Category Archives: Public Interest Law

Fresh off a loss at the Tenth District Court of Appeals, Aftab Pureval has filed an appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to halt the Ohio Elections Commission investigation into campaign finance violations by his Clerk of Courts Campaign.

This will be the Pureval’s fifth attempt at halting the investigation; having lost this argument three times before the Elections Commission and once at the Court of Appeals.

It appears that Pureval is desperate to avoid sunshine and public scrutiny of his campaign finance violations.

Read the notice of Appeal below and  here and Motion for Expedited Proceedings here.

[scribd id=391512617 key=key-AUmX4ltuRpSlbeYV8auJ mode=scroll]

The Cincinnati Enquirer is reporting that the Hamilton County Board of Elections is opening its own investigation into Aftab Pureval’s campaign finance reporting, and the history of the redactions to checks filed by his campaign.

The controversy has erupted in response to Pureval’s claim that a Board of Elections employees made redactions to his campaign.

Now it appears that in fact, a Democrat Board of Elections employee did illegally alter public records to prevent disclosure of the information contained on the memo line of one check in particular.

One check, paid to GBA Strategies out of Washington, D.C. appears to read “Poll…” beneath the redaction. Such an expenditure by the clerk of courts campaign (nearly three years before the election) would be quite unusual. It is believed that the payment was made for polling done for Pureval’s congressional race, a violation of state and federal campaign finance laws.

The Board of Elections sole purpise to create and maintain records – be they campaign finance records, or more integral to our system of governance, election records. There are now very real questions about the integrity of the Board of Elections recordkeeping functions. The Board of Elections must determine whether Pureval’s campaign was involved in the decision to illegally redact his campaign finance filings, so that Hamilton County voters can be confident in the results reported by the Hamilton County Board of Elections.

The Hamilton County Board of Elections will hold a special emergency meeting on Wednesday, September 19, 2018 at 11 a.m. to investigate further, That meeting will be at 4700 Smith Road, Cincinnati, Ohio 45212. The public and media is invited to attend.

Read the Ohio Elections Commission Complaint here.

Read Pureval’s response, including the statement that the Board of Election redacted the memo line here.

The Ohio Elections Commission has scheduled a preliminary review hearing on Finney Law Firm’s complaint alleging several and serial violations of Ohio campaign finance law by Aftab Pureval, his clerk of courts campaign committee, and its treasurer, Evan Nolan.

The hearing is scheduled for September 20, 2018 at 10 a.m. at the Ohio Elections Commission headquarters in Columbus, Ohio.

After reviewing the documents submitted, the Commission will decide to either: 1) find no violation; 2) find that there has been a violation; or 3) set the case for a full hearing to obtain additional testimony and evidence.

We appreciate that the Commission is taking this matter seriously and look forward to presenting our evidence in September. In the meantime, we anxiously await Mr. Pureval’s formal response to the charges.

Read the complaint online here.

[scribd id=386371224 key=key-A8VXnPRDnObSKBfg2tvx mode=scroll]

Finney law firm filed a complaint with the Ohio Elections Commission against Aftab Pureval, his campaign committee, and the treasurer, Evan Nolan.

The complaint points to receipts and expenditures by his Clerk of Courts Campaign that are obviously related to his congressional run. Federal and State law prohibit redirecting state campaign funds to a federal campaign.

Federal law limits contributions to Pureval’s federal campaign to $5,400, but contributions to the clerk of court’s campaign are unlimited. In an effort to take advantage of Ohio’s lack of contribution limits for clerk of courts campaigns, this year alone Pureval’s mother has donated $30,000 to the clerk of court’s campaign, and almost all of that money has been spent in support of Pureval’s congressional race.

But even before he announced his run for Congress, Pureval was spending his clerk of court’s campaign funds improperly. In the summer of 2017, just after taking his current job, he was traveling across the country testing the waters for a Congressional run. Those travel costs included airfare and a hotel stays in Washington, D.C., Atlanta, Georgia.

As first reported in this Cincinnati Enquirer story, dual campaigns can be legal, but the two must remain separate. While Pureval’s D.C. attorneys suggest that “dividing” costs can be done legally, a review of the state and federal campaign reports makes clear that the two campaigns are not dividing joint costs;  the clerk of court’s campaign account has simply been placed into the service of the congressional campaign.

Since announcing his run for Congress, Pureval has used his clerk of court’s campaign fund to pay for a photographer to document his congressional campaign kickoff (footage that has been used in his campaign commercials); $16,000 for polling; a congressional campaign staffer; and thousands of dollars for travel.

The complaint, filed with the Ohio Election Commission on Friday,  sets forth violations of three sections of Ohio campaign finance law: converting contributions to clerk of courts campaign to the use of the federal campaign, and to other third parties; failure to file accurate reports of receipts; and failure to file accurate reports of expenditures.

In 2017, An Ohio judge was sentenced to ten days in jail for improper expenditures from his campaign account, paying for expensive meals and cigars.

Also in 2017, a California man was sentenced to one year in prison after organizing a money laundering scheme to support his son’s run for Congress.

We expect that a full investigation will reveal that this was not a mere “bookkeeping mistake” or “dividing costs” but was part of a calculated plan to evade federal and state campaign finance laws and illegally finance his congressional race.

Read the complaint on Scribd here or below.

Read the Cincinnati Enquirer’s coverage here.

[scribd id=386040687 key=key-Gb40Ap9FBSCMLYCl00C4 mode=scroll]

Finney Law Firm has the honor to represent citizen journalist Patricia Meade before the Ohio Supreme Court in her efforts to expose the workings of her hometown’s government to public scrutiny.

In State ex rel. Meade v. Village of Bratenahl, we are appealing lower courts decisions that permit public bodies in Ohio to vote on any issue by secret ballot. The opportunity for mischief is readily apparent.

The Ohio Supreme Court accepts only approximately 5% of appeals, so just getting the case accepted is a major accomplishment. We are cautiously optimistic that the Ohio Supreme Court will be convinced by our argument and longstanding precedent and overturn the decision of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals.

Today we filed our merits brief. Read the brief online here or below. We expect that one or more “friends of the court” (interest groups or others who are not a party to the case, but are concerned with the outcome) will also file a brief in support of our position (an amicus brief) in the coming days. The village will have thirty days to file their own brief, and then we will have fifteen days to file a reply.

This case is an important case for all Ohioans, as it will determine what, if any, information the people are entitled to know about how their elected officials vote on particular issues and whether citizens will have an ability to hold their elected officials accountable for their official action.

View all case filings on the Ohio Supreme Court website, here.

We expect the Ohio Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case sometime in early 2019.

Update – The Ohio Coalition for Open Government, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and the Ohio Association of Broadcasters filed an amicus brief today in support of our position. Read their brief here.

[scribd id=385107210 key=key-LlVsGVD75PeBy8u7osNx mode=scroll]

Ohio Revised Code Section 3503.06(C)(1)(a) declares that “Except for a nominating petition for presidential electors, no person shall be entitled to circulate any petition unless the person is a resident of this state and is at least eighteen years of age.”

Pretty straightforward, right? Not exactly.

Why? Because in 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Michael Watson correctly determined that the law was unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the state from enforcing the law:

Accordingly, the Court PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Defendants from enforcing the residency requirement for circulators of petitions for candidates and initiatives set forth in Ohio Revised Code § 3503.06(C)(1)(a).

Citizens in Charge, Inc. v. Husted, S.D.Ohio No. 2:13-cv-935, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184669, at *10 (Mar. 16, 2015)

This is also included in Chapter 11 of the Ohio Secretary of State’s Ohio Election Official Manual, “A circulator is not required to be an Ohio elector or an Ohio resident.”

So, while the law remains “on the books” it is not, in fact, the law.

Citizens in Charge involved a statewide initiative petition, but the injunction applies to the all enforcement of the residency requirement for any initiative or referendum petitions, and any candidate petitions.

Finney Law Firm has on numerous occasions co-counseled with the attorney for Citzens in Charge, Maurice Thompson of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and are disappointed that this case is not more well known among Ohio political activists.

The issue has come up recently relating to the Hamilton County Sales Tax petition effort, and ongoing efforts to return Cincinnati City Council to two year terms. And it appears that confusion abounds, even among experienced political hands.

If you are circulating a petition or considering using out of state circulators for a petition effort, and someone tells you that circulators must live in Ohio; politely let them know that they are wrong and ask them to stop spreading such misinformation. If the person spreading the misinformation is a government official, contact the petition committee so that they can engage their legal counsel.

Finney Law Firm has assisted in drafting petitions and litigating initiative and referendum efforts throughout Ohio. If you or your petition group need assistance, contact Christopher P. Finney at 513-943-6655 or use our online contact form.

Attorneys in the Cincinnati Solicitor’s office filed a motion to withdraw its prior filing opposing intervention by Derek Bauman and a motion for additional time to file a new response, in our suit alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act.

Bauman’s attorney Paul DeMarco raised the question of conflict in a letter July 17, 2018 letter, questioning whether the City’s response was on behalf of Dennary, Landsman Sittenfeld, Seelbach,  and Young; or if the Solicitor’s office would be filling a separate memo on their behalf. And if so, whether the Solicitor’s Office had obtained conflict waivers from their various clients.

Read the filings here and here.

Today Finney Law Firm, on behalf of our client Mark Miller, filed a memorandum in opposition to the recent motion filed by one-time City Council candidate Derek Bauman, to intervene in our Open Meetings Act suit against five members of the Cincinnati City Council.

Attorneys for the City of Cincinnati also filed a memorandum opposing the intervention.

Judge Robert Ruehlman has scheduled oral argument on the motion for July 30 at 11:30 a.m. in Room 300 of the Hamilton County Courthouse, 1000 Main Street, Cincinnati, Ohio. The public is welcome to attend the oral argument.

We oppose intervention because the filing appears to be a poorly disguised effort at political gamesmanship rather than a sincere piece of litigation. Read the Motion to Intervene here. Read our memorandum here or below. Read the City’s memorandum here.

[scribd id=383979087 key=key-dda6L1oQ2UXSlIZtO4L1 mode=scroll]

Finney Law Firm represents Mark Miller in two lawsuits against Cincinnati City Councilmembers Dennard, Landsman, Seelbach, Sittenfeld, and Young. The first involving violations of Ohio’s Open Meetings Act; the second involving violations of Ohio’s Public Records Act. Read about recent filings in the Open Meetings Act case here.

In the Public Records Act case – before the Hamilton County Court of Appeal – the Councilmembers filed a motion for in camera review and for a protective order to prevent dissemination of the Councilmembers’ text messages and emails

They Councilmembers admit that there are additional emails and text messages that should have been provided in response to our public records request but contend that they somehow are not “public records” as that term is defined in Ohio law.

We find the Councilmember’s motion disingenuous, particularly in light of their own recent leaking of some text messages to a friendly attorney who then filed a motion to intervene in the Open Meetings suit on behalf of their political ally, Derek Bauman.

The Councilmembers’ motion can be read here.

Our memorandum in opposition can be read here and below.

[scribd id=383740777 key=key-dtiBHqAv2KOmi5vluPzF mode=scroll]