. ST Administration
- -- Of?ce 61453284171

- 866-537-5781
OH 0 ATTORNEY GENERAL ax

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

July 24, 2020
SENT VIA us MAIL

Ohio House of Representatives
7 7 South High Street #12
Columbus, Ohio 43215

RE: NOTICE TO PRESERVE DOCUMENTS
Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing today to notify you of your duty to preserve, and not destroy, documents in
your custody and/or control regarding the passage of Ohio House Bill 6 (13211d General
Assembly). As you have likely heard, this past week the United States Attorney?s Of?ce.
announced that charges were being ?led against Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder and
several others related to the largest bribery scheme in Ohio history. H.B. 6 lies at the heart of the
scheme. The announcement by the United States Attorney?s Office detailed the great to
which the criminal enterprise went to ensure H.B. 6?s passage. It is evident from the 82 page
af?davit that was made public that Ohio?s legislative process was corrupted. A copy of the
charging af?davit has been included with this letter for your reference and convenience.

Ohio law is not for sale. This Of?ce is considering legal action pursuant to RC 2923.34
against all of the co~conspirators who treated it as if it was. We have reason to believe that you
mightliave documents related to the introduction or passage of H.B. 6. The purpose of this
letter is to place you on notice of your obligation to preserve all such documents and
evidence in anticipation of potential litigation between the State of Ohio and the members
of an enterprise as de?ned in RC 2923.31 alleged to have improperly and criminally
in?uenced Ohio?s political process. The rules of civil procedure and applicable case law
require that you preserve all documents and information: related in any way to H.B. 6,
including but not limited to documents related to its development, formulation, drafting,
negotiation, consideration and passage. This obligation extends beyond documents and
information directly related to the HR. 6 and extends to any other documents or information that
may be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. We will need your
assistance in ensuring that nothing that may be relevant is destroyed or lost.

This letter means only that we believe you or your employer may possess or control
documents or information relevant to this matter. It does not mean, and should not be construed

 

30 East Broad Street, 17th Floor 1 Coiumbus. Ohio 43215


to mean, that you or your employer are the ta1 get of any action by the Of?ce of the Ohio
Attomey General.

Relevant information includes, but is not limited to, files or electronic records (including

notes, drafts and final products) regarding these topics and people:

1.

Any internal documents and/or communications related to the development, formulation,
drafting, negotiation, consideration or passage of.H.B. 61, Generation Now, Partners for
Progress Inc., the Coalition for Growth and Opportunity, the Growth and Opportunity
PAC, any other entity or Political Action Committee supporting the passage of
H.B. 6, as well as efforts to introduce, pass or secure legislation creating or expanding the
Ohio Clean Air Program or the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority;

Any documents and/or communications received by you from any person or entity
relating to the development, formulation, drafting, negotiation, consideration or passage
of H.B. 6, Generation Now, Partners for Progress Inc., the Coalition for Growth and
Opportunity, the Growth and Opportunity PAC, any other entity or Political
Action Committee supporting the passage of H.B. 6 or in any way seeking to in?uence
the success or outcome of any efforts to repeal H.B. 6 by referendum, as well as efforts to
introduce, pass or secure legislation creating or expanding the Ohio Clean Air Program or
the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, including but not limited to its passage and
the subsequent referendum effort and litigation;

Any documents and/or communications between you and any other person or entity, or
received or sent by you relating to the development, formulation, drafting, negotiation,
consideration or passage of H.B. 6, Generation New, Partners for Progress Inc., the
Coalition for Growth and Opportunity, the Growth and Opportunity PAC, any other
entity or Political Action Committee supporting the passage of H.B. 6 or in any
way seeking to in?uence the success or outcome of any efforts to repeal H.B. 6 by
referendum, as well as efforts to introduce, pass or secure legislation creating or
expanding the Ohio Clean Air Program or the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority,
including but not limited to its passage and the subsequent referendum eff01t and
litigation;

All ?nancial records, including but not limited to invoices, checks, projections, and/or
bank statements relating to FirstEnergy, FirstEnergy Solutions, Energy Harbor,- Larry
Householder, to the development, formulation, drafting, negotiation, consideration or

 

1 As used in this letter, H.B. 6 shall mean House Bill 6 of the 132nd Ohio General Assembly, its passage, lobbying
efforts related thereto, the HR. 6 referendum effort and referendum counter?efforts, all I-I.B. 6?1?eiated litigation, and
all other topics related to H.B. 6.

passage of H.B. 6, Generation Now, Partners for Progress Inc, the Coalition for Growth
and Opportunity, the Growth and Opportunity PAC, any other entity or

Political?Action Committee supporting the passage of H.B. 6, as well as efforts to
introduce, pass or secure legislation creating or expanding the Ohio Clean Air Program or
the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority; and,

5. Any communications, including emails, text messages, instant messages, or letters
relating to FirstEnergy, FirstEnergy Solutions, Energy Harbor, Larry Householder, to the
development, formulation, drafting, negotiation, consideration or passage of H.B. 6,
Generation New, Partners for Progress Inc., the Coalition for Growth and Opportunity,
the Growth and Opportunity PAC, any other entity or Political Action
Committee supporting the passage of H.B. 6, as well as efforts to introduce, pass or
secure legislation creating or expanding the Ohio Clean Air Program or the Ohio Air
Quality Development Authority. 

Once again, this is a non~exhaustive list. It is incumbent upon you to take all necessary
steps to identify and preserve the documents and records set forth in this letter, as well as any
other documents or records that fall within its scope. 

This information must be preserved regardless of whether it is in paper or electronic
form. Since electronically stored information (ESI) contains searchable features and metadata
(data within the data), hard copy documents are not an adequate substitute. Therefore, if
information exists in both paper and electronic forms, it is your duty to preserve both forms. ESI
includes, among other things, e?mail, word processing documents, spreadsheets, databases,
calendars, phone logs, telephone voice mail messages, text messages, and internet usage ?les. It
includes any such information wherever it may be stored, including on a"desktop hard drive,
laptop computer, CD, ?oppy drive, DVD, handheld device (cg. iPhone, Blackberry or other
mobile device), external hard drive or any other storage device. If anyone used personal
computers or mobile devices in relation to the information described above, the information on
those personal devices must also be preserved. This applies to final documents as well as drafts
and copies. ?Communications? could mean letters, e?mails, or other writings, whether stored
electronically or in hard copy. I

This information should not be altered, destroyed, or deleted. Until further notice, and
notwithstanding its own internal document retention schedules, you must refrain from manually
destroying, deleting, overwriting, discarding, or altering this information, and must convey this
requirement to any staff members and/or subcontractors. The requirement that you refrain ?'om
altering existing information subject to this notice?and its metadata?mmeans that if there is a
need to create a new version of an existing record, the new version must be created in a way that
preserves the prior version.

If you, or any agent, partner, employee or subcontractor, have failed or fail to preserve
any document or information that falls within the scope of this letter the AGO may pursue a
claim for spcliation and will request the appropriate sanctions. Also, please note that the
obligations under this litigation hold are continuing and apply equally to information created
after and before the delivery of this letter. We understand that certain information may be
protected from disclosure by Ohio and/or federal law. Such records are nonetheless subject to
this litigation hold.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in these matters. Questions or concerns
relating this letter should be directed to Jonathan Blanton, Deputy Attorney General for Maj or
Litigation, at 614.728.1171 01? gov.

Respectfully yours,

 

 

A0 91 (Rev. Criminat Complaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the
Southern District of Ohio

 

United States of America 
V. 
Matthew Borges Case No. 



CRIMINAL CONIPLAINT

I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best cfmy knowledge and belief.

 

 

 

On or about the date(s) of July 16. 2020 in the county of Hamitton in the
Southern District of Ohio the defendant(s) violated:
Code Section O?'ense Description
18 U.S.C. 1962(d) Conspiracy to Padicipate, Directly or Indirectly, in the Conduct of an

Enterprise's Affairs through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity

This cm?minal complaint is based on these facts:

See Af?davit

Er Continued on the attached sheetb.3395? ?(are
- 

1/

 

Conwfat'nant?stgi??nantre

Blane J. Wetzel. Special Aoent. FBI
Printed mum and title

Sworn to before me and signed in my presence. via Facetime Video.

 

Date: IJUI 17? 2020 MW 1?1] ?om?d

 

 

Judge signature

City and state: Cincinnati, Ohio Hon. Stephanie K. Bowman, Magistrate Judge
Prat-trad name and ?tfe

information as an attempt to disguise the nature of their corrupt activity. I have had the opportunity
to assist in multiple public corruption wiretap investigations, including monitoring and reviewing
transcripts of court authorized intercepted communications involving bribery and extortion.

4. Prior to joining the FBI, I worked as policy director for a member of the Michigan
House of Representatives. 1 performed duties such as: drafting legislation, managing constituent
relations, managing legislative issues, and providing strategic political advice to my employer. In
addition to working in an official capacity for the State of Michigan, I was also employed by that
Same legislator as a member of his campaign team. Working on the campaign, I became familiar
with the rules, regulations, practices, and norms of campaign finance.

5. The information set forth in this af?davit was obtained during the course of my
employment with the FBI, through personal observations, the statements of witnesses/ co operators,
and recordings of conversations. Since this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of
obtaining a criminal complaint, I have not included every fact known to me concerning this
investigation. I have set forth only the facts necessary to establish probable cause that federal
crimes have been committed.

6. As set forth in this af?davit, there is probable cause to believe that, beginning in or
about 2016 and continuing to the present, in the Southern District of Ohio and elsewhere, the
Defendants, LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, JEFFREY NEIL CLARK,
MATTHEW BORGES, JUAN CESPEDES, and GENERATION NOW, and others known and
unknown, being persons employed by and associated with an enterprise, whichengaged in, and
the activities of which affected interstate commerce, did knowingly and. intentionally conspire with
each other and others known and unknown to violate Title 18 United States Code, Section 1962(c),
that is, to conduct and participate directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as that term is de?ned in 18 U.S.C. 1961 (1)
and 1961(5), consisting of multiple acts indictable under 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1346 (relating to
honest services wire fraud); 18 U.S.C. 1951 (relating to interference with commerce, robbery, or
extortion); 18 U.S.C. 1952 (relating to racketeering, including multiple acts of bribery under
Ohio Revised Code 18 U.S.C. 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary
18 U.S.C. 1957 (relating to engaging in monetary transactions in property derived
from specified unlawful activity); and multiple acts involving bribery, chargeable under Ohio
Revised Code 2921.02. It was part of the conspiracy that each Defendant agreed that a
conspirator would commit at least two acts of racketeering activity in the conduct of the affairs of
the enterprise, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).

GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE LAW
7. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1962(0) and provides as follows:

(0) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated
with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities which affect,
interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or

9. To summarize, from March 2017 to March 2020, Householder?s Enterprise
received approximately $60 million from Company A1 entities,2 paid through Generation Now and
controlled by Householder and the Enterprise. In exchange for payments from Company A,
Householder?s Enterprise helped pass House Bill 6, legislation described by an Enterprise member
as a billion-dollar ?bailout? that saved from closure two failing nuclear power plants in Ohio
affiliated with Company A. The Enterprise then worked to corruptly ensure that H3 6 went into
effect by defeating a ballot initiative. To achieve these ends, and to conceal the scheme,
Householder?s Enterprise passed money receiVed from Company A Corp. affiliates through
multiple entities that it controlled. Householder?s Enterprise then used the bribe payments to
further the goals of the Enterprise, which include: (1) obtaining, preserving, and expanding
Householder?s political power in the State of Ohio through the receipt and use of secret payments;
(2) enriching and bene?tting the enterprise, its members, and associates; and (3) promoting,
concealing, and protecting purposes (1) and (2) from public exposure and possible criminal
prosecution.

I. Background 

10. In 2016, Company A C0rp.?s nuclear generation future looked grim. (Company A
Corp. is described further below.) In its November 2016 Annual Report to Shareholders, Ohio-
based Company A Corp. and its af?liates reported a weak energy market, poor forecast demands,
and hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, particularly from its nuclear energy affiliate,
Company A~l. Given this backdrop, Company A announced future options for its generation
portfolio as follows: ?legislative and regulatory solutions for generation assets?; asset sales and
plant deactivations; restructuring debt; and/or seeking protection under US. bankruptcy laws for
its af?liates involved in- nuclear generation. i

11. Consistent with this forecast, Company A actively sought a ?legislative solution?
for its two, affiliated nuclear power plants in Ohio. For example, during Company A?s fourth-
quarter 2016 earnings conference call, Company A Corp. President and CEO stated:

Ir: Ohio, we have had meaningful dialogue with our fellow utilities
and with legislators on solutions that can help ensure Ohio ?s future
energy security. Our top priority is the preservation of our two
nuclear plants in the state and legislation for a zero emission
nuclear program is expected to be introduced some. The ZEN 
program is intended to give state lawmakers greater control and
?exibility to preserve valuable nuclear generation. We believe this

 

1 I have used pseudonyms for all people and entities except for the Defendants, and the entities registered by the
Defendants or for which they are signatories on bank accounts.

2 As described in this af?davit, ?Company refers collectively to Company A Corp, Company l, and Company
A Service Go, all of which are de?ned below. Prior to February 2020, Company A-1 and Company A Service Co.
were both wholly?owned subsidiaries of Company A Corp. Company A?l and its af?liates ?led for bankruptcy in
2018 and were divested from Company A Corp. in February 2020. Notably, all three entities share a common ?rst
name, and Enterprise members and associates often just referred generically to the ?company? or used the common
?rst name in communications, as quoted below. .

4

money for mailers and media advertisements to pressure members to support the legislation; the
Enterprise also used Company A money for their personal bene?t, as described below. In the same
month that the Enterprise received $8 million from Company A, Householder and other Enterprise
members pressured House members to vote for H13 6, and instructed at least one representative to
destroy text messages from Householder after Householder attempt to gain support for H13 6 iron}
the representative. .

16. On May 29, 2019, HB 6 passed the House, and after Enterprise members exerted
pressure on the Senate, the legislation was passed and was signed into law by the Governor. That
process took about two months. However, the law would not go into effect tuitil October 22, 2019.
Shortly after the Governor signed the legislation, a campaign began to organize a statewide ballot-
initiative referendum (?Ballot Campaign?) to the legislation. This required Ballot
Campaign organizers to collect the signatures of registered voters in order to put the referendmn
6 on the 2020 ballot. And so, Company A?s and the Enterprise?s fight continued.

17. In reSponse, from July 24 to October 22, 2019, Company A?controlled accounts
wired over $38 million into Generation Now to defeat the ballot initiative so HB 6 would go into
effect. The Enterprise funneled the money to various accounts and entities controlled by the
Enterprise to purchase media ads and mailers against the ballot initiative, to con?ict out signature?
collection ?rms, and to pay off and bribe'signature collectors supporting the referendum. The
members and associates of the Enterprise also used the Company A money to enrich themselves
and further their personal interests. 1

18. Company A entities paid Householder?s Enterprise $60,886,835.86 in secret
payments? over the approximately three-year period in exchange for the billion?dollar?bailout. The
Enterprise concealed the payments by using a 501(c)(4) to receiVe the bribe money, and then
transferring the payments internally to a web of related entities and accounts. The millions paid
into the entity are akin to bags of cash?unlike campaign or PAC contributions, they were not
regulated, not reported, not subject to public scrutiny?and the Enterprise freely spent the bribe
payments .to fiu'ther the Enterprise?s political interests and to enrich themselves. As Defendant
Neil Clark stated in a 2019 recorded conversation} Company A operated as the Enterprise?s
?Bank"?Clark explained, ?Generation Now is the Speaker?s (9301),? and Company A?s ?deep
pockets,? and the money to the Enterprise through Generation Now was ?m?imifed.? Defendant
Matthew Borges similarly described Company A?s payments to the Enterprise as _?Mouopoly
money.? 

19. The Enterprise used some of the Company A money to help enact the bailout
legislation. Additionally, the Enterprise used millions of dollars of Company A bribe money to
further Householder?s political ambitions by funding his own campaign, and the campaigns of
members and candidates who would eventually support Householder?s election for Speaker. The
Company A payments funded the operating costs of the Enterprise and paid for Householder?s
political and campaign staff. The Defendants also paid themselves personally millions of dollars

 

     
   

4 This includes Com an a "meats into e?tion Nowand other Enter riseamntrolted entities. 

24. Jeff is Householder?s longtime campaign and political strategist. Neil
Clark identi?ed as Householder?s ?political guy,? his and one of his
?closest advisors,? who was instrumental to the Enterprise?s efforts to pass BB 6.

25. The investigation corroborates Clark?s statements. Although Longsti'eth is not 

employed by the State of Ohio, he is Householder?s chief political strategist. runs
Householder?s political campaign, and the investigation shows that he and his staff managed the
2018 campaigns for the Enterprise-backed candidates (at times internally referred to by the
Enterprise as ?Team Householder? candidates). Householder and even shared of?ce
space, rented ??om their Political Advertising Agency. In addition, led the messaging
efforts both in the campaign to pass HB 6 and to defeat the referendum, and was a point of contact
for Company A. Phone records show that Householder and have communicated on a
regular basis for years.

26. also plays a critical role with respect to the Enterprise?s ?nances. He is
a signatory on both of the Generation Now bank accounts and the person who transfers money out
of the accounts to other entities to further the Enterprise. also controls entities that
receive Company A?through?Generation-Now payments to further the Enterprise. Among these,
owns and operates JPL Associates. Throughout the relevant period, 
transferred over $10.5 million of Company A?s bribe payments directly from Generation Now?s
primary bank account to JPL Associates? primary bank account. In addition, 
received indirectly another $4.4 million, which was transferred the Generation New account
through another entity (Front Company, described below) and then into accounts that he
controlled. then used Company A payments funneled through Generation Now to
?n'ther Householder?s and Company A?s interests and to pay personal bene?ts to members and
associates of the Enterprise. bene?tted personally through the conspiracy?s actions,
receiving over $5 million in Company A?to?Generation?Now money during the relevant period,
including at least $1 million, which he transferred to his brokerage account in January 2020.

27. Neil Clark owns and operates Grant Street Consultants, an Ohio-based lobbying
?rm that focuses on legislative, regulatory, and procurement lobbying at the Ohio Statehouse.
Prior to becoming a lobbyist, Clark served as a budget director for the Ohio Senate Republican
Caucus. During the relevant period, Clark worked as a lobbyist for various interest groups.

28. Along with Clark is, in his own words, one of Householder?s ?closest
advisors.? According to Clark during recorded conversations in 2019, Clark served as
Householder?s ?proxy? in the Enterprise?s efforts to further the enactment of H13 6 and ensure HB
6 went into effect in October 2019 by defeating the subsequent ballot-initiative challenge. Clark
also communicated directly with House members to further the Enterprise. In 2019, Clark
described himself in recorded communications as Householder?s ?hit man? who will do the ?dirty
shit.? Clark stated, ?when [Househoider?s] busy, I get complete say. When we ?re working on
star?f if he says, ?I?m busy, everyone knows, Neil has the ?nal say, not Jejf Je? is his
z'mplementer.? Borges confirmed Clark?s role, and similarly described Clark as Householder?s
?proxy? relating to Company A?s matters in a recorded conversation with CH8 1. Clark bene?tted
personally from Company A?s payments to the Enterprise, receiving at least $290,000 in Company
A?to?Generation-Now money.

records and search warrant returns, Cespedes coordinated the timely payment of $15 million ?'om
Company A to Generation Now.

34. Generation Now, Inc., received approximately $60 million ?'om Company A
entities during the relevant period. As set forth more fully below, Generation Now registered with
the IRS as a 501(c)(4), which is an IRS designation for a tax-exempt, social welfare organization.
Pursuant to federal law, the names and addresses of contributors to 501(c)(4)s are not made
available for public inspection. The Enterprise concealed the bribery scheme by funneling the
money through Generation Now, which hid the payments and the scheme from public scrutiny.
Generation Now?s accounts had a combined balance of approximately $1.67 million as of January
1, 2020, money that is a direct bene?t to the Enterprise. As described below, after making wire
transfers to Coalition in early 2020, the Generation Now accounts were replenished by a $2 million
wire ?'om Energy Pass-Through in March 2020, bringing the combined balance of the accounts to
approximately $2.29 million, again, money that is a direct bene?t to the Enterprise.

B. Related Entities Controlled by the Enterprise

35. The Enterprise used and relied on a number of different entities to further the
conspiracy. The following entities were controlled by, worked directly with, or funneled payments
for the benefit of the Enterprise:

a. JPL Associates LLC is controlled by is the
Signor on ?ve different bank accounts that have received money directly from Generation Now,
including two JPL business accounts, one personal account, and two accounts named ?Constant
Conten Bank records show numerous internal money transfers of Generation Now money
among accounts. In total, main business account received over $10.5
million in Company wires during the relevant period, which 
then transferred internally to his other accounts. also received indirectly $4.4 million,
which had been funneled from Generation Now, through another entity, (?Front Company,?
discussed below) and into Constant Content accounts. Analysis of the accounts
shows that the money was used to pay bene?ts directly to Enterprise members and to further the
Enterprise?s interests by paying campaign staff for preferred Householder candidates, among other
things. After the-ballot initiative campaign failed and HB 6 became law for the benefit of Company
A, consolidated most of the Enterprise funding into DBL-controlled accounts. As of
January 1, 2020 that total balances within JPL?controlled accounts exceeded $6.5 million. This
money is a direct bene?t to the Enterprise.

b. is a federal PAC through which Generation Now funneled
Company A payments in furtherance of the conspiracy. The Enterprise primarily used the PAC
during the May 2018 primary as a way to conceal the source of media buys for Team Householder
candidates. The attorney who is listed as the treasurer for Generation Now and who is a Signor on
the Generation New accounts along with Longsreth, is the treasurer and a Signor of the PAC.

0. Although was not a Signor on the PAC bank account, documents

obtained via a search warrant, confirm control over the PAC. For example, a Word
document titled ?Client Information Request Form,? last modified by in October 2016,

10

i. The Coalition account was largely unused from August 2018 until January
2020 when, as described directly above, the Enterprise used the Coalition as a pass?through for
Company A?to?Generation-Now money to PAC, which the Enterprise then used to support
Householder?backed candidates in the 2020 primary election. The bene?t of passing the money
through the Coalition ?rst, was that the PAC listed the Coalition as the source of the $1,010,000
million in EEC ?lings, not Generation Now. The Enterprise sought to conceal Generation Now as
the source of PAC funds in 2020 for numerous reasons, including, as explained below, Generation
Now had generated negative media publicity in 2019 and candidates expressed concern to
Householder about their association with it.

j. Thus, this account is a mechanism for Generation Now to spend secret
money for the bene?t of Householder and the Enterprise.

k. ?Dark Money Group 1? is an entity used by the Enterprise to conceal the
source of media buys during the 2018 general election, similar to the way the Enterprise used PAC
I for the primaries in 2018 and 2020. An Ohio lobbyist incorporated Dark Money Group 1 in Ohio
on September 21, 2018 and opened its bank account on September 25, 2018.

l. The majority of activity in the account occurred roughly a month later,
between October 2018 and Election Day on November 6, 2018. From October 19 to October 29,
2018, Generation Now wired $670,000 into the account; Company A wired $500,000 into the
account; and other corporate interests Wired $300,000 into the account, totaling $1,470,000. From
October22 to November 2, 2018, Media Placement Company 2 then spent $1,438,510 on media
buys for ads paid for by Dark Money Group 1 that generally targeted rivals of candidates aligned
with Householder. Since Election Day in 2018, the account has been largely unused. 

m. ?Front Company? is a pass?through entity used by the Enterprise to fund
the campaign against the referendum in furtherance of the conspiracy. The forupro?t entity was
organized in Ohio on July 30, 2019, just days after the Ballot Campaign to overturn HB 6 began.
?Associate 1? and ?Associate 4? of and Householder are signers on its bank account.

it. From August 1, 2019 through October 2019, Company A-controlled
accounts wired Generation Now $38 million; Generation Now then wired $23 million from these
payments to Front Company, the vast majority of which was used to pay signature collection ?rms
to fight against the Ballot Campaign and to pay for media opposing the Ballot Campaign.
Generation Now was the sole source of money deposited into the Front Company account. By
November 2019, less than $5,000 remained in the Front Company account.

C. Company A and Its Affiliates

36. Company A Corp. Incorporated in Ohio, Company A Corp. is a public utility
holding company for its subsidiaries. As a holding company, Company A Corp. directs and
controls the various subsidiary entities Within Company A Corp. Per United States Securities and
Exchange Commission documents, Company A Service Co. is a principle subsidiary, and

12

government funding?1a, legislative help?to save its two nuclear power plants ?'om closure.
Pursuant to the contract, among other things, Company A?l was actively seeking speci?c
legislative help to save the two nuclear plants, including ?getting a resolution? passed, ?making
0111? issue a campaign priority for incoming elected o?icials to achieve a satiation in thefirst quarter
0f2019,? and receiving ?consistent updates on the pending House Speaker race,? a reference to
the Speakership race between Householder and Representative 1.

41. These priorities became reality. As described below, on April 12, 201-9, just three
months after Householder became Speaker with the help of Company A bribe payments, H8 6
was introduced by two freshman, ?Team Householder,? representatives. HB 6 created a new Ohio
Clean Air program to subsidize power plants fueled by nuclear and solar power, which had the
effect of saving Company A?s nuclear plants from closure with over $1 billion in subsidies for
nuclear energy.

42. ?Energy Pass-Through? is a non?pro?t 501(c)(4) that was incorporated in Ohio
on February 8, 2017mtwo days after Generation Now was incorporated in Delaware. A week
later, on February 16, 2017, Company A wired $5 million into the Energy Pass?Through bank
account?the ?rst transaction in the account. The account was thus funded solely by the initial $5
million wire from Company A. The Energy Pass?Through account then made the following
transactions:

0 $300,000 wire to Generation Now on March 15, 2018 (weeks before Company A ?led for
bankruptcy);

- $300,000 wire to Coalition on May 1, 2018;

0 $100,000 wire to Generation Now on May 4, 2018; and

0 $500,000 wire to Generation Now on August 16, 2018.

43. Aside from the initial $5 million seed money, the account received no othe1 deposits
until Octobei 10, 2019. On that date, Company A wired $10 million to its Energy Pass- Th1 ough
account. That same day, Energy Pass- Through wired $10 million to Generation Now. Similarly,
on October 18, 2019, Company A wired another $10 million to Energy Pass?Through. On October
22, 2019, the day the ballot initiative failed and H8 6 officially became law, Energy Pass~Through
wired $3 million to Generation Now, and wrote a $4,330.86 cashier?s check to Generation Now.
On March 3, 2020, Energy Pass-Through wired another $2 million to Generation Now. Based on
my training and experience, there is probable cause to believe that this account was used as a pass-
through from Company A to the Enterprise.

II. Enterprise Creates and Uses Generation Now to Receive Bribe Payments
A. Creation of Generation Now
44. On 01 about Febiuary 6, 201 7, Generation Now, Inc. was 1ncor po1ated in Delaware,

and two bank accounts weie opened at Fifth Third Bank (x3310 and X6847). Subpoenaed bank
records show that an attorney and Jeff Longstieth were signato?es on both accounts. On 01 about

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Amount Method Source
10/16/2018 $400,000 Cheek Company A Service Co.
10/29/2018 $100,000 Check Company A Service Co.
4/30/2019 $1,500,000 Wire Company A Service Co.

5/7/2019 $1,500,000 Wire Company A Service Co.
5/15/2019 $2,500,000 Wire Company A Service Co.
5/22/2019 $2,500,000 Wire Company A Sen/ice Co.
5/29/2019 $1,500,000 Wire Company A Sen/ice Co.

6/ 5/2019 $2,000,000 Wire Company A Service Co.
6/13/2019 $1,361,899 Wire Company A Service Co.
(3/20/2019 $2,116,899 Wire Company A Service Co.

7/5/2019 $1,879,457 Wire Company A-l Corp.

8/2/2019 $734,250 Wire Company A Service Co.

8/7/2019 $4,390,000 Wire Company A Service Co.
8/22/2019 $653,000 Wire Company A Service 0.
8/29/2019 $2,003 ,000 Wire Company A Sewice Co.

9/5/2019 $2,403,000 Wire Company A Service Co.
9/12/2019 $2,403,000 Wire Company A Sewice Co.
9/19/2019 $4,695,000 Wire Company A Service Co.
9/26/2019 $2,445,000 Wire Company A Service Co.
10/3/2019 $4,160,000 Wire Company A Seiyice Co.
10/8/2019 $1,600,000 Wire Company A Service Co.
10/10/2019 $10,000,000 Wire Energy Pass-Enough
10/ 17/2019 $248,000 Wire Company A Service Co.
10/22/2019 $3,000,000 Wire

$4,330.86 Cashier Check Energy Pass?Through
3/3/2020 $2,000,000 Wire Energy Pass-Through
Total: $59,996,835.86
48. In addition to the $59,996,835.86 that?Company A paid directly to Generation Now,

Company A made $890,000 in other timely payments to the Enterprise, to include: Company A
payments of $500,000 to Dark Money Group 1 and $90,000 to Coalition, and an Energy Pass-
Through payment of $300,000 to Coalition, all of which are detailed below. These payments bring
the total amount of direct payments from Company A to the Enterprise dining the relevant period
as $60,886,835.86. During the time of the conspiracy, other entities besides Company A deposited
money into Generation Now; the amounts of those deposits, however, are dwarfed by the Company

A payments.

16

 

52. Later that day, Clark explained that the $45 0,000 paid out of Generation Now went
to pay off ?fteen signature collection ?rms nationwide so that they would be con?icted out from
working on behalf of the Ballot Campaign, which bank records con?rm, as described below.

53. In subsequent recorded calls and meetings, Clark discussed Householder?s
connection to Generation Now. For example, in a recorded call on August 8, 2019, Clark stated
that Jeff was Householder?s ?political guy? who ?could influence the Speaker.? He
similarly explained later in the call, is Householder?s ?political guy, he ?s the guy that
does, remember that Committee I workfor, Generation Now I?ve been talking about.?

 

54. Clark also discussed the individuals making a payment to Householder into
Generation Now}4 During a call on August 19, 2019, Clark discussed taking a trip with
Householder or his advisers to further the unrelated legislation. During the call, Clark stated,
and I are the two principal advisers to the Speaker.? According to Clark, 
actually runs all the races and selects people, etc.? Clark also stated that the individuals ?might
write a check to the (0X4 of the Speaker totaling $50,000. Clark said it would be ideal if they
could hand the check to Householder personally~as Clark explained, ?it ?s his 
Clark explained that typically the money is wired into the account. Bank records corroborate
Clark?s assertion that money into Generation Now is usually wired into the account.

55. Recorded statements by Borges to CH8 1 also show Householder?s use of
Generation Now, and further con?rm Clark?s statements. As explained fully below, in August
2019, Borges received $1.62 million in wire transfers from Generation Now and then used a
portion of that money to attempt to bribe CH8 1 to help defeat the ballot initiative. On September
10, 2019, during a recorded conversation, Borges discussed the divide between the ballot initiative
supporters (to include the CH8 1) and the supporters of BB 6 and stated, ?The only people on my
side is this fucking company,? which Borges con?rmed was ?[Company Borges described
the relationship between Company A and Householder to CH8 1 as follows:

And, and Larry also, you know, so it?s this unholy alliance between
Larry and [Company Al and [Borges? firm]. . . . [Borges? firm]
doesn?t care about Larry; he?s helping with the issue our single
largest client cares a lot about and unless you are somehow
a?iliated directly to [Company or work for one of their interests
or you just want to suck up to Larry, you ?re on your side (as to
whether to overturn H8 6).

56. Borges also discussed Householder?s direct involvement in managing Generation
Now. Speci?cally, on September 13, 2019, he stated the following about Associate 3, who is
Generation Now?s public relations spokesperson: 

Like [Associate 3] who has to, who has to, answer to the press
obviously, he wants to quit so bad ?cause he?s like ?this is my

 

 

 
 

60. Genie'ation Now?s bank records match the description of the checks discussed
durinrif? Subpoenaed bank records from Generation Now?s account show, indeed,
that. at re time call, a check for $25,000 from payday leading company (written on October
18, 2017) had been deposited into the Generation New account. Clark?s reference to ?[the owner
of the fund? was a reference to iresident of the company, which wrote the $25,000 check. The
reference to ?Jeff? drain the is likely a reference to Jeff Dining another
portion of the same Householder and Clark discussed another industry?s 
Householder continue to or during the call that this entity gave 30,000 to ?the Again,
Generation Now?s bank account revealed a $30,000 check (written on October 19 2017) ??om the
entity that was deposited bite the Generation New account prior to the 

  

61. Householder?s connection to Generation Now was further clari?ed during a call on
February 5, 2018 between Householder and Clark, during which Householder again inquired about
money.? Speci?cally, Householder stated, ?I?m sitting here with [Associate 2] . . . we ?re
talking about money, and we ?re flying to?gure out where the payday fenders were gob-3g to
be of. Can you help me with that?? Associate 2 is the Finance Director for Householder?s
campaign; text communications show that lie/she solicited and collected money for Generation

.Now, and he/she was paid out of the Generation New account. This call is consistent with the
January 10, 2018 call with Clark where Householder was seeking 501(c)(4) money from Clark?s
clients.

62. Text message between Householder and also show that
Householder controlled Generation Now. For example, in a June 12, 2019 text message,
Householder asked ?When does the Gen Now message change? I think it is barrel
in - well burnt in." responded, hey are working on a draft now. Polling Sher-vs it?s
Similarly, on Share 23, 2019, Householder texted to that ?Gen Nor-v has had
issue 3? explaining that ?I?ve had several members - including members ofHouse leadership come
is privately and discuss their concern over new years [sic] House based on H8 6
messaging, mail, TV (1nd radio.? In addition, Householder sent messages to asking
about positive radio? for a member, explaining, ?[g]ot to protect the troops especially
make sure their believe we are protecting them.? These text'messages show that Householder is
involved in Generation New media buys to further 1-18 6. They also show that the pressure the
Enterprise was putting on House members through Generation New media efforts to further H13 6
created political problems for some House members, and those members went directly to
Householder to voice their ?concern? about Generation Now?s activities.

63. Finally, search warrant returns also con?rm that, Householder is involved directly
in Generation Now. For example, a Word document originally created by on February
5, 2017 and titled ?Friends of LH Meeting Template,? listed a meeting agenda for the Friends of
Larry Householder campaign, and on the same page of the Word document and directly below, a
meeting agenda for Generation Now. According to the template, the Friends of Householder
campaign listed Associate 1, Householder, and Staffer? as ?Attendees? of a Monday meeting that
lasted from ?11-1220013111? (highlights in original 17:

 

  

?7 to investigation in icates tiat Enterprise tnem ers re er to Householder in writing as 

20

68. The Enterprise?s strategy included raising money through a and recruiting
candidates who, if elected, would support Householder for Speaker. Documents such as ?Game
plan 2018,? possessed by illustrate this point:

lit: the ground "inning with C-t writing at Ilm mmumenl and fund! mam mu 1.
Most macs Ale are: by Seplemlm ill the 
The only things that mum right away are raising money and ran-.lldales
Need .1 maple (bl good 
?nal .1 lulu. lieu mliIm-t i
Matrices the team look loday.? I 
i _wea ll lot-who I
What's the sales and) tier I [loam 
What's Ihr purl: [on L?ummvauws Mink-tales? 

Who .lh? the ideal rami?tales?

69. That this document was created in October 2016, a few months before 
opened the Generation Now account in February 2017, shows that the'Enterprise followed this
strategy and its level of in so doing. The question ?who is our [redacted]? is a
reference to the Wealthy, ?nancial backer of the then?crurent Speaker; and thus, the Enterprise is
asking in its ?fGame plan 2018? document, ?who will be our ?nancial backer?? 
proposed option, the CEO of Company C, which is a company whose interests
align with Company A.

70. To implement the twofold strategy of recruitment and fundraising, the Enterprise
needed to recruit a team of electable candidates who would support Householder?s bid for
speakership. A combination of ?nancial records, documents recovered from search warrants,
media reports, legislative records, and witness interviews show that the Enterprise selected a group
of candidates to run for open seats in the primary against supporters of Honseholder?s rival,
Representative 1, who was backed by the then~current Speaker. The Enterprise managed the
selected candidates? campaigns, paid to staff them, and designed and paid for their mailers and
commercials. The Enterprise spent Generation Now money on approximately 21 different
candidates 15 (including Householder) in the primary, and six additional candidates in the
general election.19 Most of these candidates won the 2018 general election. All who won voted
for Householder as Speaker; and all but two, voted for the legislative bailout for Company 

 

19 Some of the candidates supported in the primary election were not supported in the general election, which based
on my training and experience is likely because the candidates were in safe districts and would prevail without
- he cam ai-n.

 

 

investigation, to beat the OHROC?backed candidates in the primaries, the Enterprise needed to
out-finidraise them and execute success?il campaign messaging for the ?Team Householder?
candidates.

76. An excel spreadsheet recovered from titled ?Campaign Budget 2017-
18? and last edited in September 2017, shows that the Enterprise estimated the amount needed to
implement its strategy was more than $2 million:

t. 0 

-.iPesltion 'Salnw I loamed HIPUIND Eaisulaymenttauor 

mam 5 10000.00 m0 1 1 10,000.00
inescaitMConlcm 100000.00 1.7 125 220,500.00 5
5 finance Team 5 72,000.00 010 1 1 22,000.00 i
{Poitilmtream 05,000.00 1.25 5 130,125.00 
1 Communitollonsl?cam 150,000.00 rt 1.25 5 310350.00 
i mama Team 5 72,000.00 1 1 5 72,000.00 5
00cm 5 00,000.00 Fr 1.25 5 170,000.00 
01300110000 Team 5 300,000.00 FT 1.25 032,500.00 
5 42,000.00 1.7 ?25 5 $9,250.08 i
iExecuthchirznor 120,000.00 0.0! we 1 1 120,000.00 i
I Iransportalim 5 24,000.00 i
iRent 01,000.00 
i Oilice Supplies 12,000.33 
i {050% 36,000.00 i
Misc. 5 10,000.00 
1100 {Data 5 68.900.00 


1
i 5
i 51.010.000.00 5 247,000.00 00011011000 5 i

77. Similarly, during a January 10, 2018 recorded conversation, Clark and Householder
discussed their plan to ?orchestrate (0X4) checks? to help Householder fund campaigns for his
bene?t. Speci?cally, Clark estimated that Householder would ?need a hundred and Meaty
thousand per race,? to which Householder responded, ?I?d say one but yeah, you ?re in the
ballpark.? They. then discussed how to raise the amount they need in 501(c)(4) checks to fund
candidate campaigns. Clark also mentioned that, ?some people decided to help [Representative
for Speaker, to. which Householder responded, ?yeah, we can fuck them over later.?

78. Ultimately, the Enterprise funded approximately twenty~one candidate campaigns,
which, using the metric discussed by Clark and Householder in the January 2018 call, meant that
Householder would need to raise between roughly $2.5 million and $3.0 million to fund the
campaigns.

C. Volume and Timing of Company A Payments to Enterprise during 2018 Election
Cycle

79. At the same time the Enterprise worked on a ?game plan? to secure Householder?s
ascension to Speakership, Company A needed a solution for its Ohio nuclear plants. The
investigation shows that the Enterprise and Company A formed, what Company A?l lobbyist

'24

 

March 16, 2017 $250,000 wire Company A Service Co (x6496)

May 17, 2017 $250,000 wire Company A Service Co (x6496)

August 10, 2017 $250,000 wire Company A Sewice Co (x6496)

December 8, 2017 $250,000 wire Company A Service Co (x6496)

March 15, 2018 $300,000 wire Energy Pass~Through (originally from Co. A
Service Co. x6496)

May 4, 2018 $100,000 wire Energy Pass?Through (originally from Co. A
Service Co. x6496)

August 8, 2018 $54,000 wire Coalition (originally ?om Co. A Service Co.
X6496 through Energy Pass-Through)

August 16, 2018 $500,000 wire Energy Pose-Though (eiiginally E10111 Co A
Service Co. X6496)

October 9, 2018 $400,000 cheek Company A Sewice Co. (x4788)

October 29, 2018 8100.000 check Company A Service Co. (x4788)

Total: $2,454,000

83. In addition, Company A Service Co. paid the Enterprise an additional $500,000 to

Dark Money Group 1 on October 29, 2018, bringing the total that Company A paid to the
Enterprise through Generation Now in 2017-20] 8 as $2,954,000.23

84.

T011 records con'oborate the close coordination between the Enterprise and

Company A during the 2018 primary, even though the payments were sent via Energy Pass?
Through. or example, several days before a $300,000 payment through Energy Pass?Through on
March 15, 2018, multiple connmmications between Householder and Company A occurred:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date _'2'I?iln'e Caller ?'Callejdil?ai'ty - Duration" 
March 12, 14:03 Householder Sr, VP of External Affairs 24 seconds
2018 for Company A Service

Co. 
March 12, 15:06 Sr VP of External Householder - 3:03
2018 Affairs for Company A minutes
Service Co
March 12, 15:11 Sr. VP of External Householder 9 seconds
2018 Affairs for Company A 1
Service Co.
March 12, 16:59 Householder Ohio Director of State 11:34
2018 Affairs, Company A minutes
Coip.24

 

 

 

 

1?3 This member does not include 890, 000 that Company A paid to the Coalition on Match 21 2017 and $300 000 that
. 1.203 in .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Time Caller Called Party Duration
May 1, 2018 18:41 Ohio Director of State 15:49 minutes
Affairs, Company A
Corp.
May 3, 2018 22:09 Ohio Director of State Text
Affairs, Company A . 
Corp. 
May 4, 2018 6: 10 .. Ohio Director of State Text
Affairs, Company A
Corp.
May 4, 2018 6:18 Ohio Director of State Text
Affairs, Company A
Corp. .
May 4, 2018 6:25 Ohio Director of State 14:12 minutes
Affairs, Company A
Corp.
May 4. 2018 Energy Payment for 8100.000

 

 

 

86. Toll records arormd this period do not otherwise show regular contact between
Householders and Company A employees or and Company A employees, further
demonstrating the signi?cance of these calls.

D. Enterprise Spending Company A Money on Spring 2018 Election

87. Not only was the volume of the Company A payments critical to the Enteiprise?s
efforts, but the timing was 21130 signi?cant. As noted above, during the 2018 election, the then?
current Speaker was a lame duck Speaker, who had picked Representative 1 to be his successor.
Thus, the Enterprise needed a substantial amount of money to beat the Representative 1 candidates
in the May primary election. Company A came through, paying the Enterprise $1.4 million before
the May 8, 2018 primary date.

88. But the Enterprise?s ability to capitalize on an unexpected opportunity that arose a
month before the primary election date also demonstrates how critical the volume and timing of
payments from Company A was. 011 April 12, 2018, about a month before the primary, the then?
current Speaker abruptly resigned. The Enterprise. seized upon this opportunity.

. 89. Because of the money accumulated in the Generation Now war chest, the majority
of which came from Company A, the Enterprise was able to move close to $1 million in the three
weeks before the primary. In fact, the same day that the Speaker resigned, bank records reveal
thatthe Enterprise Wired $750,000 to the PAC. (That wire followed a $250,000 wire Generation
Now sent to the PAC in early April.) The majority of the $1 million from Generation Now was
wired to a media services company and a political strategy ?rm for media buys and mailers for
Team Householder candidates. In addition, Generation Now wired $234,450 to JPL in three
increments between April 12 and May 7, adding to the already $775,054 it wired to JPL in the first
quarter of 2018. This money also was mostly spent on the campaign to elect Team Householder

28

93. In addition to bank records, the PAC ?led an FEC mid?year report in 2018,
outlining its expenditures in the primary. Although the report failed to list candidates by name??
and those candidates did not report in?kind gifts or contributions from the PAthhe report did list
expenditures in connection with certain Ohio House districts. And, those House Districts again
corresponded with the Enterprise?s- candidates. The amounts listed in the FEC report,
which correspond to paiticular House Districts, total more than $800,000. 

94. While the investigations shows that the PAC paid Media Services Company 1 and
Political Strategy Firm 1 nearly the entire million dollars it had received before the Spring 2018
primary, bank records ?'om JPL x9192 show that also dispersed approximately $1
million of the money he received from Generation Now to media, communication, and strategy
consulting companies, in support of the Enterprise?s primary efforts from January to May 2018.

95. The timing of these payments also evidence money laundering by the Enterprise in
furtherance of its purposes with the payments from Company A. For example, on March 12, 2018,
Generation Now wired the JPL x9192 account $132,200 for ?advertising.? The next day, JPL
x9192 wired $132,240 to Election Marketing Company 1. Between April 5 and 12, 2018,
Generation Now wired a total of $319,026 to JPL x9192, which then wired Direct Mail Company
1 $250,000 between April 6 and April 13, 2018. The evidence of money laundering is even
stronger considering that is a signatory on the Generation Now and x9192 accounts,
demonstrating that he used the JPL account as a pass-through to pay the companies.

96. Ultimately, the Enterprise?s efforts were successful, with most Team Householder
candidates winning their primaries. On or about July 24, 2018, a few months after the primaries,
$215,000 was wired ?'om accounts to settle a personal lawsuit against
Householder; On August 1, 2018, the same day that Householder was meeting with Company A
executives in Columbus, according to documents in Cespedes? possession, a court ?ling in
Franklin County Court ?released and forever discharged? the judgment against Householder and
Householder Ltd. The main JPL account was funded with wire transfers from Generation Now,
which was ?mded in large part by Company A wires. In addition, bank records show that 
main account also paid Householder?s attorneys involved in the lawsuit in May 2017 via two
checks totaling $60,000. At the time PL made those payments, it had received more than $78,000
from Generation Now, which had been funded solely by a $250,000 wire from Company A, a
$25,000 deposit from the CEO of Company C, and $200 deposit from on the date he
opened the account. 26 JPL also paid the same law firm additional fees totaling $25 ,3 08.43 in 2018.

E. Fall 2018 Election

97. The investigation shows that, after the primaries, the Enterprise refocused its efforts
on ensuring the Team Householder candidates won the general election in November. As set forth
below, the Enterprise used a new corporate entity (Dark Money Group 1) to further its purposes,
which was funded by Company A, Generation Now (as funded by Company A), and related
interests, and then used almost all of those funds to further the campaigns of Team Householder
candidates.

 

2? As set forth above, Company has interests aligned with Company A.
3 0

Representative 2 ultimately prevailed by 137 votes. Representative 2?s victory was credited to a
negative ad run by Dark Money Group 1, which showed the opposing candidate taking a ?eld
sobriety test, yet only receiving a speeding ticket. The ad essentially accused the candidate of
misusing his authority. Although the candidate and the police union condemned the ad, the
damage was donewthe opposing candidate, who reportedly had a 10?point lead before the ad aired,
lost the election. Media reports credited the Dark Money Group 1 ad with tipping the scales.

103. After the election, Householder took credit for the ad against the opposing
candidate, remarking to Individual 1, that he (Householder) had put $5 00,000 into that race in the
?nal weeks. Householder?s comment was made during a meeting after the election in November
2018, where Individual 1, who was a prospective Team Householder candidate for the 2020
election, was being interviewed by Householder. Based on this discussion, Individual 1
understood from Householder that if he/she were selected, he/she would have Householder?s
?nancial backing, just like Representative 2. This showed Householder?s control over Dark
Money Group 1 funds. Individual 1 has provided other information relevant to the investigation
that has been independently corroborated.

104. A copy of the video ad run against the opposing candidate was recovered by agents
from Notably, the video in possession appears to be a ?draft? or ?rough
cut? of the Dark Money Group 1 ad, evidenced by the ?le name of the video, which appears in the
left?hand corner of the recovered video. The fact that this video was recovered ?om 
also demonstrates the Enterprise?s control over Dark Money Group 1, and how the payments from
Company A were spent.

105. Representative 2?s race exempli?es the bene?t Company A provided to the-
Enterprise by way of its timely payments during election seasons. However, the benefit'to the
Enterprise was not limited to the cash infused to Dark Money Group 1. Generation Now paid
another $809,000 between the time of the May primary and November election.
Through JPL, paid himself, his associates, and a number of campaign managers
working on the campaigns of Team Householder candidates. Indeed, CH8 1, who has provided
reliable and credible information corroborated by the investigation, advised that hefshe was
working on the campaign of a Team Householder candidate during the fall 2018 general election,
but that CH8 1 was paid by (Subpoenaed records con?rm the main JPL account,
which had received money from Generation Now, paid the CH8.) This shows that Company 
to-Generation?Now money was used by the Enterprise to benefit Team Householder candidates-m
thus, providing a benefit to Householder himself. also paid several media,
communications, strategy and direct mail groups. Besides Dark Money Group 1 and JPL,
Generation Now also paid rent to Political Advertising Agency and $10,000 a month to Associate
2 for ?fundraising.? -

106. Ultimately, the Enterprise?s ?Game plan 2018? worked. By coordinating and
?nancially backing the Team Householder candidates using Company A money, the Enterprise
helped elect a group of representatives loyal to Householder. All of the candidates who were
?nancially supported by the Enterprise and won in the 2018 general election voted to make
Householder, instead of Representative 1, Speaker. With their votes, Householder secured the

32

candidate for Ohio Speaker,? and noted that, ?he is willing to work on energy legislation.
Traditionally close to Company In another document titled ?Ohio Fundraising Suggestions?
and created on September 6, 2018, Cespedes suggested that Company A should continue to support
the ?Larry Householder Caucus? ?nancially because ?Householder has a history of favorably
rewarding those who provide both early and late money into his e?orts.? Cespedes mentioned in
the document that Company A?s CEO had a conversation with Householder ?where 
suggested that we would/should independently support him as Company A?l Cespedes also laid
out Company A?s aspirations for the bailout legislation in a document titled ?[Company A-l] Ohio
Draft Timeline? and authored by Cespedes on November 20, 2018. In this document, Cespedes
wrote that although the next Speaker remains unclear, there should be ?Speaker?s race clarity mid?
December? 2018, and ?[ijf Householder is successful, the e?ort will likely be led from his
Chamber,? with ?poteatial legislative introduction? for [Company in early 2019.

i. House Bill 6 Background

111. On April 12, 2019, roughly three months after Householder became Speaker, HB 6
was introduced. Although titled ?Ohio Clean Air Program,? the investigation shows that H8 6
essentially was created to prevent the shutdown of Company A?s nuclear plants. H13 6 creates the
Ohio Clean Air Program, which allows nuclear or solar clean air resources to apply to be certi?ed
clean air resources, and therefore, eligible for a subsidy of $9 per megawatt hour produced. In
order to pay for the subsidy, the Ohio Air Quality Development Authority, which is tasked with
administering the Ohio Clean Air Program, will institute and collect a fixed charge to all
residential, commercial, industrial, and large consumers. The ?xed fee is projected to produce
$140 million annually for the ?rst year, then $200?Inillion annually thereafter.

112. Ohio currently has six solar facilities over 50 megawatts of nameplate capacity,
which serves as the minimum threshold necessary to apply to receive the subsidy. They produce
a combined 1,095 megawatts of power. For comparison, the Company A?l nuclear plants produced
a combined 18,315,007 megawatts in 2018. Given the power produced, Company A?l would
collect approximately 94% of the subsidy, which total more than $160 million annually.
Newspaper reporting throughout the statecharacterized HB 6 as a ?bailout? for the bene?t of
Company A-l speci?cally.31 Clark also characterized HB 6 as a bailout for Company A.

113. Under HB 6, the subsidy will be dispersed at the direction of the Ohio Air Quality
Development Authority. As passed, HB 6 will add six new members to the Ohio Air Quality
Development Authority, increasing the total from seven to thirteen. Pursuant to H8 6, three of
those new appointees will be selected by the Speaker of the House.

 

3? See e?passes-nuclear-nlant?bailout
ll 270558001/; 
stories/20190603170.

34

passes through the House Rules and Reference Committee to receive a date for a ?oor vote.
However, it is unusual for a bill to be amended during such passage. Based upon my training and
experience, once a bill has been vetted by committee and recommended for passage, it is
uncommon for it be amended in another committee. For context, the House Energy and Natural
Resources Committee and Energy Generation Subcommittee held ten committee meetings and
heard testimony from dozens of stakeholder groups before amending the legislation, a process
lasting just under sixty days. But, on May 28, 2019, HB 6 was referred to the Rules and Reference
committee, and was amended through the introduction of a substitute bill. 

120. Among other things, the substitute bill added a provision permitting an electric
company with taxable property that is fueled by nuclear power (a company such as Company A)
to ?le a petition for a reduction in taxable property value. This provision was an added bene?t to
Company A Corp. 

121. After its ?nal set of substitutions, HB 6 returned to the House ?oor?~?the same day
that HB 6 was amended by the Rules and Reference House Committee chaired by Householder?
where it was scheduled to be voted out on May 29, 2019. When a vote was called, the House
elected to informally pass, which based on my training and experience, I know is a procedure us ed
by Speakers to reschedule legislation that would have failed to pass if a vote were taken at the time
of roll call. When an informal pass is taken, further negotiations and compromises are necessary
for the Speaker to acquire the necessary votes for the bill to pass. After the informal pass was
taken, the House stood at recess. Based on my training and experience, this shows that
Householder did not have support for passage of the bill in the House at that time.

122. The Speaker gained support for passage later that day, likely through the pressure
tactics described below. Upon returning from the aforementioned pass, HB 6 was amended four
additional times. After those amendments, HR 6 was called to vote by the Speaker and passed 53?
. 43.

Generation New Media Blitz to Provide ?Cover?

123. The uncertain path to passage is signi?cant. To members of the Enterprise, there
was a real possibility, up until the ?nal vote, that HB 6 would not pass. The investigation shows
that, during this time, the Enterprise created a media campaign costing approximately $15 million
dollars. 

124. The Enteprise?s media campaign demonstrates the significance of H13 6 to the
Enterprise, and thus, provides further evidence of the corrupt arrangement with Company A.
Documents possessed by show that the Enterprise had budgeted for an 8~week
campaign, where the ?overall budget would be $15~16m for a full burn.? The media campaign was
designed to pressure legislators to vote for H8 6 by targeting their constituents. The media
campaign urged Ohioans to contact their representatives to save jobs in Ohio and protect their
communities from ?big oil.? The campaign provided cover for those representatives who were
voting for HB 6 and applied constituent pressure to unsupportive House members and those who
were undecided.

36

128. Based on my training and experience, the fact that Generation Now, the Speaker?s
501(c)(4) entity, conducted the media campaign is signi?cant. First, it is further evidence of the 
corrupt relationship with Company A~the Enterprise likely would not be spending millions of
dollars from Company A that was passed through a 501(c)(4) account for the bene?t of Company
A?s main legislative priority absent an agreement with Company A. Second, it allowed the
Enterprise to control the messaging in a way that would bene?t the Enterprise and provided the
autonomy to spend the money how it deemed appropriate. Third, based on my training and
experience, it solidi?ed Householder?s political power by showing members the strength and reach
of his political operation. Finally, the members of the Enterprise ?nancially bene?ted from this
arrangement.

129. The messaging of the media campaign focused on the loss of jobs if HB 6 did not
pass, and urged constituents to contact their representatives to support HB 6. The media campaign
also claimed that not passing HB 6 would allow ?big oil? to harm constituents? communities. In
the search warrant return ?'orn possession, the FBI recovered a draft script for a
Generation Now HB 6 commercial to run in the districts of two representatives from the Cincinnati
area (highlights in original):

Radio (Bony: so ascends

 

For. Generation New .

Title: ?Protect Ma?a Precious .. .
Date: 65.15.1533 Air Date? 
Word Counl; 148

 

- "Audio

 

i (Suit, gent-tie- guitar and nature sound effects think macabre! by the 1383.325)

Female Wherever:
We Can give Our abdomen a strong; ac??r?rm?y and a clean environmanl

The Future is in our hands.
. .f'a?rr and tespons?ihia energy reform [or today and tomorrow.
House Brit Six ensures more clean energy generated in Ohio . ?:91 Ohio, High! New

?y modernizing our environmental goals we encourage the garnish aroma made energy
from wand. solar and other sources that reduce carbon dioxide In our air

fut-t! by at home, not an mitt-Jr stares. wt: will create new jobs and a traitor economy.
training Ohio matures and entrepreneurs. .

House Bill Six. improves our enmronmanr creates gobs 3911 any for


  

Gall Representative. '55 I at one! eight hundred two eight- Mo. zero-
lwo {we lhree and thank room In: lasing a courageous stand to reform Ohio' 5 energy gems
and protect whar' 5 precious

?eld {or by generation New. lire.

 

 

 

130. The draft h'anscript was written on the letterhead of Political Advertising Agency
1, which is consistent with publicly ?led FCC documents, showing television ad time purchased

38

 

Sou: Lwacmn;
. emu [in

 

 

133. The exchange about. the. representative is particularly interesting given that
Representative 5 voted against Householder for Speaker, but Supported HB 6. Thus,
Householder?s message appears to convey a newformd allegiance for a representative who voted
for KB 6, thus showing HB 6?s signi?cance to Householder; The exchange also showed
Householder?s direct involvement in the Eutezpn'se?s messaging and media campaign and
Householder?s understanding that public officials know that Hou'seholder is behind Generation
Newmessaging.

134. The media campaign was effective in using constituents to pressure the targeted
representative. For example, even mailers that unexpectedly arrived after the vote prompted
constituents of ?no? voters to call and complaint. For example, Representative 6, angrily contacted
about a mailer that airivecl in his district after the vote, urging Representative 6 to have
the ?courage? to save jobs and vote for BB 6.

40

 

Shun Film to.
RM \vl

 

91.1814.?
{Luna 

 

\a

Scum 11- than
{my 

 

Siam Ea! Lin
huh?'1. 15:

 

 

135. The text exchange also shows that Representative 6 knew exactly who to contact
about the Generation New ads. The same day, after receiving Representative 6?s angry texts,

42

was meant to be a threat from Householder, passed to him via Clark, or if it was a warning from a
friend.

140. During the interview, Representative 7 received a text message from Householder,
which said:



 

Larry-

really need you to vote

yes on H8 6 it means a lotto
me. Can I count on you 

Representative 7 showed FBI Agents, including me, the message when it was received.
Representative 7 then responded to the text, addressing Representative 7 by his title, politely
reiterating Representative 7?s contrary position. Householder immediately responded, ?Ijusz? want
you to remember when I needed you you week there. Mice.? These messages show that
Householder was attempting to gain legislative support vote for HB 6.

141. Representative 7, later provided screen shots of the aforementioned text message
exchange with Householder. The screen shots thatched the messages Representative 7 showed
FBI agents during the interview. In addition, Representative 7 provided a screen shot of the stored
contact information for the sender of the text messages, Householder. That contact information
contains Householder?s name and phone number.

142. The-day after I interviewed Representative 7, HB 6 passed.

143. Representative 7?s statements about Householder?s active interest in HE 6 were
corroborated by a recorded conversation involving Clark referenced above, on or about May 31,
2019. During the call, Clark ?rst con?rmed that the ?clean air bill? was 1"eally? a nuclear plant
bailout.? Clark then mentioned Representative 7 by name, stating that Householder had called
Representative 7 three or four times about the vote and that Clark then had to meet with
Representative 7 about the vote. Clark relayed that he told Representative 7 that Householder
would not let Representative 7 carry separate legislation unless he voted for the energy bill. Clark
then stated that Representative 7 decided to vote against the bill and Householder was very angry.

144. 1a a subsequent recorded call, Clark elaborated about Representative 7. Clark stated
that Householder had told him (Clark) that Clark was going to have to get Representative 7?s vote
on HB 6. Clark then called Representative 7, who told Clark he could not vote for H13 6. When
Representative 7 tried to explain why, Clark told him, ?No one cares about your opinion.? Clark
further explained that Representative 7 tried to call Householder a few days later and tried to
negotiate with him. Householder asked Clark what he should do and Clark told Householder to
kill Representative 7?s bill.

44

150. The day after Company A-l?s press release, HB 6 was introduced to the Ohio
Senate. Although HB 6 passing the House helped the Enterprise maintain its" agreement with
Company A, it did not ful?ll the agreement. Rather, the Enterprise needed to ensure HB 6 passed
the Senate and was signed into law.

151. Shortly after the bill was introduced in the Senate, the Enterprise began pressuring
for Senate passage. To fund the effo?, Company A Wired more than $7 million into Generation
Now, which records show used the money, in part, for polls, media buys, and mailers:

June 5, 2019 $2,000,000 wire from Company A Service Co.
June 13, 2019 $1,361,899 wire from Company A Service Co.
June 20, 2019 . $2,116,899 wire ??onl Company A Service Co.
July 5, 2019 $1,879,457 wire from Company A?l.

Total: $7,358,255

152. Text messages from recovered during the investigation show that
Company A had budgeted for, and was paying fer the costs associated with the campaign to pass
HB 6 through Senate.

153. The Enterprise? efforts regarding the Senate began a few days after HEB 6?s House
passage. On June 2019, pulled the ?whole HB 6 team? together for a strategy
Session. This meeting appears to have been partially prompted by Householder?s response to the
negative press the passage of 1-18 received.

. Sang?n. .. 2.2.. .. .- max. -

 

 

46

 

 

Generation New, inc. Meeting
Monday, June 3, 2019

i. Recap H8 6 strategy for Hlouse
A. Member feedback: what worked, what dldn?t

1. What didn?t work: our calls, the TV was weak (didn?t mention the
members? names) new strategy needs to be targeted cable mentioning
the names;

2. What didn?t work: the bill repeatedly changing, which meant the message
repeatedly changed.

3. What did work: calls for ?on the fence" members relayed
she was feeling the heat from calls, talked to and was feeling
an influence by proxy).

4. What did work: their names. Anything that mentioned their names, they
got lots of feedback from friends, family, district people: radio, mail.

11 

 

ll. Senate strategy
A. Senator?by?Senator game plan: hyper local
13. Change in media/ digital approach
C. Timeline
1. Hard stop June 30 (based off refueling forthe Nukes)

4M

. . 

Need to develop a iO-day plan to decide what we?re doing going forward. lf we?re not
successful in the next 10 days, the Nukles need to be stripped out and put into the budget. Have
10 days to run through a media strategy and see where we are.

- Sub introduced June 10?11

it Conference committee will begin June 15

 

Run through a direct mail piece (named). direct cable (named), direct radio (named), continue
our broadcast strategy

 

156. These meeting minutes not only outline the. Senate campaign, but con?nn What
Generation Now did during the House?s consideration of the bill. The investigation showed that
the Enteipi'ise followed the steps outlined in the notes, and that Householder remained engaged
dining the process. For example, the same day as the June 3, 2019 meeting, Householder and
had the following exchange:

48

 5554 I .-

 

i'saun: films-:5?
Legal. 

 

Senate Era-azim-L
lewd f5}

      

Sauna Exmbn:
Legacf 

 

159. These exchanges show Householder directly involved in the Enterprise?s efforts to
persuade Ohio senators to pass BB 6.

160. The messages also show that Householder was chief decision maker regarding
Generation Now, even providing direction with respect to the Generation Now ads. On June 12,
2019, about a week after the HB 6 team meeting, Householder reached out to regarding
the Generation Now television ads, essentially telling to change them. Moreover,
acquiesced to Householder, indicating that he would change them the following week,
thus demonstrating that Householder had the ?nal word as to Generation Now messaging:

50

 

Scams Extraction:
Legacy 

 

?cmoe Emma:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some Extraction:
I mam on

161. Householder?s mention of the ?poor sum bitch? driving his pickup truck and crying
about losing his job is likely a reference to an HB 6 advertisement paid for by Generation Now,
which depicts an employee at one of Company A?l "3 nuclear power plants describing job losses if
the plant closes, while he drives his pickup truck down a road. This further shows Householder?s
involvement in the Generation Now media buys supporting the Company A bailout.

162. Consistent with the strategy outlined in the June 3 team meeting, numerous
commercials ?paidfor by Generation Now? began airing while H13 6 was in the Senate under
consideration. These commercials featured the same actors depicted in the May commercials,
however, consistent with the June 3rd meeting notes, the commercials targeted particular senators
and urged voters to call the particular senator and urge them to support HE 6 so thousands of
Ohioans will not lose their jobs. For example, one ad targeted Senator 1, The ad states in part,
?Senator can save our jobs in Ohio for Ohio . . . Senator Ohio families need your help
before June ask Senator to pass H8 6 before summer break. . . more jobs, lower bills, for
Ohio.? The commercial ends with ?Paid for by Generation Now, Inc.?

163. A document recovered by agents ?'om possession appears to be a draft

script, complete with redlining and highlights, for a set of commercials targeting senators,
including Senator 1. The text is similar to the commercial described above. Senator 1, and the

52

165. In addition to the draft mailers copied above, budget dominieuts recovered ?'om

that track Generation Now?s spending per week of 20 senators, including Senator 2,
corroborate statement that he was spending $68,000 in Senator 2?s district. For
example, the following excel spreadsheet entitled 6 Paid Media Week 6 June 2019? (copied
below), shows that the Enterprise spent. approximately $45,780 on radio, social, and mail
advertisements during that week. The $45,780 does not include the amount spent on television
ads, which the spreadsheet depicts as $500,000 for all 20 senators. If that $500,000 amount were
divided equally amongst the 20 senators, $25,000 would be added to Senator 2?s amount, totaling
$70,780?Which is close to what Longs?treth approximated in his text message.

   
   

Week 6 ions 7-14
RADIO SOCIAL
5 7.177 5
73 5
12,305 5
10 25
16
I 04
7425
260
127

 
   
   
   

      

      
 
 
   
  
  
 
 
  
 
    
 
 
  
  
   
 
  
   
  
   

  
  

  

LASY FIRST CALIS CABLE

   
   

       
 

     

   
    
 



  

5
5

    

 
  
    

10
1 17
7400
19 1?
19 18
9 1
7.8?0
7
8.938
7.600
9.800
233

 
   

 
  
   

   
   
 
  
  
  
 

  
  
  
  
 

   

See Separate Sheet

CI

500


.l Gmnoromn 

  
  
 

Cincinnati $122,500
Columbus $134,400 
Cleveland
TOTAL

 

   

 

166. Like the media campaign dm'hig the House?s consideration of 6, the costly

media campaign targeting Senators provides further evidence of the oonupt mrangeznent.

167. In addition to a media blitz, Householder continued to use his Team?Householdern

6, Representative 3, to support the bill through the Senate. On
June 10, 2019, and Householder had the following exchange:

54

170. The Enterprise?s strategy, funded by Company A, worked. The Senate passed HB
6 approximately a month and half after it was introduced. The House, which concurred in the
Senate?s amendments, adopted the Senate?s version of HB 6 on July 23, 2019. It was signed by
the governor later that same day (July 23, 2019).

171. In a press release the next day, Company A?l stated that it ?applauded the
enactment of House Bill 6 into law, a monumental step in helping to avoid the premature closure
of the company ?s two nuclear plants in Ohio.? Company A-1 CEO commended the legislature for
?drafting a bill that preserves the state nuclear assets,? and stated speci?cally that Company 
1 was ?thankful for the support and commitment by Speaker Householder and Senate President
[Redacted 

172. As explained in detail below, a campaign to overturn the legislation through a ballot
initiative began immediately after passage and continued until the campaign to overturn BB 6
failed on October 21, 2019, at which point the bailout legislation became law, saving the two
nuclear power plants from closure.

vi. The Enterprise and Company A?s Coordination

173. Enterprise members and associates coordinated with Company A executives and
lobbyists while it was receiving millions of secret dollars from Company A and pressuring public
of?cials to support the bailout.

174. According to a review of text messages and toll records, Cespedes was in regular
contact with Company A and served as a conduit between Company A and other members and
associates of the Enterprise while the Enterprise pushed for passage of HR 6. For example, the
aforementioned exchange between Cespedes and Where, in the context of planning an
BB 6 team meeting, Cespedes told Longsteth ?Let?s just regroup and get the rest of the deal
illustrates this point. These messages, which were premised on the Speaker?s ?rampage?
also show Householder?s direct involvement in Company A?s and Generation Now?s efforts to get

the ?the rest of the deal done?~?speci?cally, passage of HB 6.

175. and Cespedes also discussed Generation Now mailers supporting H8 6.
On June 3, 2019, Cespedes texted ?gen now mail is still dropping. We are getting reports that ?s
[sic] it?s been hitting late,? to which responded that ?90% was delivered by the vote?
and ?Members like seeing the mail because voters don ?t know when the vote was.? Several days
later, Cespedes told ?Mail and radio looks good to me.? These cormnunications show
that Company A??t_hrough Cespedesewas involved directly in Generation Now?s media strategy
to promote member support of HB 6.

176. In addition, and Cespedes discussed coordinating Company A payments
to Generation Now. On June 4, 2019, Cespedes texted to ?Text me the it I need an
invoice for responded, ?working on it now.? On June 10, 2019, Cespedes texted,
?Make sure I get the invoice for this week as early as possible, please. Thanks.? 

56

 

 

1*on Ecru 
luv-1:1 IL:

 

imam [us-nu: .
l-an?rl?l

 

?aunt-mutt 


179. One minute later, texted the Chief Operating Of?cer of Political
Advertising Company, to check on Company-A?s media spend, as requested by Cespedes:

 

180. A?er sending the message to C00, Lougstreth immediately resumed his text
exchange with Cespedes:

58

amm- Egl. 
lap? 

 

 

faint-.1; I342: 
14cm 

 

 

LI ?In!
swam in

 

181. After ?li'ther discussion between Cespedes and in the. following days
about coordinating payment, public of?cials? support for the bailout, hiring signature ?rms to
defeat the Ballot Campaign, and media and mailers, and Cespedes again discussed
Company A payments to Generation Now. For example, on June 18, 2019, Cespedes to
think we have to Shave o?the 33k, but I?ll check,? and ?Just con?rmed to round
down to $16Meven.?

6O

 

of the Enterprise. As Clark stated in a recorded conversation35 in July 2019: ?We call Company
A We Brmk? because they can do, they can do, they con?md these 20,}iears if?tey want
to. . . . Tbev?vegof foo much money, too Later in the conversation, Clark discussed
the individuals giving a $15,000 to $25,000 check to Honseholder?s 501(c)(4), relative to other
contributions into Generation Now, speci?cally payments by Company A. Clark stated, ?you ?ll
wall: in will: your check and you?ll be respeeo?iil, and they?ll remember it as that number.
Remember, he gets clteclrs?'om ?tbe Bank?,? remember, I toldyou what the rthe Baal: is, you know,
$1.5 million dollars, $2 million dollars.?36

186. Indeed, according to Clark, the amount of money from Company A to the
Enterprise was ?unlimited.? As he later explained, ?on BB 6, Company get $1.3 billion in
subsidies, free payments, . . . so who! do they care about putting in $20 iziillion a yearfor this
thing, flier) (lei: give a shit.? Clark went on: Compare}; A is deep pockets. Clark explained: I
(lid this ceziipaign. All we cared about was getting the subsidy.? In other words, Company A paid
the Enteiprise millions of dollars in exchange for the Enterprise?s efforts to pass H13 6 because it
received billion in subsidies? in return?the essence of the conupt exchange.

. The Enterprise Fights the Ballot Campaign to Ensure BB 6 Goes Into Effect

187. Immediately after passage of HB 6, ?Ballot Campaign? mobilized to repeal H8 6
through a ballot referendum. Under Ohio law, in order to place a referendum on the ballot, a group
must collect 1,000 certi?ed signatures and submit proposed ballot language to the Ohio Attorney
General for approval.? The approval ensm?es that the description of the referendum meets the
?fair and tmth?tl? standard outlined in the Ohio Revised Code.

188. After the Ohio Attorney General approves the language, and the Ohio Secretazy of
State certi?es the signatures collected, the proponents of the ballot referendtun must collect
sigalattu'es from registered voters totaling six percent of the voters who participated in the last
gubernatorial election. In this case, six percent equals approximately 265,000 signatures. Those
signatures also must be validated by the Ohio Secretaly of State. If the requisite number of
signatures are collected and validated, the referendum appears on the ballot for a popular vote by
the residents of Ohio.

A. The Enterprise Fights Back

189. Ballot Campaign?s original ballot proposal language was submitted on July 29,
2019 and rejected by the Ohio Attorney General on August 12, 2019. A revised petition was ?led
on August 16, 2019, and subsequently approved by the Ohio Attorney General on August 29, 2019.
After approval, the Ballot Campaign had until October 21, 2019 to collect the requisite number of
signatures. .

 

 

37 See 0 no Rev.

62

 

194. In addition to showing Householder?s knowledge that Generation Now was taking
a hit in the media, the message also shows that some public of?cials knew that Householder was
behind the Generation Now campaign to pressure members to support HE 6, particularly relevant
given the millions of dollars Householder?s Enterprise spent on media buys and ads Iu?ging Ohio
citizens to pressure public officials to support House Bill 6.

195. In the wake of the negative press and pressure from House leadership relating to
Generation New media buys snppo?ing 1-13 6? the Enterprise used ?Front Company,? which was
controlled by the Enteipiise to conceal their efforts to combat the refe1endnm As deselibed
below the Enterprise pumped $23 ,000 ,000 of Company A to Generation?Now infancy into Front
Company and used the organization to fund criminal acts to defeat the referendlun.

C. The Enterprise Used Front Company to Defeat Ballot Campaign

196. KB. owes important to the Hoaseholder?s Enteiprise because it received millions
of dollars into Generation Now from Company A in exchange for enactment of the bailout
legislation. And, thus, the repeal of KB 6, which would prevent H3 6 ??om taking effect. in October
2019, was Viewed as a threat to Householder?s Enterprise. But, the Enterprise also viewed the
Ballot Campaign as a threat to its power and territory generally.

197. F01 example, at the dinner club meeting on September 23, 2019, in the context of a
discussion about the Ballot Campaign, Householdei told Clerk in a recorded ineeting?? . ?It is so
inwa?anf, it is so 1.11320; font, that they are not success?tl, because when the. iegislarm'e votes on
something it needs to stay low. Staffer followed up, ?it?s the beginning ofIvom' Speakers-123); it
sets a bed 1.): ecedenf for the next six years what we need to make them waif: is that you
(Householder) can be?tcked with Clark then ag1eed,?ifsenr?s the message to everyone else.

. ffyou attack a 1nez:1ber;_ we ?11? going to ?rcling zip your dick of.? Enteipiise members thus
made clear that presenting their legislative victory was necessary to proving the strength of the
Enteiprise going forward.

198. As set forth above, Front Companyworganized and registered under Ohio law on
July 30, 2019, less than a week after the bill was signed by the governor?is a pass-through entity
through which the Enteiprise funneled Company Auto-?Generation?NOW money to further the
conspiracy. Associate 1, along with Associate 4r?wllo had hundreds of phone contacts with
Enterprise members from" July to October 2019, including regular calls with Clark, 

 

 

remit
1353.3;le
our;
?Xi
?it?ll?? 
woman

on vuun mm

F0 REIGN ENTRIES HAVE OUR ENERGY 

?ac-v want to cu' gobs and rah-u: um [hwy

.. ?nr qmun has Eur-:1]
r; to room cur congluamhoods ach aw. tor
"mu [m mormolur- Ic-r are not her

 

 

These above ?iers were mailed to voters throughout the state of Ohio.

1202.. Dining the September 23, 2019 recorded dimier-paity, in which Householder also
was present, Clark relayed the story behind the second ?ier, which Clark and Householder thought
was hilarious. Through laughter, Clark described what he termed ?the direct mailpiece" as ?so
?icking cold?blooded.? He stated that Jeff designed it. He explained that because 15 out of the
150 signature collectors hired by the opposition had prior arrests, they were technically criminals
under the law. When Representative 8 (another representative of the Ohio House of
Representatives,- Who is not lmown to be part of the Enterprise asked how they knew the signaua?e
collectors had prior arrests, Honseholder explained, ?that: have to Sign up and when the}? Sign up,
we ran a backg'ozmd check.? 43 Clark went on to explain, ?[sjo Je? ofcomue, designs a piece
going ?thev?re coming to your house, criminals . . . den answer the door. . . decline to Sign.?
As Clark explained, he later had to explain the direct mail piece to Associate 4?that they were
mailing 4.9 million pieces explaining that the people coming to your house, for signatures are
criminals, and Associate 4 refused to put his name on it. Clark played hardball with Associate 4,
and told him that he (Clark) had to get off the phone now and tell his boss (presumably
Householder) that Associate 4 didn?t want to do it. Clark explained that eventually, Associate 4
agreed on a softer piece.

203. The investigation later revealed that payment for the postage on these same ?iers
was ultimately paid for by Generation Now, but had been funneled through at least three bank
accounts. Speci?cally, the ?iers were sent ?presorted standard US Postage PAID Columbus OH
Permit 6871 According to US. Pestal records, a Digital 85 Print Marketing Group is the account
holder of Permit 6871, and the customer reference ID lists a company related to Direct Mail
Company 2. Subpoenaed bank records show that the Digital 8: Print Marketing Group received
approximately $3.5 million from Direct Mail Group 2 in October 2019, which received
approximately $3.6 million combined from Constant Content bank accounts, which
received a combined $4.4 million from Front Company?all of which originally came from

 

43 Householder was likely referring to Ohio Secretary of State Form 15, which Ohio law requires to be ?led by people
working being compensated for working on behalf of a statewide ballot petition. See Ohio Rev. Code 3501.381.

66

 

- The ad ended with a plea to not sign the petition, because doing so would allow China to take
control over Ohio?s power:

SIGN THE 

. llawmn salsa-m suntan.
onln'srowm i

 

205. Thus, although the ?iers and ads claimed they were paid for by Front Company, in
reality, the Enterprise paid for them and concealed that fact by wiring money from Generation
Now to Front Company. By using Front Company for the media campaign, the Enterprise ?nther
concealed its corrupt arrangement with Company A

206. Other evidence demonstrates that the Enterprise used Front Company as a front for
Generation Now. For example, public ?lings on the FCC website show that Media Placement
Company 1, which received approximately $6.9 million ?'om Front Company bank account,
bought television airtime between August 2019 and October 2019 across Ohio for Front Company.
For instance, for the week of September 5, 2019 to September 9, 2019, records show that Media
Placement Company 1 bought approximately $66,3 00 in television spots from WKRC Cincinnati
for Front Company. (Media Placement Company 1 had purchased airtime slots for Generation
Now in the past, including advertisements that supported candidates associated with Householder
during the 2018 election cycle.)

207. The FCC ?lings also match the commercials? content. In one disclosure statement
that was ?led with the FCC, Front Company stated that the issue addressed by the advertisements
was ?Chinese in?uence of Ohio Energy.? This description ties both the ?iers and commercial
content back to Front Company. Additionally, the content of the commercials themselves contain
a clue as to their origin and funding source, tying the Enterprise to Front Company. Speci?cally,
M.M., pictured below, who served as project manager at one of the Company A-l nuclear power
plants, appeared both in Generation Now advertisements in support of the passage of HB 6 in the

68

he had ?hired them not to work.? Clark continued, explaining that he had hired 15 companies
nationwide?nine of the biggest ones?~and sent them all checks ranging $50,000 to $100,000 to
not to work, and $10,000 payments to the smaller ?rms. Clark stated that these people on the
phone, ?they are aZZfalZ ofshii. I have been a Zobbyistfor 39 years, been around a Kong time. It
always goes circular to someone going well we ?32 give you a kickback.? Clark later con?rmed,
during the same conversation, that the $450,000 used to pay the collection ?rms came from
Generation Now.

211. A Spreadsheet tracking the hiring and payment of signature ?rms in July 2019 was
recovered from Cespedes? possession. The document?s properties reveal that Associate 1 created
the spreadsheet on July 26, 2019?two days after Clark?s statements detailed directly above. (That
it was recovered from Cespedes" possession demonstrates the close coordination between
members and associates of the Enterprise and Company A.) The document shows the signature
?rms that the Enterprise retained, whether the ?rms are ?under contract, the contract price, and the
status of payments, which re?ected payments of $431,750 by July 29, 2019.

212. A review of Generation Now?s subpoenaed bank records and Clark?s toll records
corroborate his statements and the contents of the spreadsheet. Generation Now bank records
con?rm that payments were made from the Generation Now bank accounts. The records further

show that some of these ?rms, along with other petition ?rms, received additional payments in the
fall of2019. 

213. Further, Clark?s toll records show contact with some 'of these ?rms around the same
time period. For example, on July 23, 2019, the same day that Generation Now wired one ?rm
$75,000, Clark?s toll records Show he had multiple contacts with a founding member of the ?rm.
Similarly, Clark placed calls to an executive of Petitioner Signature Services Co 3 on July 22 and
29, 2019, in close proximity to Generation Now?s wire of $50,000.46

214. These wires also are consistent with text message exchanges recovered during the
investigation. On June 19, 2019, while BB 6 was still pending in the Ohio Senate, Cespedes told
that ?Borges mentioned this morning that Opposition has engaged signature gathers.
Not sure who or zf?i?t?s real Just want you to be aware.? As explained above, about a week later,
on June 26, 2019, while H86 was still pending in the Senate, Cespedes and discussed
the need to hire signature ?rms and that Cespedes would ?up? the budget if necessaly:

 

46 Petition Signature Services Co 3 received approximately $6,205,154 from Generation Now between July 2019 and
October 2019. Phone records also Show Jeff had phone contact with the same executive during the same
time period.

70

 

 

As this conversation shows, until the previous week, the Enterprise could not determine the reason
for the discrepancy between their numbers and the numbers claimed by the signature gatherers.
Thus, they needed inside information about the ballot initiative.

218. The Enterprise attempted to obtain such information by utilizing Borges to bribe
CH3 1, who was associated with the Ballot Campaign. CH8 1 was employed by Ballot Campaign
in its efforts to repeal HB 6 through a ballot initiative. CH8 1 has provided reliable information
proven credible through multiple sources. CH8 1 managed signature collectors. As described
below, Borges offered provide inside information about the Ballot
Campaign such as the number of signatures collected, the number of collectors, and geographic
focus of colleCtion efforts. CH3 1 was upset about Borges" solicitation and contacted the FBI after
meeting with Borges in early September. Thereafter, CH3 1 recorded his conversations with
Borges, including Borges? payment of $15,000 to him.

219. On or about September 1, 2019, Borges contacted CH3 1 and, during a meeting the
next day, offered a substantial amount of money for inside information that Borges would use for
his client to defeat the referendum campaign. Speci?cally, according to CH8 1, Borges offered
that if CH8 1 provided inside information, Borges would provide CH8 1 with monetary payments,
a job, 01 agree to pay debts. Bo1ges furthei indicated that others are getting ?fat? off the
HB 6 lssue, so they might as well bene?t, too. Then Borges asked CH8 1 to think about the offel
and get back to him. Borges initially reached out to CH8 1 just two days after the Ohio Attorney
General approved the ballot language and just weeks after Generation Now wired over a million
dollars of Company A money to Borges? LLC, 1? Consulting.

220. In a text message following the meeting, CH8 I told Borges he could not accept
the b1ibe payment These text messages were provided to me. Speci?cally, CH8 I told Borges,
ve thoughtabom? it I don ineed overnight. CH8 1 went on: ?At the beginning of this] thought
I could walk my information into Larry?s o?ice and sell iifor enough to retire CBS 1
continued, he ?would LOVE to have those wiped out, to be debt ?ee, and not to have to 
but, I can ?t put a price tag on my integrity or my word.? CH8 1 explained that he could not ?sell
this team down the river,? concluding: ?So. It may not land me in the ear, house, job, or ?nancial
situation I want to be in burl conldn face myself if I did anything but workfor this and do it
honestly.? Borges 1'eSponded that he understood, but made clearhis intent: ?No matter what 
don ever tell anyone about our conversation from earlier.?

221. At the direction of the FBI, CH8 1 reconnected with Borges and expressed interest
in Borges? offer. During telephonic contact between the two, Borges advised CH3 1 that he would
need to evaluate how to move forward. Borges followed up asking for CHS ?s employment contract
and stating, ?I?ll make an a?er to buy you out. It will be substantial.? Operating at the direction
of agents, CH8 I responded, ?What will a buyout entail? Like. . . what would I be doing, work"
wise? Borges responded simply, ?Give me a day or two io?gure this out. Borges then started
soliciting CH8 1 for inside information about Ballot Campaign. For example, Borges texted:
?Have you guys started door to door?? Borges and CH8 1 then had the following exchange:

72

225. On September 13, 2019, during a consensually recorded meeting, Borges gave CHS
1 a $15,000 check, ?mded entirely by Company A?to-Generation-Now money. Although in initial
conversations Borges had indicated that the money was an advance for insider information to
defeat Ballot Campaign, when Borges handed the check to CHS 1, he said that it was Borges?s
own money, that no one knew about the transaction, and that it was for the CHS 1?s help in
planning a reunion amongst former staffers. This contradicted what Borges had previously stated.
Showing his corrupt intent, Borges also told the CHS that if this transaction came to light, it would
be bad for both CHS and Borgesmin, fact, Borges told CHS he would ?blow up? the 
house if the information got out, a threat that CHS 1 treated as a joke. Borges then proceeded to
ask CHS 1 about the number of signature collectors working on behalf of the ballot campaign.
Borges also made numerous statements about the Enterprise, including identifying Householder,
Clark, and as being involved. For example, Borges stated, ?Lam-y was putting the
squeeze? on Associate 3, Generation Now?s spokesperson, and?would not allow Associate 3 to
quit; Clark was serving as Householder?s proxy; and that it was ?insane? how much Enterprise
members were making off Company A. Borges also described being present when Enterprise
members met with Company A executives to look at advertisements, and driving the Company A
CEO to see signature collectors who were working on behalf of the Ballot Campaign.

226. On multiple occasions following the meeting, Borges reached out in recorded
phone calls and text messages to CHS 1 to receive the same type of insider information relating to
signature collection to repeal HB 6 that Borges offered payment for during their conversation on
September 1. For example, Borges sent CHS 1-the following messages, among others:

We were told you guys had
120,000 signatures. Any idea if
that?s right?

Any idea how many total
signatures you guys have? We
Were told 80,000 today.

Any fatal you have would make
me a hero. Thanks.

And, despite repeatedly asking for inside information after paying the CHS 1 $15,000 in Company
A-to?Generation?Now money, Borges never again mentioned CHS performing any speci?c work
unrelated to the Ballot Campaign.

227. Other evidence corroborates that Borges? actions were in furtherance of the
Enterprise?s efforts to defeat the Ballot Campaign. Signi?cantly, around the same time that Borges
was in contact with the CHS 1, Borges was in contact with Cespedes. Speci?cally, on September
1, 2019, Borges? cellphone contacted Cespedes? cellphone around That call lasted for
approximately 28 minutes. Less than ten minutes a?er that call, Borges called CHS 1 and spoke
to the CHS for nine minutes. Within one minute of the completion of the call with CHS 1, Borges
attempted to call Cespedes, who did not answer. They eventually connected 10 minutes later and
toll records show the call lasted for 25 minutes and 30 seconds. Within one minute of the

74

contacts occurred in October 2019, when as, explained below, ?Meghan? and ?Marcus? were
contacting and trying to bribe signature collectors working for the ballot initiative.

232. With the money wired from Generation Now to Front Company, the Enterprise paid
the Petition Signature Services Co 2 over $600,000 in October 2019. The same day as the ?rst
wire transfer from Front Company to the Petition Signature Services Co 2, Signature Collector 1
for the Ballot Campaign received the following unsolicited text message from ?Meghan,? which
toll records identify as Contractor 1: -

HNII all Harem 

?1

MI warm 



rsxu Ham 

   

   
 

My name is Me hen

'iitt?

 

 

   
   

   

With [From

you aren?t Company)

me you currently I?d Er contracb

working on '1 50" I would love to Speak

would tlke to otter you a with you at your earliest "earn-t

deal at 32.500 to sign convenience i -

on our team today. 1. .. It You aren't interested in

13 ii . my oller- no worries.

Seems Thank you .1

    

Would you be interested 

riyhname is han {Front in a quick phone call?
Carr? 1 1
It you aren't We issue contracts and
curren?lly l?d Er conttifct- wires very quickly
1 wout ova to apes

with you at your earliest
convenience

 

 

 

Fog?q 

a Ci

     

a so a?I

233 The following day, ?Ma1cus? p111 po1tedly from F1 ont Company, contacted
Signature Collector 1, Signature Collector 2, and Signature Collector 3, via text (copied below)
and sevelal othel signature collectors. The subscribe1 1ecords for ?Marcus?s telephone number
show contact with these signature collect01s on the date and time in question. Moreover, ?Marcus?
had contact with Contractor 1 around the same time

76

 

237. The Enterprise having access to the Form 153 is consistent with subpoenaed
records. Bank records for Borges? 17 Consulting account show that he paid a private investigations
?rm, over $177,880 between September 13 and October 15, 2019. The last check Borges paid to
the investigation firm indicated that-it was for ?10/8/19,? which is the same date of Contractor 1?s
texts to one of the above signature collectors. This information is consistent with what
Householder?s statements on September 23, 2019.

238. Moreover, any ambiguity as to Marcus? af?liation when he attempted to bribe the
signature collectors is resolved by one of the af?davits ?led in federal court, which included a
copy of the contract sent by ?Marcus? to the signature collectors. The contract confirmed that the
contracting party was Front Company and continued the cash buyout in the af?davits: $25 00, split
into two payments: One half upon execution of this Agreement and One half
immediately following the fulfillment of initial instructions shared with you through
additional conversations with a representative from [Front Company]. . The contract was signed
by on behalf of Front Company and further required that notices be sent to;

Generation Now

c/o- Jeff 
Columbus, OH


239. The contract further had a con?dentiality requirement aimed at concealing both
Generation Now and the agreement itself, showing the Enterprise?s role in bribing the signature
collectors. The confidentiality provision prohibited the signature collector from disclosing: 
the identity ofGenNow; that [name] has been engaged by the [Front Company] to perform the
Services described herein, or the existence, terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement
or the agreement with [Front Again, the ?Services? included providing inside
information relating to the campaign to overturn H3 6. 

240. Like the Enterprise?s efforts to pass HB 6, the Enterprise was working closely with
Company A to defeat the ballot initiative. For example, in September 2019, while the Enterprise
was spending millions trying to defeat the Ballot Campaign, Enterprise~Memb er-and~Company A-
l-Lobbyist Borges referenced a meeting between members of the Enterprise and Company A
executives, including ?the CEO of the company?, a few days earlier:

I was driving those guys back to the airport and they were like we
want to stop and see somebody (a signature gathered. Well . . . I
know for sure there will be one at the Worthington library because
there is one there every day. So we stepped and for sure there was
one there . . . the guy wants to get out and talk to himthe company . . . .

 

43 Emphasis added.
78

 

Company A?l would spend $300 million repurchasing shares from shareholders thereby boosting
stock prices.49

CONCLUSION

248. The above facts establish probable cause that Householder?s Enterprise is an
association-in?fact enterprise affecting interstate commerce, and the Defendants conspired to
participate in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise by agreeing that a co?conspirator would
commit a pattern of racketeering activity. To summarize, while operating togetherwand
functioning as Householder?s ?team??the Defendants enriched themselves and increased
Householder?s political power by: engaging in a scheme to defraud the public of the honest
services of Householder, involving the receipt of millions of dollars in secret bribe payments
through Householder?s 501(c)(4) account in return for Householder taking of?cial action to help
pass a legislative bailout for two nuclear power plants; bribing and attempting to bribe individuals
Working on behalf of the Ballot Campaign in an attempt to receive inside information and defeat
the Ballot Campaign; and concealing the scheme, their illegal activity, and the source of the ?ll?ldS
by transferring the Company payments through other controlled entities and
knowingly engaging in monetary transactions with the proceeds.

249. Based on the forgoing, I request that the Court issue the proposed criminal
complaint, and arrest warrants for the individuals listed below, as there is probable cause to believe
LARRY HOUSEHOLDER, JEFFREY NEIL CLARK, MATTHEW
BORGES, JUAN CESPEDES, and GENERATION NOW have violated 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)
(Conspiracy to Participate, Directly or Indirectly, in the Conduct of an Enterprise?s Affairs through
a Pattern of Racketeering Activity).

 

49 Ohio nuclear bailout bene?ciary OKs extra stock buybacks: Capitol Letter, 2020 WLNR 13486449 (May 13,
2020); 
html.

80