A House divided should not unite around Householder
When the new Ohio House of Representatives convenes to choose a leader on Monday, members should remember why they’ve been sent there — to tackle Ohio’s problems — and choose someone who is more interested in doing that than in amassing political power.
That should make the choice between Republicans Ryan Smith and Larry Householder an easy one.
Smith, who has held the post since last spring, is a respected fourth-term lawmaker who appears interested primarily in improving conditions for people in his largely impoverished district. He has the support of some of the GOP’S most distinguished legislators — people like Bob Cupp of Lima, Kirk Schuring of Canton and James M. Hoops of Napoleon.
Householder is a former speaker who left the House in 2004 amid ethics investigations. He is legendary, not for any legislation he has passed or policy he has championed but for his relentless drive to raise money for Republicans and use it to buy political loyalty and build personal power.
More troubling is the fact that, while he was speaker, his legislative priorities always seemed to line up very neatly with his success in fundraising. During his tenure, most major bills were treated as opportunities for him and a team of zealous lieutenants to pressure interested parties for contributions.
The Dispatch is not naïve to the fact that all politicians must raise money and that those in leadership positions are expected to fundraise for the whole caucus. We know that the absurd price tags of today’s campaigns increase the pressure even more.
But past leaders have managed to be prodigious fundraisers without making it their sole object in office.
Many of the 20-plus Republicans supporting Householder may not appreciate the level of tawdriness he fostered; legislative term limits mean most weren’t around during his reign.
They should listen to veteran lawmakers, like the one who told The Dispatch in April: “(Under Householder) There was way too much
checking campaign-finance reports, and that dictating what was happening with policy and bills. That is what got him in hot water and under investigations in the past. You’d hope he’s not going to make those mistakes again.”
That “hot water” included an FBI investigation, sparked by an anonymous memo accusing Householder and his aides of bribery and kickbacks. After two years of investigation, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute, but the affair exposed the strong-arm tactics of Householder and his supporters.
During the same time, a 109-page memo from a Householder aide surfaced, laying out a detailed plan to politically destroy rival Republican Ken Blackwell, who aided the federal investigation.
Ethics charges followed Householder when he left the Statehouse and was elected Perry County commissioner in 2006. Fellow Republican Mary Taylor, then state auditor, found that employees who had worked for him were given unearned overtime, comp time and vacation. She also found that the county engineer inappropriately paid $9,000 to county workers who helped renovate a building for a business in which Householder was an investor.
Already since he returned to the legislature, Householder again has demonstrated his arrogant approach to power by accepting a free gift of a conference table and chairs, worth more than $9,000, made by Ohio prison inmates. An investigation by the Ohio inspector general found that the head of the prison program that made the furniture was attempting to curry favor with Householder.
Is this really what Republicans want to do with their majority?
When he returned to the House two years ago, Householder wasted no time charting a course back to the top. He raised $871,000 in the first year, topping all others in both Statehouse chambers. He used it to build a campaign organization rivaling that of the House GOP caucus. The goal? To elect candidates in 2018 who would support him for speaker when the job came open again.
Householder’s confrontation with Smith, who also was promoting himself for the job and recruiting friendly candidates, came sooner than expected, when former Speaker Cliff Rosenberger resigned last spring amid an FBI investigation that remains unresolved.
Knowing he didn’t have the votes to win then, Householder tried to push for a temporary placeholder speaker, expecting that the November election would usher in enough of his candidates to give him a majority.
That didn’t happen. Smith has the support of 34 House Republicans while Householder has just 26. Now the Householder camp’s refusal to give in and line up behind Smith could force a repeat of the ridiculous 11-ballot speaker vote held in the spring. Under House rules, if no speaker candidate wins 50 votes (a majority of the 99 seats) on the first ballot, members must vote again and again until someone gets 50 votes — until the 11th vote, when the candidate with the highest number wins.
The Republican split also raises the possibility of horse-trading in the speaker race. Householder reportedly has been courting votes from labor-friendly Democrats by promising not to allow antiunion legislation such as a “right-to-work” bill to come to a vote.
We’re all for bipartisanship, but a deal with Householder would tarnish the integrity of any Democrat who bought it, just as another Householder speakership would tarnish the House itself. We hope Democrats will consider his unsavory legacy and resist the temptation for a short-term gain.
It’s much preferable, though unlikely, that prosmith lawmakers could strike a deal with Democrats who would cross party lines to avoid a Householder speakership.
The mere fact that this battle continues — that so many House Republicans are willing to be led by someone who has demonstrated so clearly his lack of ethics — is troubling. Ohio’s well-being and legislators’ own integrity are both at stake.