A federal appeals court in Cincinnati Tuesday rejected appeals filed by former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and former Ohio Republican Party Chairman Matt Borges, upholding their racketeering convictions.
Householder is serving 20 years in prison and Borges five years after they were convicted of federal corruption charges in 2023, in connection to a 2019 bill.
The jury found the two played major parts in a bribery scheme that included millions in kickbacks in exchange for Householder pushing favorable legislation for utility companies.
A federal prosecutor called it the largest corruption scheme in state history.
LISTEN: The Power Grab Podcast
Householder was convicted of masterminding the $60 million bribery scheme, funded by Akron-based FirstEnergy Corp. to elect allies, secure power, pass a $1 billion bailout of two of its affiliated nuclear plants and then defend the bill, known as House Bill 6, from a repeal effort.
Prosecutors had described Borges鈥� primary role in the scheme as working to thwart a ballot campaign aimed at repealing the tainted legislation. Specifically, he was accused of paying $15,000 to someone who was helping spearhead the effort in order to get inside information. The referendum ultimately failed to make the ballot.
In a unanimous ruling, a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals rejected all elements of Borges' and Householder's appeals.
Householder claimed in his appeal that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, that the judge was biased, that his sentence was too steep, the jury instructions contained errors, that his right to counsel was violated and that the court shouldn't have allowed some evidence during the trial.
Borges argued his financial gain of $15,000 in the scheme was minor.
Scott Pullins, a long-time legal and personal adviser to Householder, said the government singled out Householder for activity other politicians did and called it a 鈥渟ad and disappointing day," and an 鈥渆ven a sadder day for constitutional free speech and the rule of law.鈥�
Householder and Borges each have a couple of long long-shot legal options remaining 鈥� they could ask for a review by the full Sixth Circuit, or seek what鈥檚 known as certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, hoping for consideration by the nation鈥檚 highest bench. Both types of requests are rarely granted.
Messages seeking comment were left for their criminal defense attorneys, as well as with a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Cincinnati.
Householder said in November he would seek a pardon after President Donald Trump was elected. Householder was one of the first Ohio Republicans to endorse Trump in his first bid for the White House.
The 65-year-old Householder had argued that the government was wrong in describing what he had engaged in as a bribery scheme. Instead, he cast the money that flowed from FirstEnergy into a network of secret dark money accounts that he controlled as legal campaign contributions.
Federal prosecutors charged that the money was given to Householder in exchange for the passage of House Bill 6, providing the necessary quid pro quo to make his conduct illegal.
Householder had also faulted U.S. District Judge Timothy Black in his appeal, asserting that he failed to properly instruct the jury that an agreement is necessary to prove bribery and that Householder needed to have agreed he would take action 鈥渙n a specific and focused question or matter鈥� at the time that agreement was struck.
The judicial panel said all of his claims failed.
Borges鈥� appeal hinged on three technical points of law. All failed, as well.
However, Circuit Judge Amul Thapar wrote in a concurring opinion that each of Borges' contentions 鈥渞aises tricky and unresolved issues in honest services fraud jurisprudence.鈥�
鈥淎nd here, Borges has a good argument his conduct fell within a murky middle: perhaps objectionable, but not clearly illegal,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淯ntil the Supreme Court revises its caselaw, however, we must follow its precedent.鈥�
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
