## Facts

- In the 1997 Macedonia City Council election, Nick Molnar, James Predovic, Anna Hejduk, and Clarence E. Johnson ran as a slate using a campaign committee, The Team Working for You (TWY).
- TWY caused a political advertisement to be published in a local newspaper criticizing rival candidate Peggy (Patricia) Spraggins.
- The advertisement included three factual assertions about Spraggins: (1) that she was “currently campaigning against industrial growth and overdevelopment,” (2) that she worked with an out-of-town developer in 1987 to rezone wooded property from residential to industrial and actively campaigned for the developer against residents’ protests, and (3) that she “stopped” a 1994 sewer-rate referendum petition, resulting in a rate increase without voter input.
- Spraggins filed an administrative complaint alleging the statements violated Ohio’s campaign false-statement law, R.C. 3517.21(B)(10), which prohibits knowingly or recklessly disseminating a false statement about a candidate.
- After evidentiary hearings, the Ohio Elections Commission (OEC), applying a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, found the three statements false, attributed dissemination of the ad to TWY and its members, dismissed the complaint as to the newspaper, and referred the matter to the county prosecutor.
- TWY and the individual candidates appealed; the common pleas court affirmed the OEC’s decision.

## Issues

1. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported findings that appellants disseminated the statements and did so knowingly or with reckless disregard for truth or falsity as required by R.C. 3517.21(B)(10).
2. Whether clear and convincing evidence supported findings that the three challenged statements were false.
3. Whether the common pleas court abused its discretion in affirming the OEC under the administrative-review standard requiring “reliable, probative, and substantial” evidence and accordance with law.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the common pleas court, which had affirmed the OEC’s order.
- The court held the record supported, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants caused dissemination of the advertisement and satisfied the statute’s mental-state requirement (knowledge or reckless disregard).
- The court held the record supported, by clear and convincing evidence, that each of the three specified statements about Spraggins was false.
- The court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining the OEC’s findings were supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under R.C. 3517.21(B)(10), a violation requires proof that a person disseminated or caused dissemination of a false statement about a candidate with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth or falsity.
- In reviewing an elections commission order, the common pleas court assesses whether the order is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence and is in accordance with law.
- On further appeal, an appellate court reviews the common pleas court’s judgment for abuse of discretion and does not reweigh evidence or substitute its credibility determinations for those made by the agency and trial court.
- The agency may apply a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard to determine falsity and the speaker’s knowledge or recklessness in campaign false-statement proceedings.

## Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the administrative finding that TWY and its candidate-members violated Ohio’s campaign false-statement statute by causing dissemination of a campaign advertisement containing three false factual assertions about an opponent, made with knowledge or reckless disregard, and it deferred to the agency’s factfinding and the trial court’s affirmance under the governing administrative-review standards.


The Team Working for You v. Ohio Elections Comm'n, 142 Ohio App. 3d 114, 754 N.E.2d 273 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2001)