To amend sections 3517.01, 3517.08, 3517.10, 3517.102, 3517.105, 3517.106, 3517.107, 3517.13, 3599.03, 3921.22, and 4503.03 of the Revised Code to modify the campaign finance law and to name this act the Ohio Anti-Corruption Act.
HB250, titled the Ohio Anti-Corruption Act, would make broad changes to Ohio’s campaign finance laws. The bill revises definitions and reporting rules for candidates, campaign committees, political action committees, political contributing entities, political parties, legislative campaign funds, and independent expenditures. It expands and clarifies disclosure requirements, including itemization of contributions and expenditures, employer/occupation reporting for larger individual contributions, electronic filing and online posting of campaign finance data, and reporting for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. It also updates rules for federal political committees participating in Ohio elections and preserves existing restrictions on foreign nationals, personal use of campaign funds, and certain corporate and labor organization political spending.
The bill also changes contribution limits and transfer rules among political actors. It sets or restates caps on contributions from individuals, PACs, political contributing entities, campaign committees, and political parties to candidates and party funds, and it creates/updates special rules for state candidate funds, legislative campaign funds, and designated state campaign committees. It includes provisions limiting certain contributions tied to public contracts and deputy registrar appointments, and it adds or revises restrictions affecting state and county political parties, county candidate fundraising, and the handling of excess legislative campaign fund balances. In addition, it amends sections governing fraternal benefit societies and deputy registrar contracts to align those laws with the bill’s political contribution restrictions and disclosure framework.
If enacted, HB250 would substantially revise several sections of the Revised Code, especially Chapter 3517, which governs campaign finance and election disclosures. It would impose new or clarified reporting obligations, expand public access to campaign finance information, and modify how contributions are aggregated and limited across affiliated entities. It would also affect candidates for statewide, legislative, county, and local offices; political parties; PACs; political contributing entities; labor organizations; corporations; and entities involved in state contracting or deputy registrar services.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available context is limited because the bill was only introduced and there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided. Based on the bill’s title and structure, it appears to be framed by its sponsors as an anti-corruption and transparency measure, suggesting a reform-oriented purpose. However, without recorded debate or voting history, there is no direct evidence in the provided materials of support, opposition, or amendments.
No specific points of contention are documented in the available context, but the bill’s broad reach suggests likely areas of debate would include contribution limits, the treatment of political contributing entities and affiliated organizations, disclosure burdens, restrictions on party and PAC fundraising, and the interaction of state campaign finance rules with federal political committees and constitutional political spending protections.
HB250 would amend multiple election-law and related statutes, primarily in Chapter 3517 of the Revised Code, to tighten and reorganize campaign finance reporting, contribution limits, and disclosure obligations. It would also revise sections governing corporate and labor organization political activity, fraternal benefit societies, and deputy registrar contracting, extending anti-contribution and conflict-of-interest rules into those areas. The bill would affect how political money is raised, reported, transferred, and publicly disclosed across Ohio elections and related political organizations.
The available record shows no committee testimony or vote history, so there is no documented public sentiment from deliberations. The bill’s sponsors present it as an anti-corruption reform package, indicating a pro-transparency, reform-oriented intent. Because the bill was only introduced, support or opposition from other members, stakeholders, or the public cannot be determined from the provided materials.
No specific objections are recorded in the provided context, but the bill’s most likely flashpoints are its expanded disclosure requirements, tighter contribution caps, restrictions on affiliated entities and party funds, and the treatment of political contributing entities, PACs, labor organizations, corporations, and federal committees. Provisions affecting public contracting and deputy registrar eligibility based on political contributions could also draw scrutiny because they link campaign activity to government business opportunities.