When a candidate runs for political office, one thing they are required to do is familiarize themselves with campaign finance law. These laws can be difficult for a lay person to understand. In Hudson, a municipal ordinance limiting campaign contributions, including in-kind contributions, to $100 brings added challenges. One consistent theme in recent city elections is that the cluster of donors, candidates, and supporters of the Weinstein family, Nicole Kowalski, and Jane Howington either don’t particularly understand the concept of an in-kind contribution or they just completely ignore it. So, today we are going to depart from our normal reporting to do a deep dive: what is an in-kind contribution.
The most important thing to understand about an in-kind contribution is: intent does NOT matter. This seems to be a fairly serious misunderstanding from a variety of people. Most recently this was proven during the recent Ohio Elections Commission case regarding the Clocktower Collaborative, when Jane Howington repeatedly stated that it was not her intent to create an in-kind contribution to Hudson City Council candidates. However, as the law states, that is not the threshold. So, according to Ohio Secretary of State campaign finance manual, what is an in-kind contribution?:
“In-Kind Contribution: Anything of value, other than money, that is used to influence the results of an election or is transferred to or used in support of or opposition to a candidate or political committee. To qualify as an in-kind contribution, the item or service must have been made with the consent of, in coordination, cooperation, or consultation with, or at the request or suggestion of, the benefited candidate, committee, fund, party, entity, or their authorized agents. In-kind contributions received are considered a form of a contribution, and therefore, subject to all laws or rules on contributions. Examples include postage, signs, receiving office space without paying rent, the assistance of personnel compensated by a third party, or the purchase of media advertising by a third party on behalf of a committee.”
The combination of willingness to continually keep posting on social media and lack of understanding of and/or the refusal to obey campaign finance law is a dumb and dangerous combination for the Katie Madios and Amanda Weinsteins of the world. Normally, it would be very hard to prove that the amount of the in-kind contribution is above the maximum donation threshold and that the money spent was specifically to support or oppose a candidate, and with their coordination. But, fortunately, they have been very proud to boast about these things in public on social media, and explicitly lay out the pathway for how money spent becomes an in-kind contribution. Casey Weinstein just went through this with his involvement with illegal PAC Clocktower Collaborative. He clearly knows the laws.
To start with, the recent Hudson Inclusive Playground fundraiser was put on by Madio and her real estate partner Kelsey Wozniak. In of itself, that would not be a problem. However, from the jump it was clear that the intent was to commingle politics into the event, for the benefit of specific candidates. The first invite, and Facebook event description, of the event stated that guests would hear from three specific city council candidates.
Somehow, event organizers want people to believe that they just magically happened to schedule the event on a night when all three of those specifically named candidates were free, without somehow coordinating schedules so that those three could be available. Of course, that benefit was not given to any other candidates in Hudson. If it had been, they would have known that Councilman Chris Banweg, who has consistently supported the project through his votes, was on active duty military service, and could not have attended.
After vehemently claiming that no political activities occurred at the event, photos of fundraising links and political material handed out showed that was a lie, as we discussed in our previous article. Despite the protests that “any candidate could have done that”, Katie Madio made up specific QR fundraising links ahead of time for specific candidates, and placed them at the same table at the HIP raffle tickets. According to witnesses at the event, the same person soliciting people to buy raffle tickets for HIP also described how to use the QR codes to make donations to the city council candidates.
As previously stated, Madio couldn’t help but take to social media to comment, which is where the trouble truly begins. She makes a set of statements that explicitly lay out her intent to spend money on the event, and that she was doing so to support specific candidates. For example, she stated; “I am a private Hudson citizen that voiced my personal support for candidates.”
Again, as the definition of an in-kind contribution shows, specifically supporting or opposing a set of candidates is one of the thresholds for triggering an in-kind contribution. While Madio no doubt has the ability to voice her support for candidates, as she suggests, spending money on those candidates behalf, with their coordination, becomes an in-kind contribution. Madio endorsed “her” preferred candidates on the stage after HIP founder Megan Higgins spoke, and with Higgins standing on the stage. Despite initially vowing to do so, Madio has not released video of this portion of the event. Even if other candidates had attended, they would not have had access to the stage or Madio’s endorsement. While it is entirely legal for a private individual to endorse candidates as they see fit, spending money to promote events for one group, then using the money you spent on the event to do things such as stand up and make personal endorsements is a form of an in-kind contribution, whether it is intended as such or not. As this is exactly what happened with the Clocktower Collaborative, this is not exactly path breaking campaign finance law.
Madio also took to social media to show that, in fact, the placement of the QR codes and campaign literature was very much in coordination with the candidates, stating; “AND yes I allowed the candidates to place their QR codes on a back table because I PAID for the event and I am a PRIVATE citizen.”
Madio also called some of the attendees of the HIP fundraiser “spies” further adding to the fact that some people were not welcome at her HIP/campaign fundraiser.
It is ironic to see a person making a statement that thoroughly proves the charge being levied against them without realizing how incriminating it is. Madio admits that she paid for the event, coordinated with the candidates to give them a benefit. She has that freedom, but paying for an event that helps promote candidates, even if it is not solely for the candidates, provides them with a benefit that triggers the definition of an in-kind contribution. Additionally, since it was coordinated with specific candidates schedules, and other candidates were not included in the planning, and could not have attended even if they had wanted to, her point about other candidates being able to do so seems a bit pathetic. She certainly has the freedom to do what she said she did, but it requires the candidates knowing that they have now benefitted from an in-kind contribution and reporting as such on their campaign finance accounts. Only time will tell whether they are actually planning to do so.
Finally, the last unknown part of the puzzle involves how much was spent. Fortunately, here too Madio and Wozniak can’t help themselves on social media. Remember an in-kind contribution can be more than just money. As Madio herself notes; “The effort, time, and resources I invested as well as my partner – both countless hours and thousands of dollars…”
Madio’s comment that “not a single candidate had any input into the planning or execution of this event” is directly contradicted by the original event invites and her statement that she allowed candidates to place campaign literature and QR codes.
As if to prove the point that what should have been a politics free fundraiser for a worthy cause was effectively turned into a shadow meet and greet for political candidates, one Hudson resident even admitted that she considered attending the HIP fundraiser primarily to meet one of the City Council candidates.
Campaign finance is admittedly complicated. The fact that in-kind contributions can be triggered regardless of intent means that candidates have to be very careful about where they go and how they attend events. What is most disturbing is that Amanda Weinstein knows better. Her husband has run for City Council and state legislative seats, and they have had experience with Ohio campaign finance law for close to a decade. But, as Council President Foster noted, whether it is the Clocktower Collaborative (which Casey donated to), the HIP supporters Madio and Wozniak, former City Council President Bill Wooldredge (who was sent a cease and desist letter from the state auditor for using city resources for campaigns) or former City Councilman George Roth (who was kicked off the ballot in 2019 for having an illegal interest in a city of Hudson contract), there is a specific group of people who either don’t know or don’t care about proper campaign finance law. Interestingly, this group all consistently donates to and supports to the same group of candidates year after year. Hudson deserves better.
Illegal PAC Timeline Contradicts Weinstein’s Excuse For Funding
