Madison, Washington and Worthington townships.
Municipalities and villages are also not affected by the ban.
The commissioners’ resolution stemmed from a letter sent by commissioners in February to all township trustees in Richland County. It solicited townships’ feedback on large wind farms and/or solar facilities in their communities.
The county-level renewable energy bans in Ohio exist under Senate Bill 52, a 2021 law passed by a Republican-dominated statehouse, which gives county commissioners unique powers to prohibit them.
Notably, the law does not grant the same rights to local county boards when it comes to oil and gas wells.
A local coalition of residents and organizations — choosing the name Richland County Citizens for Property Rights and Job Development — quickly announced plans to circulate petitions and seek enough signatures to put an issue on the May 2026 primary election ballot that would overturn the ban and allow such projects to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
Under state law, however, time was of the essence. Organizers needed to collect valid signatures from 3,392 registered voters in the county by Aug. 15, within 30 days of the resolution banning such projects approved by commissioners.
Richland County Citizens for Property Rights and Job Development did obtain local donations and its members worked to obtain signatures to get the issue on the ballot.
But help also came from outside Richland County. The local group obtained assistance in the signature drive from Ohio Citizen Action group, founded in 1975.
Its website says, “Ohio Citizen Action is a statewide grassroots advocacy organization working for clean energy, utility accountability, and the protection of democracy.”
The Columbus-based group provided $56,000 to the local group as an in-kind contribution, funding staff, message testing, food, consulting and canvassing for signatures. That helped to power the successful voter signature campaign, which earned 3,380 valid signatures — 60 more than were needed to put the issue on the ballot.
Floodgates: New York-based PAC spent $250,000 on issue
The bulk of the outside funding came in late March when the New York-based Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund made two sizeable donations for paid advertising totaling $250,000 at the end of March — $50,000 and $200,000.
It was the largest expenditure coming from outside the county that bipartisan Richland County Board of Elections leaders Matt Finfgeld and Jane Zimmermann had ever seen.
So what is that group’s goal?
According to its federal I-990 tax form for 2024, it is “to build political support for advancing the goals of the Natural Resources Defense Council.” It had nearly $9 million in net assets at the end of that year.
The NRDC is a “prominent U.S.-based non-profit environmental advocacy group founded in 1970. It operates as a combination of a public-interest law firm, policy institute, and environmental activist network, employing hundreds of lawyers, scientists, and policy experts to shape environmental law and public policy,” according to published reports.
The organization doesn’t hesitate to get involved in local issues.
According to NRDC Action Fund policy guidance, “To meet our climate goals, we have to build a lot of clean energy very quickly — and that means supporting solar and wind projects at the state and local levels where zoning decisions actually happen.
“Blanket bans of utility-scale solar are not representative of local residents. Ohio [and states nationwide] cannot afford to exclude renewable energy sources from our energy strategy,” according to a joint coalition statement from the NRDC Action Fund & Ohio environmental partners advocating against local township wind/solar bans.
Ultimately, the issue failed. Nearly 53 percent of voters cast ballots in favor of keeping the ban, according to the Richland County Board of Elections.
Brian McPeek, business manager for IBEW 688 in Mansfield, was one of the leaders in the group seeking to overturn the ban on commercial wind and solar in the 11 townships.
McPeek said Monday he doubted the local group could have obtained the needed number of signatures without the assistance of Ohio Citizen Action.
He said Richland County Citizens for Property Rights and Job Development merely played by the rules created in the U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
“They (opponents of the ballot initiative) tried very hard to make it sound like we were doing something wrong. But in actuality, we weren’t really doing anything different than anybody else does. We were just aggressive in our fundraising,” McPeek said.
The majority of advertising was aimed at educating people about what was on the ballot, he said. In the election, a “yes” vote supported the ban and a “no” vote would have ended restrictions and allowed projects to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
“It was so confusing on purpose to make it hard to overturn those sorts of things. I wanted it overturned. I think everyone on our side did. But at the end of the day, we wanted everyone to make an educated decision based on how they felt and to hold everyone accountable to the wishes of the people,” McPeek said.
“So while I wanted it to go one way and it didn’t … I still count it as a win because when else have you gotten to have your voice heard, outside of voting for someone who is making decisions for you? It’s not very often you get to make those decisions for yourself.”
Outside money not the only factor in wind/solar issue
Overall, the anti-ban side raised roughly $21 for every $1 spent by the pro-ban side, a PAC that formed called Richland Farmland Preservation, which raised about $18,000 in local and Ohio-based dollars.
Still, there were concerns raised about the PAC’s process and its involvement with organizations linked to the oil and gas industry.
According to a story published in May in the Ohio Capital Journal, the campaign group’s treasurer, Dustin McIntyre, is also the treasurer for the Affordable Energy Fund PAC.
The Affordable Energy Fund was set up in 2021 by The Empowerment Alliance — a dark money group registered in Virginia — to support Republican candidates in Ohio.
According to a story published in Politico in 2019, The Empowerment Alliance itself was formed in 2019 as a 501(c)(4) social welfare organization that promotes natural gas, opposed the Green New Deal sought during the Biden Administration and advocates for policies favorable to the fossil fuel industry.
The Richland Farmland Preservation’s single biggest donations during the campaign came through Tom Whatman and Whatman Farms.
A Richland County farmer, Whatman is an important figure in Ohio GOP politics. He is described by the Ohio Capitol Journal as “the chief strategist at Majority Strategies,” a Republican political advertising and strategy firm with connections to The Empowerment Alliance.
According to the Majority Strategies website: “Widely regarded as America’s most experienced and trusted Republican political advertising firm, Majority Strategies plays to win in the toughest and most talked-about races spanning the Courthouse to the White House.”
The Richland County anti-solar/wind PAC’s biggest expenditures during the campaign were with Majority Strategies for digital advertising and text messaging.
Emails link Richland County commissioner to fossil fuel interests
Richland County Commissioner Darrell Banks was criticized by opponents of the ban for his involvement with Whatman during the process, including an email from his government account he sent May 22, 2025.
The email was sent to Whatman informing him of a planned public meeting to enact the commercial solar/wind ban in July.
“FYI: We will be holding a public meeting in July to restrict large solar and wind farms in 11 of Richland County Townships. I am happy to inform you Jefferson Twp. is one of them,” Banks said in the email.
One of the complaints among members of the public who attended the July 17 commissioners’ meeting was they had little advance notice of the planned vote.
After the ban was approved by commissioners, Banks emailed Whatman that afternoon, again from his public account: “Mission accomplished.”
After Whatman thanked him in a response, Banks emailed him again:
“More than 30 residents from the left present, a few (township) Trustees. Would not be surprised if there is a cross burning in my future. It was interesting to say the least.”
Banks defended his involvement with Whatman regarding the wind/solar ban, though he said he regretted sending the emails.
“I regret saying that on my public account. No doubt I regret that. It was an inappropriate place to say it if I was going to say it,” Banks said in a recent interview.
But he noted his involvement at that point was with Whatman as a farmer and long-time friend.
“Tom Whatman is a farmer from southern Richland County, who I’ve known all my life. He put in a substantial amount of that $18,000 (to the Richland Farmland Preservation PAC), but he’s a farmer. He can see what’s happening in Knox County where they’re building solar,” Banks said.
The commissioner criticized the voter canvassing effort, saying a worker who came to his door lied about what the county board had done. He said the person soliciting his signature told him commissioners had banned all wind and solar throughout the county.
“It was only in the 11 townships where trustees requested it. It wasn’t in the municipalities and villages or townships that didn’t ask for it. And (wind/solar) is not totally banned. You can have a small solar operation. It was for commercial wind and solar,” Banks said.
“I do not believe they’d have got it on the ballot had they told the people it’s been banned in 11 townships,” he said.
According to the Ohio Citizen Action website, “Our canvassers go door-to-door not just to inform, but to listen, build trust, and understand what matters most to each community. We boil down complex policy into plain language and create real connection.”
One county south, a proxy war over solar sets the stage for dark money
What Richland County voters experienced last May was not a one-off. It had roots and connections just a few miles south. In 2023, a group formed called Knox Smart Development (KSD). It’s best known for organizing opposition to the Frasier Solar project proposed by Open Road Renewables in Knox County.
KSD became a focal point in a high-profile debate within central Ohio over clean energy, local politics, and dark-money advocacy.
During administrative hearings before the Ohio Power Siting Board in 2024, KSD admitted to receiving major financial backing from Tom Rastin, a former executive at Ariel Corporation — a major natural gas compressor manufacturer based in Mount Vernon.
Whatman has connections with KSD and participated in an event organized by the group late 2023.
According to an in-depth story published October 2024 by ProPublica, “the campaign against solar power benefited from a confluence of two powerful forces funded by oil and gas interests. A former executive at Ariel Corporation, the county’s largest employer and one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of methane gas compressors, was working behind the scenes. And helping in a more public way is the Mount Vernon News, a newspaper now in the hands of Metric Media, which operates websites that reportedly engage in pay-to-play coverage.”
In that same story, the founder of KSD said Rastin has not tried to steer the group’s activism.
“As a local resident, I believe he should be allowed to donate to whatever cause he aligns with, regardless of his former employment, and to state otherwise is to suggest Mr. Rastin should be censored,” Jared Yost wrote in an email, according to ProPublica.
He said the group relies on volunteers and “our intentions are genuine.”
“The oil and gas industry is not involved in our fight,” Yost said.
There was no wind/solar issue on the ballot in Knox County in 2024. County commissioners in 2022 had banned wind and allowed solar on a case-by-case basis in accordance with SB 52, a decision supported by then-Commissioner Thom Collier.
But Republican primary winners in the race for county commissioner — Drenda Keesee and Barry Lester — were outspoken in their opposition to solar projects.
Their success in the primary and again in November, while not directly fueled by PAC or dark money, perhaps benefitted by the 501(c)(4) dark money structures and regional PACs opposed to renewable energy proposals.
According to a story published in March 2024 by WOSU public media:
“The “no” signs are often displayed alongside campaign signs for certain Knox County Commissioner candidates, including Drenda Keesee. Keesee’s campaign has been so focused that when asked about solar, one man at a Mount Vernon diner pointed to Keesee’s poster and said, “talk to her.”
“Our way of life is under attack. Big foreign corporations want to take our farmland and turn it into toxic industrial energy plants,” Keesee said in a campaign video. “I can’t sit back and watch as our county is turned into a solar wasteland.”
During the primary campaign, Keesee told Knox Pages, “As your Commissioner, I will lead the charge to put a resolution in place to protect our unzoned and zoned townships from ever facing future solar panel invasions, or other so-called ‘green agendas’ that may attack our water supply and other natural resources.”
How did dark money get so bad and where did it start?
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the roots of what all Americans experience every election season arose in 2007 when a conservative non-profit organization called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules that stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
The Supreme Court eventually ruled the group was within its First Amendment rights to spend its money disseminating the film.
But rather than a narrow judgment on just the one case in front of them , the Court entirely struck down century-old prohibitions on corporate “independent” spending — money that doesn’t go directly to a candidate or party, according to the center. A sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 in a controversial decision that enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited money on elections.
The majority held that political spending is a form of protected speech, extending 1st Amendment protection to associations of individuals, including corporations. The decision followed conservative-liberal ideological lines among the justices.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He said political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment and the government cannot restrict speech based on the identity of the speaker, whether individual or corporate.
Justice John Paul Stevens authored a 90-page dissent arguing corporations are not human members of society, do not have votes and that unlimited corporate spending corrupts the democratic process and undermines public faith in elections.
It was one of the longest and most forceful dissents in modern Supreme Court history, according to court observers.
The ruling maintained strict limits on direct contributions to candidates’ campaigns, but removed limits on political spending made independently of a candidate’s official campaign.
And spend they did: Court ruling led to rise of “Super PACs”
The court’s decision led to the rise of “Super PACs,” an explosion of so-called “dark money, escalating campaign costs and a shift in campaign control.
While traditional Political Action Committees existed for decades, the specific entity known as an Independent Expenditure-Only Committee (popularly dubbed a “Super PAC”) emerged after the ruling.
Because certain non-profit organizations — specifically 501(c)(4) social welfare groups and 501(c)(6) trade associations — are not required to disclose their donor lists to the public, hundreds of millions of dollars began to flow into elections anonymously.
These non-profit organizations can collect unlimited funds and pass them to Super PACs or spend them directly on political advertisements.
Super PACs often run darker, negative campaigns or set policy agendas, effectively shifting power away from traditional political parties and individual campaign staff toward outside groups.
According to a story published by the Brennan Center for Justice, justices in the majority “held that independent spending could not pose a substantial risk of corruption on the erroneous assumption that the money wouldn’t be under the control of any single candidate or party.”
Those justices also assumed existing transparency rules would require all the new spending they were permitting to be fully transparent, allowing voters to appropriately evaluate the messages targeting them, according to the Brennan Center.
“Both assumptions have proven to be incorrect,” wrote Daniel Weiner, senior director of elections and government for the Brennan Center. “While super PACs and other outside spenders are supposed to be separate from candidates and parties, they usually work in tandem with them — to the point where affiliated super PACs that can raise unlimited money are now integral to most major campaigns.
“Legal loopholes also mean that many of these groups can keep their sources of funding secret.”
Citizens United decision ‘kind of opened up Pandora’s Box’
Even those involved in the campaign messaging business found the Supreme Court decision troubling.
“It’s kind of opened up Pandora’s Box and I think it’s one of the worst things to happen to our democracy,” said Dennis Willard, founder of Precision New Media in Columbus.
“Democracy is kind of a set of rules that we all agree on and play by. Then sometimes there are rules brought into the game that really disrupt the whole meaning of it. I think this is one of the most disruptive decisions to our democracy.
“It undermines our democracy because we should know where the money is coming from,” said Willard, an Ohio native who founded Precision New Media after covering state policy and government as a statehouse reporter in Columbus for 23 years, the last 15 as bureau chief for the Akron Beacon Journal.
But, Willard said, it’s the new rules everyone has to play by since the Supreme Court decision in 2010.
“There may be times that I’m working for an organization that is doing this very thing. For mutual assured destruction reasons, you have to do it. If you don’t do it, you get clocked.
“Unfortunately, I think that the public is the loser here … the local communities are the loser here,” Willard said.
“If someone’s coming in and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in a community (on a campaign), then the people of that community should know where that money’s coming from.
“On a flyer or an ad, rather than just a disclaimer that tells you nothing … that disclaimer is not an explainer. The average person should be able to say, ‘OK, I’m gonna look up this organization and see who funds them,'” Willard said.
‘I think (outside money) is a concern regardless of the issue’
Richland County Commissioner Tony Vero said he followed closely the flow of outside money on the wind/solar issue.
“I think it’s a concern regardless of the issue. This was truly a Richland County issue,” Vero said, adding he would not have wanted to see the influx of so much outside-the-county money on the other side of the wind/solar issue, either.
“I am not naive enough to not know outside money comes in all issues. But not this much on a purely local issue,” he said.
A licensed attorney, Vero said he is uncertain what the state legislature could do to prohibit the outside funding.
“There are 1st Amendment issues at play here. What could you legally do? I’m not sure this action wouldn’t have to come from Congress. I don’t know what can legally be done (at the state level),” he said.
“The overwhelming majority of that outside money came from New York City. I don’t want New York City involving themselves in local Richland County matters on any issue on either side,” Vero said.
Banks said he agrees outside funding, especially dark money, is a problem in the election process.
“Trying to suffer through all these commercials on both sides, and they actually started in August this year and, we have got another three weeks of this. It gets a little tiresome to hear the same things and the attack ads from, from both sides. If there’s a way of preventing outside money, I’m in.”
Banks said he understands outside funding comes from many different sources.
“There’s both sides — and many more than just two sides. Everybody’s able to do it. Certainly you can’t restrict one and let the other one do it,” he said.
‘At the end, these ads only have power because we give it to them’
So what can local voters do?
Catherine Turcer, executive director for Common Cause Ohio, agreed the U.S. Supreme Court “essentially opened the gates.”
Common Cause Ohio is a non-partisan, grassroots organization dedicated to promoting transparency, accountability, and fair representation in state and local government.
Turcer said industries and organizations will decide that a decision to prohibit their activities or benefit another will take financial political action and will “spend a shocking amount of money in really local races.”
“It’s astonishing,” Turcer said. “But it’s also important to see that local issues can be really hot-button issues and it’s so surprising because it’s so much money.”
Turcer said political battles over data centers are also now becoming spending battles for those seeking to build — and deny — such facilities.
“Money is being spent in Ohio and other locations to stop data centers. Of course, data centers are also fighting back because they are going to the courts, but they’re also spending money if it gets to the ballot,” she said.
Turcer said it’s important voters do their own research for issues and candidates to cut through the advertising noise.
“One thing I always remind folks is these (organizations) would not spend this money to influence our vote if it didn’t work. When you get a mailer, look to see who paid for it and do what you can to follow the money and see what they want.
“Voters are being inundated by political advertisements right now. It’s enough to make you want to turn off (televisions and computers). But what we want to make sure is that it doesn’t turn off our power as voters and what we should be doing is as much research as possible,” Turcer said.
She said voters can often gauge an issue’s importance by the amount of advertising they receive.
“Make sure you have the best information. Check with the League of Women Voters. Go to a candidate’s website and look for more information on policy positions.
“At the end of the day, these ads only have power because we give it to them.”
Willard said the only solution may be the Supreme Court revisiting the issue and overturning the 2010 decision.
“I think that’s the only answer. It’s hard because people usually don’t get this deep into the woods into politics and what’s behind politics. But maybe there’ll be something that happens that would spark outrage from average, everyday Americans and the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn this,” he said.
“Unfortunately, (an individual state’s) hands are tied. And a lot of lawmakers like the idea that they’ll have the excuse of saying, ‘Our hands are tied.’
“I don’t know, absent some sort of something organically happening that really awakens, the general public, I think this continues, unfortunately,” Willard said.
“Because it’s really a landmark negative decision for our democracy.”
