Swearing-In, RNC and Officer Elections, Debate on Brown's Resolution, and Stephens' Actions Against Conservative House Reps

The April 26th Ohio Republican Party Meeting Demonstrates the Establishment's Firm Control in State Politics

Swearing-In of New Members

On April 10, 2024, nine members of the Republican State Central Committee, including myself, emailed Chairman Triantafilou to request the option of taking an affirmation instead of an oath at the upcoming April 26th meeting. This request was prompted by the recent approval of Issue 1, which legalized abortion on demand in the state constitution. Chairman Triantafilou's brief reply, "Thanks. Alex," did not clarify whether our request would be granted.

On April 15, I texted the Chairman asking for a phone conversation about the oath and other agenda items I had submitted. He declined a phone call, preferring to communicate with me only via email. He stated that he would “consider [my] requests and [I could] take it up with the entirety of the Committee if [I] opposed adoption of the agenda [he] (Alex) had prepared. It’s the role of the executive officers to set the agenda of the organization and our priorities. I’ll do my job to balance various requests.” 

Despite his refusal to discuss the matter with me over the phone, I learned that he had spoken to other committee members concerned about the oath. However, the feedback I received from them was contradictory: one former member indicated that they felt we would be allowed to take an affirmation, while another member was told affirmations were not permitted, but a statement could be made. This conflicting information left us uncertain about how the issue would be addressed at the meeting. Shortly before the meeting, another member informed me that they had spoken to the Chairman, who communicated that I would be allowed to make a statement before taking the oath. While I appreciated the opportunity for myself and others to make a statement, the lack of direct communication was frustrating. A simple phone call from the chairman could have easily avoided confusion.

Dear Chairman Triantafilou,

We are writing to you today to address a matter of great importance and sensitivity that concerns the upcoming swearing-in of elected members to the Ohio State Republican Central Committee. It has come to our attention that a number of our members hold conscientious objections to swearing an oath that implicitly requires them to uphold provisions of the Ohio Constitution and certain sections of the Permanent Rules of the Ohio Republican State Central Committee that conflict with their deeply held beliefs and with Ohio State Law, particularly concerning the recent constitutional amendment legalizing abortion on demand.

Ohio law (ORC 3.20 and 3.22) provides for such instances, allowing individuals the option to affirm rather than swear an oath in taking public office, recognizing the diversity of beliefs and the necessity to accommodate sincerely held convictions. This is grounded in the Ohio Revised Code and supported by historical precedents that respect the rights of conscientious objectors. 

Additionally, within the preamble of the Rules of the Republican National Committee it states “It is the intent and purpose of these rules to encourage and allow the broadest possible participation of all voters in Republican Party activities at all levels and to assure that the Republican Party is open and accessible to all Americans.” Specifically, the provision for affirmation in lieu of an oath is designed to uphold the principle of inclusivity and respect for individual beliefs within our legal framework.

In this spirit, and in accordance with the legal allowances provided by the Ohio Revised Code, we propose the following Affirmation for members who wish to serve on the Committee but are unable to swear the traditional oath of office due to their objections:

---

Proposed Affirmation:

“I, (First Name, Last Name), do solemnly swear that I will defend the  Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Ohio; I reserve the right to oppose the provision of the Ohio Constitution permitting abortion on demand, which contradicts my deeply held religious beliefs.

That I will obey the rules and by-laws of the Republican National Committee and the rules and by-laws of the Republican State Central and Executive Committee  of Ohio;  

And I will faithfully perform the duties as a member of the State Central Committee of my district, and support the Ohio Republican Party and its  candidates, to the best of my ability, so help me God.”  

We believe this Affirmation respects the rights of conscientious objectors while ensuring their full participation in the governance and leadership of the Ohio State Republican Central Committee. In  the Ohio Constitution in Article 1 Section 7 it specifically states “...nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted…”  It is our hope that the Committee will accept this Affirmation as a legitimate alternative to the traditional oath of office, thereby honoring the diverse convictions within our ranks and reinforcing our commitment to principled leadership and respect for individual conscience.

Thank you for your consideration. We are available to discuss this matter further at your convenience and look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Jessica Franz, ORPSCC5 (Elect)

Larry J. Carver, ORPSCC29 (Elect)

Shelby Hunt, ORPSCC20 (Elect)

Jean Anderson, ORPSCC13 (Elect)

Nichole Hunter, ORPSCC (Elect)

Timothy Brentlinger, ORPSCC2 (Elect)

Christian Mays, ORPSCC7 (Elect)

Joe Miller, ORPSCC21 (Elect)

Mike Witte, ORPSCC13 (Elect)

During the meeting, Chairman Triantafilou said only one or two members had concerns about the oath. However, the letter to Alex shows that at least nine members expressed concern, with several others sharing their concerns with me privately.

This is the statement I read aloud before affirming the oath: 

Abraham Lincoln, a foundational figure in the Republican Party and our 16th president, grappled with the complexities of slavery within the United States Constitution. He staunchly opposed slavery, viewing it as morally wrong and incompatible with the principles of freedom and equality.

Lincoln tirelessly worked to end slavery, issuing the Emancipation Proclamation and supporting the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery nationwide. Today, we face a similar moral challenge with abortion, now protected under the Ohio State Constitution.

Despite its legal protection, abortion remains morally wrong, infringing upon the right to life granted by our Creator and affirmed in the Declaration of Independence.

As an elected member, I will work to establish personhood rights for the unborn, eliminate public subsidies for abortion, and support alternatives to abortion. I will use my platform to speak out against abortion and related practices that undermine our fundamental rights. While I commit to upholding the Ohio Constitution, I cannot in good conscience support the expansion of abortion rights within it. I will strive for changes that align with my deeply held religious beliefs about the sanctity of life.

I would ask that all state central committee members who champion the rights of the unborn, would stand with me in solidarity. Let us unite to affirm that the Republican Party remains steadfast in its core principles—championing freedom, equality, and the protection of life and liberty for every human being, born and unborn.

Election of the RNC Committeeman and RNC Committeewoman

What are the Roles/Responsibilities of RNC members?  

Republican National Committee (RNC) committeemen and committeewomen represent their state's interests within the RNC, participating in policy development, fundraising, and candidate support. They also have voting rights on party matters, and engage in outreach to maintain and expand party relationships. They play a key role in shaping the party's direction at both the national and state levels. 

At the April 26th meeting, the Committee elected the RNC Committeeman and Committeewoman. Lisa Cooper and Jane Timken were candidates for the female RNC committee seat previously held by Jo Ann Davidson, a former state central committee member who has served as RNC Committeewoman since 2004. Davidson, now 96 and reportedly living in a nursing home, attended one state central committee meeting during my tenure since being elected in 2022. I am unaware of her participation in RNC meetings during this time or whether she sent a delegate in her place, as there has been no communication from her with the Committee. Consequently, it is unclear if the party has been represented at the RNC meetings or if we have been without representation, and for how long. 

From Questionable ORP Leadership to RNC Committeewoman: Can Jane Timken Handle the Responsibility?

Jane Timken announced her candidacy on March 30th. Following Timken’s announcement, members of the state central committee were contacted by Chairman Triantafilou via email on April 23rd where he stated that the “Trump campaign has asked me to share [his endorsement of Jane Timken and Jim Dicke] with you.” The following day, April 24, the committee was contacted by former ORP Chairman, Bob Paduchik who stated: “I am proud to have both Jim and Jane as friends. But make no mistake, I am writing because President Trump needs both of them on the Republican National Committee. If you support President Trump, you must support Jim Dicke and Jane Timken, his candidates for the Republican National Committee. Electing Jim and Jane is the only way to ensure the national Republican Party is working for Donald J. Trump.” 

While Mr. Paduchik and I disagree on supporting Timken and Dicke as equivalent to supporting Trump, I agree with his statement that he is friends with both. In fact, his brother, Jason Paduchik, works for McKinley Strategies, the lobbying firm owned by Jane Timken's husband. Despite stepping down due to allegations of knowingly violating Ohio's Campaign Finance Laws, Paduchik maintains significant control over the party's direction. In his position as an Ohio advisor to Trump, he played a key role in the re-election of Jim Dicke and the election of Jane Timken to the RNC, despite his evident conflicts of interest. 

Ohio GOP chair Bob Paduchik says political parties flout state law to help candidates

Following the meeting, numerous constituents reached out to me, questioning if Timken and Dicke, known for their wealth, purchased their endorsements from Trump and utilized Paduchik as the middleman. While I cannot confirm its likelihood, I also cannot deny that it is a possibility. If this is true, it wouldn’t be the first or last time Trump has influenced statewide races. While I'm not accusing Trump of deliberately poor endorsement choices, I am suggesting he is influenced by Ohio advisors who are out of touch and more concerned with their own interests than those of Ohio Republicans. If I had the opportunity to speak with him, I would encourage him to replace Bob Paduchik and surround himself with an advisor who truly understands grassroots conservatives—those who love him and have been his most loyal supporters, yet are most adversely affected by misguided endorsement choices.

Jane Timken, former chair of the Ohio Republican Party from 2017 until her resignation in February 2021 to run for Senate, faced several issues during her tenure. Although initially opposing party endorsements to allow voter independence, she quickly endorsed DeWine after becoming GOP Chair. Her term was also marked by FEC audits, highlighting oversight concerns. Despite claims of her success in electing Republicans, such achievements are typical in a Republican stronghold, and her actual impact remains unclear due to the lack of detailed financial reporting on candidate expenditures, reducing transparency. 

In Jack Windsor's interview with Mark Bainbridge, the discussion delves into the historical and present FEC penalties faced by the ORP, incurred during the tenures of former treasurer Dave Johnson, as well as previous Chairs Bob Paduchik and Jane Timken. Despite the awareness of Timken’s alleged financial errors, members chose to elect her over Lisa Cooper by a margin of 52-14. One member I spoke with justified his support for Timken by likening it to choosing a skilled doctor for a sick friend, even if the doctor had a terrible personality. Similarly, despite Timken’s shortcomings as Chair, he believed she was the right choice for RNC Committeewoman due to her wealth, connections, and ability to engage with other wealthy individuals.

Sadly, I think this goes to demonstrate just how far out of touch many Republican leaders have become with their base. Ohio politics is dominated by a pay-to-play system where big businesses and wealthy individuals wield significant influence, often at the expense of the general public. A clear example of this is the Ohio Republican Party's fundraising practices, where less than 2% of donations are under $1,000, starkly contrasting with other parties and candidates who typically raise 50% of their funds from amounts of $200 or less. This heavy reliance on major special interests undermines the party’s capacity to genuinely represent its base. Such a system not only makes it easier to sell the party to the highest bidder rather than cultivate genuine enthusiasm, but it also discourages grassroots initiatives like registration drives, evangelical outreach, and active promotion of conservatism. A strategic realignment is crucial for rejuvenating the Ohio Republican Party, ensuring that the party prioritizes the interests of all Republicans over the influence of a select few, by fostering passion and broader support from a multitude of contributors.

Jim Dicke: Out of Reach and Out of Touch, Yet Entrusted as RNC Committeeman

During the discussion on RNC candidates, I pointed out that Mr. Dicke’s engagement with the Committee had been minimal until recently when he learned that he had a challenger. Prior to this, I had not received updates from him regarding the RNC. Furthermore, there was no response from Mr. Dicke when my colleagues and I emailed him expressing our constituents’ feelings toward Ronna McDaniels and advocating for  Harmeet Dhillon in January of 2023. Later, I discovered that at least 100 Republican National Committee members, including the three Ohio representatives - Chairman Paduchik, Jim Dicke, and Jo Ann Davidson - endorsed Chair Ronna McDaniel for reelection. Furthermore, the policy committee, which Mr. Dicke sat on, met secretly under former Chairman Bob Paduchik’s leadership and passed a watered-down Title IX resolution instead of the strongly worded resolution my colleagues and I had submitted. 

On a related note about the policy committee, I requested to add three bylaw amendments to the agenda several weeks in advance of the meeting. One of the amendments addressed the policy committee's authority to make decisions for the entire committee between meetings. Unfortunately, Chairman Triantafilou declined to include it.

Bylaw Amendment

107 Republican National Committee Members Endorse Ronna McDaniel for Reelection

January 25, 2023

Mr. Alex Triantafilou

Ohio Republican Party, Chair

Dear Chairman Triantafilou,

We, the undersigned members of Ohio’s Republican State Central Committee, are writing on behalf of our constituents, who are requesting that you, Mr. Dicke, and Ms. Davidson, vote for Harmeet Dhillon as RNC Chair. Our constituents, (which span the state), have lost all confidence in Ronna McDaniel’s ability to fight the radical Leftists, who under her watch, have captured our schools, destroyed our economy, infiltrated every aspect of our culture, and are in the process of dismantling the nuclear family. The Republican voters in our districts are tired of seeing the Republican Party get out-messaged, out-worked and out-spent; and they want a change of leadership. It is our hope that you will consider the wishes of our constituents, and vote for Harmeet Dhillon as Chair of the Republican National Committee.

Respectfully,

Christine Maurer, District 29

Stephanie Kremer, District 12

Jessica Franz, District 5

I also acknowledged Mr. Dicke's significant contributions to the party but expressed concern about his oversight of spending amidst ongoing FEC audits and his perceived lack of involvement in promoting Issue 1. It's noteworthy that the party only spent a total of $99,516.77 on both Issue 1 and 2 combined. This remark prompted Chairman Triantafilou to defend Mr. Dicke, asserting that he had contributed significantly to Issue 1. However, he did not provide any evidence to support this claim. It is notable that, in addition to being an appointee of the Policy Committee, Mr. Dicke was also appointed to the Budget Oversight Committee, the Building Committee, and the Chairman and Vice Chairman Review Committee. Mr. Dicke already holds numerous positions as an unelected member of the RSCC. This concentration of roles raises significant concerns about oversight. Moreover, it is unwise to place so much power and influence in the hands of a single individual.

Bob McEwen - The Right Leader for a Critical Time 

Bob McEwen challenged incumbent Jim Dicke for the RNC Committeeman seat. Bob served six terms as a U.S. Representative for Ohio’ Sixth District and  was appointed by President Trump to both the 1776 Commission and the Defense Science Board, contributing significantly to national discussions on historical truth and policy. McEwen currently serves as the Executive Director of the Council for National Policy (CNP), a nonpartisan educational foundation with over 400 members, including top conservative leaders. McEwen was endorsed by Turning Point Action. 

In his candidacy announcement email, McEwen criticized the current RNC leadership for its ineffective financial management during a critical election period, as evidenced by the need to borrow funds. This mismanagement undermines the RNC’s primary mission: to elect Republicans and defeat Democrats. He also pointed out that the current RNC leadership has been slow to respond to Democrat strategies and misinformation, weakening the party’s position on national issues. He also noted a lack of sufficient support for grassroots movements, which are vital for the party’s electoral success. 

I voted for Bob McEwen because his election as RNC Committeeman would have brought much-needed strategic experience and a proactive approach to the Republican National Committee. He pledged to prioritize effective financial management, strengthen local parties, and aggressively counter Democrat policies. Unfortunately, the Committee chose to re-elect Jim Dicke by a margin of 47 to 19. 

Lisa Cooper - The Clear Choice for Conservative Grassroots Republicans 

Lisa Cooper served for twelve years on the Ohio Republican Party State Central Committee. She has a track record of holding party leadership accountable, particularly in addressing financial mismanagement issues under past chairs like Matt Borges and Jane Timken.  In Lisa’s letter of intent to the Committee, she pointed out that “Jane Timken chose to ‘put off’ cleaning up our books and ignored requests from the FEC. Suggestions made in a 2017 Compliance Report were also ignored. The lack of attention to these matters resulted in a $100,000 FEC fine in 2019. Jane Timken then decided to throw her hat in the ring for U.S. Senate, and Bob Paduchik took over as ORP chairman. He too chose to put on blinders and failed to address our financial issues.”

I chose to vote for Lisa Cooper because of her commitment to staying compliant with state and federal campaign finance laws and ensuring accountability and transparency within the party’s financial operations. She also acknowledged the lack of communication between the former national committeewoman and the state central committee and pledged to bridge the gap by providing regular updates on national matters and seeking input from state and county leaders. As she stated in her letter of intent: “Those votes should not be just my vote, but a vote representing the State of Ohio. I was diligent in communicating to my district while I was on the SCC and would continue to do that in my role on the national level.” Lisa was also endorsed by her county parties - Morrow and Union Counties and by Turning Point Action. Unfortunately, Lisa was defeated by Jane Timken by a margin of 52 to 14. 

---

Election of Executive Officers

Christian Mays (SD 7) offered an excellent summary of the April 26 meeting, accessible here. Below is an excerpt from his coverage of the election of executive officers. I voted to support Melanie Leneghan and Gary James.

The second item of New Business was to fill the two open vacant executive positions due to the incumbents that held those positions not being reelected. Those seats were for Vice Chair and Treasurer.

• Doug Wills (District 31) was elected Vice Chair over Melanie Leneghan (District 19) with a vote count of 39 - 27.

• Diane Redden (District 7) was elected Treasurer over Gary James (District 19, and current Asst. Treasurer) with a vote count of 35 - 31

The conservative faction of the SCC supported Leneghan and James. (NOTE: Since this meeting, Doug Wills passed away unexpectedly, as such a meeting will occur within 45 days of his passing to appoint someone to this position).

---

Brown’s Resolution 

Josh Brown (SD 16) proposed a resolution affirming Representative Phil Plummer's sole authority over OHRA funds, which was in accordance with the vote taken on April 10, 2024 by the majority vote of the House Caucus. The resolution also condemned Speaker Jason Stephens and Representative Jeff LaRe for their unauthorized control and spending of OHRA funds, excluding Chairman Representative Phil Plummer, and violating both Caucus authority and Speaker Stephens' January 24, 2023, agreement. The Resolution also proposed future actions against any House members who voted against the agreed-upon Ohio House Caucus speaker. These actions include making the member ineligible for Ohio Republican Party endorsement for 16 years (January 1, 2025 to January 1, 2041), censuring the member, and barring them from events primarily sponsored by the ORP.

While I supported Brown’s resolution, I intended to amend it to include the disaffiliation of Jason Stephens. I had contacted Chairman Triantafilou on April 3 to request its addition to the agenda for discussion. Despite being well within the timeframe for agenda additions, Triantafilou declined to add my resolution for disaffiliation to the agenda.

See the Letter and request to add Disaffiliation Resolution to the agenda for discussion.

Discussion & Debate of Brown’s Resolution

During the discussion of the resolution, several members spoke on the issue. Michelle Schneider (SD 8) stated that the party needed unity, pointing out that the Committee’s primary job is to raise money and get good Republicans elected. She also stated that the voters have spoken, and sanctioning them would be a grave insult. Unity is our theme, and Schneider said that Brown’s resolution undermines unity, and the ORP should focus on winning this fall. Schneider commented that the money issue is currently in the courts, and the Committee should avoid involvement to prevent being enjoined in the lawsuit.  She also stated that there were three people running for Speaker, and each one needed Democrat support to get elected, which Schneider said is “not uncommon.” She concluded by stating that Brown’s resolution divides us and hampers our fundraising ability for the fall. She said this is not our fight, and that our fight is raising money and electing Republicans. 

Penny Martin (SD 15) reminded the committee that the bylaws committee established a resolutions committee to handle resolutions. 

Ron O’ Brien (SD 15) echoed Michelle and Penny’s points, stating that the resolution was premature and should be referred to the Resolutions Committee. He raised concerns about the legality of the resolution, noting that the Committee can’t ask House members to pledge to vote a certain way.

Greg Simpson (SD 14) reiterated that a Resolutions Committee was established, and the resolution should be reviewed and sent back to the full Committee. He stated the resolution was sprung on the committee at the last second, consuming time and effort and that we (committee members) don’t really understand it. Simpson moved to send the resolution to the Resolutions Committee for review and report. Dave Johnson (SD 33) quickly seconded the motion.  *I would like to correct Mr. Simpson here and point out that the resolution wasn’t sprung on the committee at the last second. Member Brown introduced the idea of a resolution taking action against Speaker Stephens in February and was available by phone and Zoom meetings to address any questions.

I then addressed the issue, pointing out that we don’t yet have a Resolutions Committee formed, and so it is entirely appropriate that we address the resolution now. I expressed support for Brown’s resolution stating it clearly communicates that Rep Phil Plummer is in charge of OHRA, and the Committee supporting the resolution would aid in the lawsuit. I disagreed that our only duty is just to get Republicans elected and raise funds.  We also have a responsibility to hold candidates accountable, which is what my voters expect from me.  At the minimum, I argued we should pass Brown’s resolution to send a clear message to voters that we are the party of unity and the party of accountability. Unity without accountability is like a garden with no gardener: it may initially flourish but will soon be overrun by weeds. 

Furthermore, I stated I would like to take the resolution a step further by calling for the disaffiliation of Speaker Stephens, who has already spent $3.1 million dollars of Republican donor funds on censured unendorsed candidates. The Committee hasn’t taken any action to prevent him from continuing to act against Republicans in the November election, as it benefits him to support Democrats to stay in power. I urged the Committee to take action and support Brown’s resolution. 

Shannon Burns (SD 24) opposed sending the resolution to the Resolutions Committee, highlighting the need to address it immediately. Burns argued that delaying action would be too late and criticized the current approach as reactive rather than proactive. He asserted that the proposed resolution is forward-thinking and necessary to ensure that those with an “R” next to their name vote with the Caucus. He stated that if members vote in favor of Democrat interests, there should be consequences. Burns also mentioned that Stephens plans to support Democrats again and we need a clear timely message to address this. He reiterated that sending the resolution to a non-existent committee would be ineffective and that immediate action is crucial. 

Carrie Masterson (SD 20) supported the resolution, stating that the censure did nothing to curb Stephens or LaRae from misusing OHRA funds. She described the January 2023 vote as a traitorous act against the House Caucus and Republican constituents, which disrupted the Republican agenda and helped liberal progressives successfully amend the state constitution to allow unlimited abortion access and transgender surgeries without parental consent. She warned their votes would have far-reaching effects beyond this even with a supermajority. 

Masterson criticized the persistent poor behavior of the “Blue 22,” noting their lack of remorse and misuse of House funds to attack fellow Republicans. She has never heard them apologize for their actions, only offering self-serving excuses. While she acknowledges calls for unity and defeating Democrats in the November elections, she stated that unity can’t be achieved until this behavior is addressed. Passing the resolution would enforce sanctions and set a precedent to deter future offenses. She urged the Committee to pass the resolution for the sake of the party, its brand, and its constituents, concluding that cleaning our house first is essential for delivering strong and lasting results. 

Gloria Martin (SD 14) posed a rhetorical question to seemingly prompt a response from the Chairman. She asked why the Committee needed to pass another resolution when they had already passed one earlier in the year, which instructed members to vote with the Caucus.

Chairman Triantafilou responded that the Committee had taken four significant steps against the Blue 22 members. First, the Committee passed Brown’s censure resolution. Second, the Committee voted to deny the Blue 22 their endorsement. Third, they passed another resolution proposed by Gary Cates (SD 4), warning of additional potential sanctions for future offenses. Lastly, as an ex-officio member of the Caucus, Triantafilou sent his designee (Tony Schroeder SD 1) to vote with the majority of Republicans in the House Caucus. Forty House Republicans voted, and Tony cast the forty-first vote to remove control of OHRA and give it to the majority of Republicans. Triantafilou stated it was his duty to protect the party’s brand and that the party had already acted. Martin concluded by echoing Triantafilou, stating that the party had already acted and needed to focus on winning in November. 

David Glass (SD 17) moved to call the previous question (end discussion and proceed to a vote). Chairman Triantafilou responded that there were a few more people that wanted to comment. 

Gina Campbell (SD 1)  stated that she made sure that the people in her district were well-educated so that when it came time for the primary, the Blue 22 challenger lost in her district. 

Dave Johnson (SD 33) said that we should be focusing 100% of our energy on November elections. He called Brown’s resolution “disuniting” and said it should be referred to a committee. 

Jean Anderson (SD13) stated that our voters expect the party to act in a unified fashion while also demonstrating accountability. She noted that the funds were created by the voters, who deserve accountability for their misuse. She stated that if the party can demonstrate accountability, voters will be much more willing to contribute in the future, thereby helping to elect Republicans. 

Shelby Hunt (SD 20) pointed out the long-term implications of Speaker Stephens and the Blue 22, expressing amazement that the Committee was either unable or unwilling to recognize the connections between their actions and the ratification of abortion rights in the state constitution. He encouraged the Committee to stand on moral principles and hold them accountable now, rather than sending the matter to the Resolutions Committee. 

Hunt also posed a hypothetical question: What if a supermajority of Democrats had approached Republicans to install a more conservative speaker? He argued that the Democrats would have reacted dramatically, possibly even violently. He questioned how the Committee could simply move on without any repentance from those involved, concluding that forgiveness requires repentance. 

Melanie Mason (SD 13) stated that the party’s number one job is to get Republicans elected. She stated that the objective is simple and the current debates about the resolution are just distractions. Mason points out that of the 22 members in question, the majority are Republicans, and eight were elected in their primaries. She questioned whether the Committee should refuse to support candidates chosen by Republican voters. She reminded the Committee that some of the 22 played a role in overturning the Governor's veto. 

Mason stressed the importance of focusing on the upcoming November election, calling ongoing arguments nonsense. She acknowledged there were ramifications from the Blue 22’s actions, but she stated that they had already been punished. She criticized the desire for continued punishment, saying, “if you want to keep punishing them, you might as well take them out and hang them.” Mason concluded by stating the discussion to hold them accountable is getting a little ridiculous and the Committee needs to work on the November election.

Joshua Brown (SD 16 ) stated that the issue before the Committee is whether the Committee is going to allow Democrats to control legislative campaign funds. He mentioned discussing this with several Committee members, noting that a group of people had collaborated on the resolution and agreed on at least recognizing the April 10th vote of the Caucus. Supporting the resolution means affirming that vote and endorsing Phil Plummer as the agreed-upon leader of the Caucus, which could be useful in the ongoing court case. 

Brown acknowledged the Committee’s discussions about unity and division, but he argued that the party was divided by the Blue 22 members who voted with Democrats to elect the Speaker, against the majority of Republicans. He agreed about the importance of focusing on the upcoming November election but also pointed out that Speaker Stephens has an incentive to support Democrats in this election.  According to Brown, Stephens benefits from having more Democrats in the General Assembly, as they would likely vote for him as Speaker. This resolution, Brown argued, is about electing Republicans, not Democrats. 

How did the Committee Vote on Brown’s Resolution?

The Chairman called for a vote. The vote was taken by secret ballot. A “Yes” vote would send the issue to the Resolutions Committee, while a “No” vote would return the Committee to debating the proposed resolution. The vote resulted in 39 members voting "Yes" and 27 members voting "No."

Despite warnings from Brown, myself, and others about the potential impact on the November elections, our concerns were largely ignored.

On Wednesday, May 2, aka, “Bloody Wednesday,” Stephens retaliated against conservative state representatives who supported Blue 22 challengers by stripping them of committee assignments. As a Speaker elected by Democrats, we anticipate Stephens will prioritize supporting Democrat candidates in November over those who defeated his Blue 22 allies. If this occurs, the Republican Party State Central Committee members who failed to act against Stephens will bear responsibility for further harm to the party and its candidates.

Stephens punishes conservatives, removes six Republican committee chairs

I’ve posted the names of the twenty-seven members who voted against sending the resolution to a nonexistent subcommittee below. Please contact these members to thank them for their efforts to hold Speaker Stephens accountable. If your representative is listed as “likely No,” it is because we could not confirm with them directly and had to rely on their constituents or process of elimination. If your State Central Committee representative voted to avoid addressing Stephens' actions, I encourage you to contact them and ask them why.

Republican State Central Committee Member List

Some members who voted "Yes" claimed they supported Brown's resolution but were concerned about potential legal ramifications for the party. They cited issues with the 16-year penalty and noted that the party lacks the authority to legally require House or Senate members to pledge to vote for the caucus nominee.

While I agree there were some issues with the language, the resolution could have been amended on the floor to address them. At the very least, we could have passed a resolution supporting and acknowledging Representative Phil Plummer as the Chairman of the Ohio House Republican Caucus as of April 10, 2024, and specifying that only he can control and administer the funds. Instead, 39 members voted to send the resolution to a non-existent subcommittee, likely dooming it.

Where do we go from here?

I think we must realize that unity requires accountability. Prioritizing the party over addressing bad actors and poor financial management will perpetuate conflict between those who blindly support the party establishment and their own self-interests and those who prioritize truth, ethics, and the will of their constituents. Biblically, God does not honor corrupt practices. While some believe the end justifies the means, those who know and serve God understand this is false.

Additionally, those truly causing division in the party need to be exposed. A conversation I had at the meeting with a colleague is very telling. Although we disagree on most things, I try to extend an olive branch and make connections where I can. I explained to him why supporting Brown’s resolution was crucial and how the party’s refusal to implement real consequences for Speaker Stephens was costing us Republican voters and hurting our fundraising ability. He responded that he wasn't hearing that and questioned where I was getting my information. I replied that I was speaking with grassroots conservatives. He scoffed and suggested they were lazy and not even real Republicans.

Friends, as long as party leadership holds such arrogance and contempt for Tea Party and grassroots conservatives, we will never succeed. I am proud to be a Tea Party grassroots conservative. We are the foundation of the Republican Party. But we are being pushed out and replaced by those who prefer an oligarchic system, concentrating the future of the party in the hands of a few elite and wealthy individuals. And if you aren’t in the club, you’re out. This disregard for grassroots voices threatens the core values and democratic principles of our party. If we continue down this path, we risk losing not only our integrity but also our relevance to the very people who built and sustain this party. We must reclaim our commitment to true representation to ensure a prosperous future for the Republican Party.