Upload
coast
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
1/23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
THOMAS E. BRINKMAN, JR.,
and
COALITION OPPOSED TO
ADDITIONAL SPENDING & TAXES
(a/k/a COAST),
and
MARK W. MILLER,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ARMOND D. BUDISH, Speaker of the
Ohio House of Representatives and
Chairman of the Joint Legislative Ethics
Committee of the Ohio General
Assembly,
and
BILL HARRIS, President of the Ohio
State Senate and Vice-Chairman of the
Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of
the Ohio General Assembly,
and
WILLIAM BATCHELDER, Member of
the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee
of the Ohio General Assembly,
and
CAPRI CAFARO, Member of the Joint
Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio
General Assembly,
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:09-CV-00326
Judge _______________________
Magistrate Judge ______________
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FORTEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,
PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTIONS AND
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
2/23
2
and
LOUIS BLESSING, Member of the
Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of
the Ohio General Assembly,
and
JOHN CAREY, Member of the Joint
Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio
General Assembly,
and
JENNIFER GARRISON, Member of the
Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of
the Ohio General Assembly,
and
MATT HUFFMAN, Member of the
Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of
the Ohio General Assembly,
and
DALE MILLER, Member of the Joint
Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio
General Assembly,
and
SUE MORANO, Member of the Joint
Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio
General Assembly,
and
TOM NIEHAUS, Member of the Joint
Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio
General Assembly,
and
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 2 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
3/23
3
MATTHEW SZOLLOSI, Member of
the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee
of the Ohio General Assembly,
and
TONY W. BLEDSOE, Executive
Director and Legislative Inspector
General of the Joint Legislative Ethics
Committee of the Ohio General
Assembly,
and
JOINT LEGISLATIVE ETHICS
COMMITTEE OF THE OHIO
GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
and
JOSEPH T. DETERS,
Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney,
and
RON OBRIEN,
Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
::
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Now come Plaintiffs, THOMAS E. BRINKMAN, JR., COALITION OPPOSED TO
ADDITIONAL SPENDING & TAXES (COAST), and MARK W. MILLER and for their
Complaint, allege as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is an action to vindicate core First Amendment rights of free speech, freedomof association and the petitioning of government for redress of grievances, all of which are being
infringed by overly broad and burdensome provisions of the Ohio Ethics Law, Chapter 102 of
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 3 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
4/23
4
the Ohio Revised Code, and the declared interpretation thereof by the Defendant Joint
Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio General Assembly.
2. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and injunctive relief enjoining Defendantsfrom enforcing against Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, section 102.03(A)(4) of the Ohio
Revised Code (together, the Statute) which prohibits former members or employees of the
Ohio General Assembly, for one year after the conclusion of such service or employment, from
representing or acting on behalf of any person or organization on any matter before the Ohio
General Assembly, any committee of the Ohio General Assembly or the Controlling Board of the
State of Ohio. The Statute, on its face and as applied, unjustifiably and unconstitutionally
restricts Plaintiffs core political speech rights, associational rights and petitioning rights in
violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the
several states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as
unconstitutionally discriminates against the Plaintiffs in violation of the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Thomas E. Brinkman, Jr., is a citizen and taxpayer of the State of Ohioand is a member and supporter of Plaintiff Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes.
Furthermore, from January 2001 to December 2008, Plaintiff Brinkman was a member of the
Ohio House of Representatives, one of the two bodies comprising the Ohio General Assembly.
4. Plaintiff Mark W. Miller is a citizen and taxpayer of the State of Ohio, and is amember, supporter and authorized agent of Plaintiff Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending
& Taxes. Furthermore, Plaintiff Miller is the Treasurer of Plaintiff Coalition Opposed to
Additional Spending & Taxes. Through Plaintiff Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending &
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 4 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
5/23
5
Taxes, Plaintiff Miller is able to join and associate with other individuals in order to collectively
advocate and promote the political issues which Miller and such other individuals support.
5. Plaintiff Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes (COAST) is anunincorporated association of individuals organized as a political action committee under the
laws of the State of Ohio. Plaintiff COAST brings this action on behalf of itself and its members
and supporters.1
6. Defendant Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio General Assembly (theJLEC) is composed of twelve members selected from the Ohio General Assembly, with such
membership evenly divided between the two major political parties.
7. Defendant Armond Budish is a member and speaker of the Ohio House ofRepresentatives, is one of the twelve members of the JLEC and serves as chairman of the JLEC.
Defendant Budish is named herein in his official capacity only.
8. Defendant Bill Harris is a member and president of the Ohio State Senate, is oneof the twelve members of the JLEC and serves as vice-chairman of the JLEC. Defendant Harris
is named herein in his official capacity only.
9. Defendant William Batchelder is a member of the Ohio House of Representativesand is one of the twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Batchelder is named herein in his
official capacity only.
10. Defendant Capri Cafaro is a member of the Ohio State Senate and is one of thetwelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Cafaro is named herein in his official capacity only.
1 References to COAST include both the organization as an entity and its individualsupporters and members.
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 5 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
6/23
6
11. Defendant Louis Blessing is a member of the Ohio House of Representatives andis one of the twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Blessing is named herein in his official
capacity only.
12. Defendant John Carey is a member of the Ohio State Senate and is one of thetwelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Carey is named herein in his official capacity only.
13. Defendant Jennifer Garrison is a member of the Ohio House of Representativesand is one of the twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Garrison is named herein in his
official capacity only.
14.
Defendant Matt Huffman is a member of the Ohio House of Representatives and
is one of the twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Huffman is named herein in his official
capacity only.
15. Defendant Dale Miller is a member of the Ohio State Senate and is one of thetwelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Miller is named herein in his official capacity only.
16. Defendant Sue Morano is a member of the Ohio State Senate and is one of thetwelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Morano is named herein in his official capacity only.
17. Defendant Tom Niehaus is a member of the Ohio State Senate and is one of thetwelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Niehaus is named herein in his official capacity only.
18. Defendant Matthew Szollosi is a member of the Ohio House of Representativesand is one of the twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Szollosi is named herein in his
official capacity only.
19. Defendant Tony W. Bledsoe is the executive director of the JLEC and serves asthe legislative inspector general of the JLEC. Defendant Bledsoe is named herein in his official
capacity only.
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 6 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
7/23
7
20. Defendant Joseph T. Deters is the Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney andDefendant Ron OBrien is the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney. In such capacities, they
are charged under the Ohio Constitution with prosecuting crimes within their respective
jurisdictions. The desired activities of Plaintiff Brinkman and Plaintiff COAST referenced in
this Complaint will occur either exclusively or primarily in those counties within the jurisdiction
of Defendants Deters and OBrien. These Defendants are sued in their official capacities only.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
21. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, as this action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution; under 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(3), in that it is brought to redress deprivations, under
color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution;
under 28 U.S.C. 1343(a)(4), in that it seeks to secure equitable relief under an Act of Congress,
specifically, 42 U.S.C. 1983, which provides a cause of action for the protection of civil and
constitutional rights; under 28 U.S.C. 2201(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 to secure declaratory
relief; under 28 U.S.C. 2202 and Fed R. Civ. 65 to secure preliminary and permanent
injunctive relief; and under 42 U.S.C. 1988, to award attorneys fees and costs.
22. Venue is proper within this judicial district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and Local Rule 82.1, as (i) all of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs arose within this
judicial district and division and (ii) some of the Defendants are situated within this judicial
district and division.
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 7 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
8/23
8
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Background of Plaintiffs COAST and Brinkman
23. Founded in 1999, Plaintiff COAST advocates for restraint in government taxingand spending at the national, state and local level in Ohio. In fact, Plaintiff Brinkman is one of
the two co-founders of COAST.
24. Over the years, Plaintiff COAST has advocated on tax and spending issues beforethe Ohio legislature, the Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners, the Cincinnati City
Council and many other administrative and legislative bodies. Plaintiff COAST is also active in
advocating for the election or defeat of candidates on the ballot each year, and on ballot issues
throughout the State of Ohio. Plaintiff COAST intends to continue this advocacy for many years
into the future.
25. Historically, Plaintiff Brinkman has acted in the role of official Spokesman forPlaintiff COAST, supplementing the Chairman of Plaintiff COAST in speaking to the news
media and civic organizations on issues of public importance.
26. Plaintiff COAST conducts its advocacy activities in a variety of ways, includingwithout limitation sending an e-mailed newsletter that is distributed to approximately 10,000
persons monthly, operating a web site (www.gocoast.org) and blog (www.coast-
usa.blogspot.com), sending direct mailings on issues of importance and for fundraising purposes,
sending press releases, holding press conferences, hosting rallies, direct lobbying of various
legislative bodies on issues of importance, as well as other events.
27. Plaintiff COAST also encourages its members and supporters to contact theirlegislators on matters of importance, including pending legislation. This is done through e-
mailed Action Alerts to Plaintiff COASTs e-mail distribution lists, physical mailings, virtual
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 8 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
9/23
9
town hall meetings and in-person contacts. Virtual town hall meetings are conference calls
among thousands of voters initiated by nearly-simultaneous automated calls out to thousands of
households.
28. Plaintiff COAST, on behalf of its members, has also directly lobbied legislatorsthrough Plaintiff COASTs leadership and by testimony before legislative bodies.
29. Plaintiff COAST and Plaintiff Brinkman in concert desire to engage in activitiespresently prohibited by the Statute.
30. Specifically, Plaintiff COAST presently desires to advocate on a variety of issuespending before the Ohio General Assembly, including without limitation the state budget
currently being considered by the legislature, school finance issues, accountability and
transparency issues, and stimulus money spending. Additionally, in this dynamic environment
as it relates to state spending and tax policy, Plaintiff COAST intends to advocate on a variety of
issues going forward, including without limitation the upcoming capital budget.
Immediate advocacy on State biennial budget bill desired
31. Plaintiff COAST, as principal, desires for Plaintiff Brinkman, as its agent,representative and spokesperson, to advocate on its behalf on matters now and in the future
pending before the Ohio General Assembly by direct communication with legislators, legislative
staff, and executive branch officials.
32. As required by the Ohio Revised Code, every two years, the Governor submits aproposed biennial operating budget to the General Assembly.
33. The biennial operating budget is for a period of two years a biennium whichbegins on July 1 of odd-numbered years and ends 24 months later on June 30.
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 9 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
10/23
10
34. On or about April 29, 2009, by a vote of 53-45, the Ohio House ofRepresentatives passed its version of the biennial budget for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
35. On or about the next day, i.e. April 30, 2009 the Ohio State Senate commencedconsideration of the biennial budget.
36. Included within the proposed biennial budget are several matters which Plaintiffsoppose. For example, within the proposed budget is $3.1 million in an operating subsidy for the
failed National Underground Railroad Freedom Center $1.55 million per year for the next two
years.
37.
When the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center was originally
promoted, it reportedly promised to bring one million visitors to Cincinnati from all over the
world.
38. Today, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center reportedly attractsfewer than 62,000 paying visitors.
39. When it was originally proposed and sought federal, state, county and citysubsidies in support of its $110 million construction cost, executives with the National
Underground Railroad Freedom Center also reportedly promised the taxpayers that the Center
would not ever require any operating subsidy.
40. Then, approximately three years ago, Freedom Center CEO John Pepperreportedly announced that because the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center was not
meeting its financial and attendance projections, it required millions of tax dollars per year in
perpetuity.
41. Just recently, on April 15 of this year, while the biennial budget was pendingbefore the Ohio House of Representatives, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 10 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
11/23
11
reportedly hosted a cocktail reception at the offices of its high-priced lobbyists in Columbus for
state legislators. At the time, the Freedom Center was reportedly seeking $3.75 million from the
state budget, including an astounding $1.4 million to relocate its front door.
42. As the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center reneges on its priorpromise to not require any governmental operating subsidies and seeks, instead, to continue
to siphon taxpayers dollars for its operations, Plaintiff COAST has sounded the trumpet of this
abuse of the taxpayers. But time is critical and the battle is already underway in the Ohio
General Assembly. Yet, the ability of COAST to advocate its position with state legislators is
constrained by the Statute.
43. Brinkman desires to advocate for and lobby on behalf of COAST, as his client, onan uncompensated basis, on matters now pending before the Ohio General Assembly, as well as
issue forthcoming before the Ohio General Assembly, by direct communication with legislators,
legislative staff, or executive branch officials. This advocacy will include positions on the
biennial budget before the Ohio General Assembly (including, that presently before the Ohio
State Senate, as well as any conference committee between the Ohio State Senate and the Ohio
House of Representatives), including the funding therein of the National Underground Railroad
Freedom Center.
JLEC and the Subject Statute
44. The JLEC is the body responsible for governing, inter alios, former members ofthe Ohio General Assembly with respect to the state ethics laws (Chapter 102 of the Ohio
Revised Code).
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 11 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
12/23
12
45. As part of the states ethics law, the Ohio General Assembly has limited andrestricted the ability of its former members to lobby on behalf of others. Specifically, Section
102.03(A)(4) of the Ohio Revised Code provides that:
For a period of one year after the conclusion of employment orservice as a member or employee of the general assembly, noformer member or employee of the general assembly shallrepresent, or act in a representative capacity for, any person on anymatter before the general assembly, any committee of the generalassembly, or the controlling board. . . . As used in division (A)(4)of this section person does not include any state agency orpolitical subdivision of the state.
46. As used in this restriction, i.e., R.C. 102.03(A)(4), the term matter is defined asincluding the proposal, consideration, or enactment of statutes, resolutions, or constitutional
amendments and represent includes any formal or informal appearance before, or any
written or oral communication with, any public agency on behalf of any person.
47. Additionally, as used in R.C. 102.03(A)(4), the term person includes anindividual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association, though the
term explicitly does not include any state agency or political subdivision of the state.
48. Thus, former members of the Ohio General Assembly, such as PlaintiffBrinkman, may not, for a period of one year following their service in the Ohio General
Assembly, represent any person on any matter pending before the Ohio General
Assembly, any committee thereof or the controlling board.
49. Due to the explicit statutory exclusion from the definition of person containedin R.C. 102.03(A)(4), the former member may still, during that same one-year period,
represent a state agency or political subdivision on any matter pending before the Ohio
General Assembly, any committee thereof or the controlling board.
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 12 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
13/23
13
50. In Ohio, there are three governmental bodies principally responsible for theenforcement of the states ethics laws: (i) the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio
General Assembly; (ii) the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Ohio
Supreme Court; and (iii) the Ohio Ethics Commission.
51. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has jurisdiction overmatters relating to judicial officers and employees, and candidates for judicial office.
52. The Ohio Ethics Commission has jurisdiction over matters relating to anyindividuals not within the bailiwick of the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee or the Board of
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.
53. With respect to the enforcement or potential enforcement of the Statute relative toformer members of the Ohio General Assembly (including Plaintiff Brinkman), the Joint
Legislative Ethics Committee is the appropriate ethics commission as defined in Section
102.01(F)(1) of the Ohio Revised Code.
54. Accordingly, the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee would be the body to receiveor initiate complaints against Plaintiff Brinkman for allegedly violating the Statute.
Criminal prosecution of violations of subject statute
55. Once a complaint has been filed for a violation of the Statute, the Joint LegislativeEthics Committee is empowered to investigate such complaints or charges.
56. If the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee determines by a preponderance of theevidence that a violation of the Statute occurred, then such finding must be reported to the
appropriate prosecuting authority for prosecution of the violation.
57. Furthermore, there is no statutory requirement that a referral by the JLEC mustoccur before any criminal prosecution may be considered or undertaken by a county prosecuting
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 13 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
14/23
14
attorney. Thus, county prosecuting attorneys may directly initiate such actions without a referral
by JLEC.
58. The activities in which Plaintiff COAST and Plaintiff Brinkman desire to engage,but have not done so due to the prohibitions within the Statute and the attendant potential for
criminal liability, will likely occur in Hamilton and Franklin Counties.
59. Thus, the appropriate prosecuting attorney for the prosecution of any allegedviolation of the Statute would be Defendants Deters and OBrien.
60. As part of its duty to serve as an advisory body to the general assembly and to thegeneral assemblys individual members, the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee, through its
executive director, issued a memorandum setting forth a summary of the post employment/
service restrictions revolving door law as set forth in the Revised Code and as interpreted by
the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee (JLEC). A copy of that memorandum is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
61. Within this memorandum, the JLEC specifically addressed whether therevolving door law was applicable only to situations where a former member received
compensation. After referencing three previously issued advisory opinions, the subject
memorandum continued (with emphasis in the original):
Although the fact pattern in each [of the former] opinion[s] includes acompensation component, please be advised that compensation IS NOT arequired element of the Revolving Door prohibition. The language found in102.03(A)(4) states: no former member or employee of the general assemblyshall represent, or act in a representative capacity. Thus, whether compensatedor not, a former Member or legislative employee is prohibited from engaging indirect communication with legislators, legislative staff, or executive branchofficials in regards to any matter pending before the General Assembly onbehalf of another person or entity.
The following are general guidelines to commonly asked questions:. . .
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 14 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
15/23
15
You are prohibited from advocating for your client, whethercompensated or not, by direct communication with legislators,legislative staff, or executive branch officials on any legislative matterpending before the General Assembly.
Your client and its agents are prohibited from contact legislative staffand executive agency officials on your behalf [for example, FormerSenator _______ thought you should know] for the purpose ofadvocating on pending legislation.. . .
You may attend public hearings, but may not testify.
62. These same restrictions are highlighted on JLECs web site of the JLEC(http://www.jlec-olig.state.oh.us/) under the section entitled Ethics and the subject of
Revolving Door.
63. Section 102.99 of the Ohio Revised Code provides that Whoever violates . . .102.03 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree. A first degree
misdemeanor is punishable in Ohio with a fine of up to $1,000 and incarceration of up to 180
days.
64. Section 2923.03 of the Ohio Revised Code provides that a party that is complicitin the commission of an offense is guilty of complicity in the commission of an offense, and
shall be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender. The prohibited activities
under in Section 2923.03 of the Ohio Revised Code includes soliciting or procuring, aiding and
abetting, and causing another to commit the subject offense.
65. Section 2923.02 of the Ohio Revised Code provides that a party who is complicitin an attemptto commit an offense is guilty of an attempt to commit an offense. . . . [Such
attempt is] an offense of the next lesser degree than the offense attempted.
66. As a result of Sections 2923.02 and 2923.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, if PlaintiffCOAST, as principal, were to engage Plaintiff Brinkman as its agent, representative and
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 15 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
16/23
16
spokesperson, on a paid or non-paid basis, for activities prohibited under Section 102.03 of the
Ohio Revised Code, it would be exposed to criminal prosecution as severe as that faced by
Plaintiff Brinkman for a direct violation of the Statute.
67. As a result of Sections 102.03(A)(4) of the Ohio Revised Code, if PlaintiffBrinkman were to act in a representative capacity for [Plaintiff COAST] on any matter before
the general assembly, any committee of the general assembly, or the controlling board, he
would be exposed to the potential of criminal investigation and/or prosecution.
Unequal treatment of clients and former members of Ohio General Assembly
under subject Statute
68. Plaintiff COAST frequently stands in a position of advocating against the officialposition of public agencies and employees, and their agents, against more government spending
and broadened government power. This includes advocating against positions advanced by
agents of the state government and those advanced by agents of cities, villages, townships,
school boards, and other local government entities.
69. As a result of the exception in the Statute that allows former members of the OhioGeneral Assembly to represent state agency or political subdivision on any matter pending
before the Ohio General Assembly, any committee thereof or the controlling board, Plaintiff
COAST is at a particular disadvantage under the Statute as compared to state agencies and
political subdivisions.
70. Further, as a result of the exception in the Statute that allows former members ofthe Ohio General Assembly to represent state agency or political subdivision on any matter
pending before the Ohio General Assembly, any committee thereof or the controlling board,
Plaintiff Brinkman and other former members of the Ohio General Assembly who desires to
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 16 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
17/23
17
affiliate with Plaintiff COAST (or other organizations that are not state agencies or political
subdivisions) in a principal-agent relationship are at a particular disadvantage under the Statute
as compared to those who desire to advocate for state agencies and political subdivisions.
71. Thus, one effect of the Statute is advancing the interests of those who advocatefor more government spending and power (i.e., state agencies and political subdivisions) against
Plaintiff COAST and other organizations similarly situated who desire to advocate for less
government spending and more limited government powers.
Violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights
72.
The Statute unconstitutionally restricts Plaintiffs core political speech rights,
associational rights and petitioning rights in violation of the First Amendment to the United
States Constitution, as made applicable to the several states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, as well as unconstitutionally discriminates against the Plaintiffs in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
73. Beyond the use of Representative Brinkman to advocate on behalf of PlaintiffCOAST on issues before the Ohio legislature, Plaintiff COAST desires in the future to utilize the
services of recent retirees (i.e., less than one year) from the Ohio General Assembly to lobby
members of the Ohio General Assembly, its Committees and the Controlling Board.
74. Further, others in both the positions of Plaintiffs COAST and Brinkman will beunconstitutionally burdened by the restrictions of the Statute.
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 17 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
18/23
18
COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION
(Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201, et seq., Fed. R. Civ. P. 57and to 28 U.S.C. 2202 and FED.R.CIV.P. 65)
75. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the foregoingparagraphs as if fully set forth herein.
76. The Statute on its face, and as applied, impermissibly burdens Plaintiffs corepolitical speech rights, associational rights and petitioning rights guaranteed by the First and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
77.
By prohibiting Plaintiff Brinkman from advocating for [his client, Plaintiff
COAST], whether compensated or not, by direct communication with legislators, legislative
staff, or executive branch officials on any legislative matter pending before the General
Assembly, and imposing sanctions if he should engage in those activities, including the
potential for criminal sanctions under Section 102.99 of the Ohio Revised Code, the Statute
violates or unconstitutionally infringes the core political speech rights, associational rights and
petitioning rights of Plaintiff Brinkman under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
78. By prohibiting Plaintiff COAST from associating with Plaintiff Brinkman in anprincipal-agent relationship for the purpose of having Plaintiff Brinkman advocate[e] for
[Plaintiff COAST], whether compensated or not, by direct communication with legislators,
legislative staff, or executive branch officials on any legislative matter pending before the
General Assembly, and potentially exposing Plaintiff COAST to criminal sanctions for
engaging in these activities, or attempting to engage in these activities, the Statute violates or
unconstitutionally infringes the core political speech rights, associational rights and petitioning
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 18 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
19/23
19
rights of Plaintiff COAST under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
79. Further, under 102.03(A)(4) Plaintiff COAST cannot legally utilize the services ofa lobbyist that served in the Ohio General Assembly in the past year (such as Plaintiff Brinkman)
to lobby the Ohio General Assembly, its committees and the Controlling Board, while State
agencies and political subdivisions may legally engage in this came affiliation and conduct. This
disparate treatment is in violation of the Equal Protection rights of Plaintiff COAST as
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
80.
Furthermore, because former members of the Ohio General Assembly (such as
Plaintiff Brinkman) are prohibited by the Statute from affiliating with and lobbying on behalf of
private persons or entities (such as Plaintiff COAST), while such former members are permitted
to affiliate with and lobby on behalf of state agencies and political subdivisions on any matters
pending before the Ohio General Assembly, any committee thereof or the controlling board, the
Statute impermissibly violates the Equal Protection rights of Plaintiff Brinkman as guaranteed by
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
81. As a proximate result of the Statute and Defendants interpretation andapplication thereof as described above, Plaintiffs (and others) have suffered irreparable injury
and will continue in the future to suffer irreparable injury, in that they have and will be deprived
of their the core political speech rights, associational rights and petitioning rights as guaranteed
by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
82. In order to prevent further infringement or restrictions upon the constitutionalrights of Plaintiffs and others, it is appropriate and proper that a declaratory judgment be issued,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and FED.R.CIV.P. 57, declaring the Statute unconstitutional.
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 19 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
20/23
20
83. Furthermore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2202 and FED.R.CIV.P. 65, it isappropriate and hereby requested that this Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction
enjoining the Defendants from enforcing the Statute.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(U.S.C. 1983)
84. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the foregoingparagraphs as if fully set forth herein.
85.
All acts alleged herein of the Defendants and their agents, servants, employees, or
persons acting at its behest or direction, were done and are continuing to be done under the color
and pretense of state law.
86. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiffs havesuffered additional compensable injury in the nature of constitutional deprivations.
87. The Statute and the policy, practice and custom (and the implementation thereofby the Defendants) of making criminal the association of Plaintiff COAST with Plaintiff
Brinkman for the purpose of communicating to others violates Plaintiffs core political speech
rights, associational rights and petitioning rights under the First Amendment (as incorporated
against Defendants by the Fourteenth Amendment) and the Fourteenth Amendment right to the
equal protection of the laws.
88. As a proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiffs have been irreparablyinjured, and, together with others seeking to exercise their constitutional rights, will continue to
be irreparably injured in the future, in that they have been and will continue to be deprived of
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 20 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
21/23
21
their right to free speech and association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants and that the Court:
A. Declare Sections 102.03(A)(4) of the Ohio Revised Code to be in violation of theUnited States Constitution;
B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing Sections102.03(A)(4) of the Ohio Revised Code and the rules promulgated pursuantthereto against Plaintiffs and others similar situated;
C. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and other applicable law, award Plaintiffs theircosts and expenses incurred in bringing this action, including their reasonableattorneys fees; and
D. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just and proper.
Respectfully submitted
_/s/ Christopher P. Finney____________Christopher P. Finney (0038998)FINNEY,STAGNARO,SABA &PATTERSON CO.,LPA2623 Erie AvenueCincinnati, Ohio 45208Telephone: (513) 533-2980Facsimile: (513) 533-2990Email: [email protected]
Curt C. Hartman (0064242)THE LAW FIRM OF CURT C.HARTMAN3749Fox Point CourtAmelia, Ohio 45102Telephone: (513) 752-8800Facsimile: (513) 752-6621Email: [email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 21 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
22/23
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 22 of 23
8/14/2019 01 Complaint
23/23
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 23 of 23