Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

THOMAS E. BRINKMAN, JR., : Case No. 1:09-CV-00326

:
and :
: Judge _______________________
COALITION OPPOSED TO :
ADDITIONAL SPENDING & TAXES : Magistrate Judge ______________
(a/k/a COAST), :
:
and :
:
MARK W. MILLER, :
:
Plaintiffs, : VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
: TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,
v. : PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT
: INJUNCTIONS AND
ARMOND D. BUDISH, Speaker of the : DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
Ohio House of Representatives and :
Chairman of the Joint Legislative Ethics :
Committee of the Ohio General :
Assembly, :
:
and :
:
BILL HARRIS, President of the Ohio :
State Senate and Vice-Chairman of the :
Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of :
the Ohio General Assembly, :
:
and :
:
WILLIAM BATCHELDER, Member of :
the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee :
of the Ohio General Assembly, :
:
and :
:
CAPRI CAFARO, Member of the Joint :
Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio :
General Assembly, :
:
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 2 of 23

and :
:
LOUIS BLESSING, Member of the :
Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of :
the Ohio General Assembly, :
:
and :
:
JOHN CAREY, Member of the Joint :
Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio :
General Assembly, :
:
and :
:
JENNIFER GARRISON, Member of the :
Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of :
the Ohio General Assembly, :
:
and :
:
MATT HUFFMAN, Member of the :
Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of :
the Ohio General Assembly, :
:
and :
:
DALE MILLER, Member of the Joint :
Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio :
General Assembly, :
:
and :
:
SUE MORANO, Member of the Joint :
Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio :
General Assembly, :
:
and :
:
TOM NIEHAUS, Member of the Joint :
Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio :
General Assembly, :
:
and :
:
:
:

2
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 3 of 23

MATTHEW SZOLLOSI, Member of :

the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee :
of the Ohio General Assembly, :
:
and :
:
TONY W. BLEDSOE, Executive :
Director and Legislative Inspector :
General of the Joint Legislative Ethics :
Committee of the Ohio General :
Assembly, :
:
and :
:
JOINT LEGISLATIVE ETHICS :
COMMITTEE OF THE OHIO :
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, :
:
and :
:
JOSEPH T. DETERS, :
Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, :
:
and :
:
RON O’BRIEN, :
Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, :
:
Defendants.

Now come Plaintiffs, THOMAS E. BRINKMAN, JR., COALITION OPPOSED TO

ADDITIONAL SPENDING & TAXES (“COAST”), and MARK W. MILLER and for their

Complaint, allege as follows:

NATURE OF ACTION

1. This is an action to vindicate core First Amendment rights of free speech, freedom

of association and the petitioning of government for redress of grievances, all of which are being

infringed by overly broad and burdensome provisions of the Ohio Ethics Law, Chapter 102 of

3
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 4 of 23

the Ohio Revised Code, and the declared interpretation thereof by the Defendant Joint

Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio General Assembly.

2. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and injunctive relief enjoining Defendants

from enforcing against Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, section 102.03(A)(4) of the Ohio

Revised Code (together, the “Statute”) which prohibits former members or employees of the

Ohio General Assembly, for one year after the conclusion of such service or employment, from

representing or acting on behalf of any person or organization on any matter before the Ohio

General Assembly, any committee of the Ohio General Assembly or the Controlling Board of the

State of Ohio. The Statute, on its face and as applied, unjustifiably and unconstitutionally

restricts Plaintiffs’ core political speech rights, associational rights and petitioning rights in

violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as made applicable to the

several states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as

unconstitutionally discriminates against the Plaintiffs in violation of the Equal Protection Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Thomas E. Brinkman, Jr., is a citizen and taxpayer of the State of Ohio

and is a member and supporter of Plaintiff Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes.

Furthermore, from January 2001 to December 2008, Plaintiff Brinkman was a member of the

Ohio House of Representatives, one of the two bodies comprising the Ohio General Assembly.

4. Plaintiff Mark W. Miller is a citizen and taxpayer of the State of Ohio, and is a

member, supporter and authorized agent of Plaintiff Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending

& Taxes. Furthermore, Plaintiff Miller is the Treasurer of Plaintiff Coalition Opposed to

Additional Spending & Taxes. Through Plaintiff Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending &

4
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 5 of 23

Taxes, Plaintiff Miller is able to join and associate with other individuals in order to collectively

advocate and promote the political issues which Miller and such other individuals support.

5. Plaintiff Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending & Taxes (“COAST”) is an

unincorporated association of individuals organized as a political action committee under the

laws of the State of Ohio. Plaintiff COAST brings this action on behalf of itself and its members

and supporters.1

6. Defendant Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio General Assembly (the

“JLEC”) is composed of twelve members selected from the Ohio General Assembly, with such

membership evenly divided between the two major political parties.

7. Defendant Armond Budish is a member and speaker of the Ohio House of

Representatives, is one of the twelve members of the JLEC and serves as chairman of the JLEC.

Defendant Budish is named herein in his official capacity only.

8. Defendant Bill Harris is a member and president of the Ohio State Senate, is one

of the twelve members of the JLEC and serves as vice-chairman of the JLEC. Defendant Harris

is named herein in his official capacity only.

9. Defendant William Batchelder is a member of the Ohio House of Representatives

and is one of the twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Batchelder is named herein in his

official capacity only.

10. Defendant Capri Cafaro is a member of the Ohio State Senate and is one of the

twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Cafaro is named herein in his official capacity only.

1
References to COAST include both the organization as an entity and its individual
supporters and members.

5
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 6 of 23

11. Defendant Louis Blessing is a member of the Ohio House of Representatives and

is one of the twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Blessing is named herein in his official

capacity only.

12. Defendant John Carey is a member of the Ohio State Senate and is one of the

twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Carey is named herein in his official capacity only.

13. Defendant Jennifer Garrison is a member of the Ohio House of Representatives

and is one of the twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Garrison is named herein in his

official capacity only.

14. Defendant Matt Huffman is a member of the Ohio House of Representatives and

is one of the twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Huffman is named herein in his official

capacity only.

15. Defendant Dale Miller is a member of the Ohio State Senate and is one of the

twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Miller is named herein in his official capacity only.

16. Defendant Sue Morano is a member of the Ohio State Senate and is one of the

twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Morano is named herein in his official capacity only.

17. Defendant Tom Niehaus is a member of the Ohio State Senate and is one of the

twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Niehaus is named herein in his official capacity only.

18. Defendant Matthew Szollosi is a member of the Ohio House of Representatives

and is one of the twelve members of the JLEC. Defendant Szollosi is named herein in his

official capacity only.

19. Defendant Tony W. Bledsoe is the executive director of the JLEC and serves as

the legislative inspector general of the JLEC. Defendant Bledsoe is named herein in his official

capacity only.

6
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 7 of 23

20. Defendant Joseph T. Deters is the Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney and

Defendant Ron O’Brien is the Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney. In such capacities, they

are charged under the Ohio Constitution with prosecuting crimes within their respective

jurisdictions. The desired activities of Plaintiff Brinkman and Plaintiff COAST referenced in

this Complaint will occur either exclusively or primarily in those counties within the jurisdiction

of Defendants Deters and O’Brien. These Defendants are sued in their official capacities only.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1331, as this action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution; under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), in that it is brought to redress deprivations, under

color of state law, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the United States Constitution;

under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(4), in that it seeks to secure equitable relief under an Act of Congress,

specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for the protection of civil and

constitutional rights; under 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 57 to secure declaratory

relief; under 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and Fed R. Civ. 65 to secure preliminary and permanent

injunctive relief; and under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, to award attorneys fees and costs.

22. Venue is proper within this judicial district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b) and Local Rule 82.1, as (i) all of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs arose within this

judicial district and division and (ii) some of the Defendants are situated within this judicial

district and division.

7
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 8 of 23

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Background of Plaintiffs COAST and Brinkman

23. Founded in 1999, Plaintiff COAST advocates for restraint in government taxing

and spending at the national, state and local level in Ohio. In fact, Plaintiff Brinkman is one of

the two co-founders of COAST.

24. Over the years, Plaintiff COAST has advocated on tax and spending issues before

the Ohio legislature, the Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners, the Cincinnati City

Council and many other administrative and legislative bodies. Plaintiff COAST is also active in

advocating for the election or defeat of candidates on the ballot each year, and on ballot issues

throughout the State of Ohio. Plaintiff COAST intends to continue this advocacy for many years

into the future.

25. Historically, Plaintiff Brinkman has acted in the role of official “Spokesman” for

Plaintiff COAST, supplementing the Chairman of Plaintiff COAST in speaking to the news

media and civic organizations on issues of public importance.

26. Plaintiff COAST conducts its advocacy activities in a variety of ways, including

without limitation sending an e-mailed newsletter that is distributed to approximately 10,000

persons monthly, operating a web site (www.gocoast.org) and blog (www.coast-

usa.blogspot.com), sending direct mailings on issues of importance and for fundraising purposes,

sending press releases, holding press conferences, hosting rallies, direct lobbying of various

legislative bodies on issues of importance, as well as other events.

27. Plaintiff COAST also encourages its members and supporters to contact their

legislators on matters of importance, including pending legislation. This is done through e-

mailed Action Alerts to Plaintiff COAST’s e-mail distribution lists, physical mailings, “virtual

8
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 9 of 23

town hall meetings” and in-person contacts. “Virtual town hall meetings” are conference calls

among thousands of voters initiated by nearly-simultaneous automated calls out to thousands of

households.

28. Plaintiff COAST, on behalf of its members, has also directly lobbied legislators

through Plaintiff COAST’s leadership and by testimony before legislative bodies.

29. Plaintiff COAST and Plaintiff Brinkman in concert desire to engage in activities

presently prohibited by the Statute.

30. Specifically, Plaintiff COAST presently desires to advocate on a variety of issues

pending before the Ohio General Assembly, including without limitation the state budget

currently being considered by the legislature, school finance issues, accountability and

transparency issues, and stimulus money spending. Additionally, in this dynamic environment

as it relates to state spending and tax policy, Plaintiff COAST intends to advocate on a variety of

issues going forward, including without limitation the upcoming capital budget.

Immediate advocacy on State biennial budget bill desired

31. Plaintiff COAST, as principal, desires for Plaintiff Brinkman, as its agent,

representative and spokesperson, to advocate on its behalf on matters now and in the future

pending before the Ohio General Assembly by direct communication with legislators, legislative

staff, and executive branch officials.

32. As required by the Ohio Revised Code, every two years, the Governor submits a

proposed biennial operating budget to the General Assembly.

33. The biennial operating budget is for a period of two years – a biennium – which

begins on July 1 of odd-numbered years and ends 24 months later on June 30.

9
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 10 of 23

34. On or about April 29, 2009, by a vote of 53-45, the Ohio House of

Representatives passed its version of the biennial budget for fiscal years 2010 and 2011.

35. On or about the next day, i.e. April 30, 2009 the Ohio State Senate commenced

consideration of the biennial budget.

36. Included within the proposed biennial budget are several matters which Plaintiffs

oppose. For example, within the proposed budget is $3.1 million in an operating subsidy for the

failed National Underground Railroad Freedom Center – $1.55 million per year for the next two

years.

37. When the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center was originally

promoted, it reportedly promised to bring one million visitors to Cincinnati from all over the

world.

38. Today, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center reportedly attracts

fewer than 62,000 paying visitors.

39. When it was originally proposed and sought federal, state, county and city

subsidies in support of its $110 million construction cost, executives with the National

Underground Railroad Freedom Center also reportedly promised the taxpayers that the Center

would not ever require any operating subsidy.

40. Then, approximately three years ago, Freedom Center CEO John Pepper

reportedly announced that because the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center was not

meeting its financial and attendance projections, it required millions of tax dollars per year in

perpetuity.

41. Just recently, on April 15 of this year, while the biennial budget was pending

before the Ohio House of Representatives, the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center

10
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 11 of 23

reportedly hosted a cocktail reception at the offices of its high-priced lobbyists in Columbus for

state legislators. At the time, the Freedom Center was reportedly seeking $3.75 million from the

state budget, including an astounding $1.4 million to relocate its front door.

42. As the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center reneges on its prior

promise – to not require any governmental operating subsidies – and seeks, instead, to continue

to siphon taxpayers’ dollars for its operations, Plaintiff COAST has sounded the trumpet of this

abuse of the taxpayers. But time is critical and the battle is already underway in the Ohio

General Assembly. Yet, the ability of COAST to advocate its position with state legislators is

constrained by the Statute.

43. Brinkman desires to advocate for and lobby on behalf of COAST, as his client, on

an uncompensated basis, on matters now pending before the Ohio General Assembly, as well as

issue forthcoming before the Ohio General Assembly, by direct communication with legislators,

legislative staff, or executive branch officials. This advocacy will include positions on the

biennial budget before the Ohio General Assembly (including, that presently before the Ohio

State Senate, as well as any conference committee between the Ohio State Senate and the Ohio

House of Representatives), including the funding therein of the National Underground Railroad

Freedom Center.

JLEC and the Subject Statute

44. The JLEC is the body responsible for governing, inter alios, former members of

the Ohio General Assembly with respect to the state ethics laws (Chapter 102 of the Ohio

Revised Code).

11
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 12 of 23

45. As part of the state’s ethics law, the Ohio General Assembly has limited and

restricted the ability of its former members to lobby on behalf of others. Specifically, Section

102.03(A)(4) of the Ohio Revised Code provides that:

For a period of one year after the conclusion of employment or

service as a member or employee of the general assembly, no
former member or employee of the general assembly shall
represent, or act in a representative capacity for, any person on any
matter before the general assembly, any committee of the general
assembly, or the controlling board. . . . As used in division (A)(4)
of this section “person” does not include any state agency or
political subdivision of the state.

46. As used in this restriction, i.e., R.C. 102.03(A)(4), the term “matter” is defined as

including “the proposal, consideration, or enactment of statutes, resolutions, or constitutional

amendments” and “represent” includes “any formal or informal appearance before, or any

written or oral communication with, any public agency on behalf of any person.”

47. Additionally, as used in R.C. 102.03(A)(4), the term “person” includes “an

individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, and association,” though the

term explicitly does not include “any state agency or political subdivision of the state.”

48. Thus, former members of the Ohio General Assembly, such as Plaintiff

Brinkman, may not, for a period of one year following their service in the Ohio General

Assembly, “represent” any “person” on any “matter” pending before the Ohio General

Assembly, any committee thereof or the controlling board.

49. Due to the explicit statutory exclusion from the definition of “person” contained

in R.C. 102.03(A)(4), the former member may still, during that same one-year period,

“represent” a state agency or political subdivision on any “matter” pending before the Ohio

General Assembly, any committee thereof or the controlling board.

12
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 13 of 23

50. In Ohio, there are three governmental bodies principally responsible for the

enforcement of the state’s ethics laws: (i) the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee of the Ohio

General Assembly; (ii) the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Ohio

Supreme Court; and (iii) the Ohio Ethics Commission.

51. The Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline has jurisdiction over

matters relating to judicial officers and employees, and candidates for judicial office.

52. The Ohio Ethics Commission has jurisdiction over matters relating to any

individuals not within the bailiwick of the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee or the Board of

Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.

53. With respect to the enforcement or potential enforcement of the Statute relative to

former members of the Ohio General Assembly (including Plaintiff Brinkman), the Joint

Legislative Ethics Committee is the “appropriate ethics commission” as defined in Section

102.01(F)(1) of the Ohio Revised Code.

54. Accordingly, the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee would be the body to receive

or initiate complaints against Plaintiff Brinkman for allegedly violating the Statute.

Criminal prosecution of violations of subject statute

55. Once a complaint has been filed for a violation of the Statute, the Joint Legislative

Ethics Committee is empowered to investigate such complaints or charges.

56. If the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee determines by a preponderance of the

evidence that a violation of the Statute occurred, then such finding must be reported to the

appropriate prosecuting authority for prosecution of the violation.

57. Furthermore, there is no statutory requirement that a referral by the JLEC must

occur before any criminal prosecution may be considered or undertaken by a county prosecuting

13
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 14 of 23

attorney. Thus, county prosecuting attorneys may directly initiate such actions without a referral

by JLEC.

58. The activities in which Plaintiff COAST and Plaintiff Brinkman desire to engage,

but have not done so due to the prohibitions within the Statute and the attendant potential for

criminal liability, will likely occur in Hamilton and Franklin Counties.

59. Thus, the appropriate prosecuting attorney for the prosecution of any alleged

violation of the Statute would be Defendants Deters and O’Brien.

60. As part of its duty to serve as an advisory body to the general assembly and to the

general assembly’s individual members, the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee, through its

executive director, issued a memorandum setting forth “a summary of the post employment/

service restrictions ‘revolving door law’ as set forth in the Revised Code and as interpreted by

the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee (JLEC).” A copy of that memorandum is attached hereto

as Exhibit A.

61. Within this memorandum, the JLEC specifically addressed whether the

“revolving door law” was applicable only to situations where a former member received

compensation. After referencing three previously issued advisory opinions, the subject

memorandum continued (with emphasis in the original):

Although the fact pattern in each [of the former] opinion[s] includes a
compensation component, please be advised that compensation IS NOT a
required element of the Revolving Door prohibition. The language found in
§102.03(A)(4) states: “no former member or employee of the general assembly
shall represent, or act in a representative capacity”. Thus, whether compensated
or not, a former Member or legislative employee is prohibited from engaging in
direct communication with legislators, legislative staff, or executive branch
officials in regards to any matter pending before the General Assembly on
behalf of another person or entity.

The following are general guidelines to commonly asked questions:

...

14
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 15 of 23

• You are prohibited from advocating for your client, whether

compensated or not, by direct communication with legislators,
legislative staff, or executive branch officials on any legislative matter
pending before the General Assembly.
• Your client and its agents are prohibited from contact legislative staff
and executive agency officials on your behalf [for example, “Former
Senator _______ thought you should know”] for the purpose of
advocating on pending legislation.
...
• You may attend public hearings, but may not testify.

62. These same restrictions are highlighted on JLEC’s web site of the JLEC

(http://www.jlec-olig.state.oh.us/) under the section entitled “Ethics” and the subject of

“Revolving Door”.

63. Section 102.99 of the Ohio Revised Code provides that “Whoever violates . . .

102.03 of the Revised Code is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree.” A first degree

misdemeanor is punishable in Ohio with a fine of up to $1,000 and incarceration of up to 180

days.

64. Section 2923.03 of the Ohio Revised Code provides that a party that is complicit

in the commission of an offense “is guilty of complicity in the commission of an offense, and

shall be prosecuted and punished as if he were a principal offender.” The prohibited activities

under in Section 2923.03 of the Ohio Revised Code includes soliciting or procuring, aiding and

abetting, and causing another to commit the subject offense.

65. Section 2923.02 of the Ohio Revised Code provides that a party who is complicit

in an attempt to commit an offense “is guilty of an attempt to commit an offense. . . . [Such

attempt is] an offense of the next lesser degree than the offense attempted.”

66. As a result of Sections 2923.02 and 2923.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, if Plaintiff

COAST, as principal, were to engage Plaintiff Brinkman as its agent, representative and

15
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 16 of 23

spokesperson, on a paid or non-paid basis, for activities prohibited under Section 102.03 of the

Ohio Revised Code, it would be exposed to criminal prosecution as severe as that faced by

Plaintiff Brinkman for a direct violation of the Statute.

67. As a result of Sections 102.03(A)(4) of the Ohio Revised Code, if Plaintiff

Brinkman were to “act in a representative capacity for [Plaintiff COAST] on any matter before

the general assembly, any committee of the general assembly, or the controlling board,” he

would be exposed to the potential of criminal investigation and/or prosecution.

Unequal treatment of clients and former members of Ohio General Assembly

under subject Statute

68. Plaintiff COAST frequently stands in a position of advocating against the official

position of public agencies and employees, and their agents, against more government spending

and broadened government power. This includes advocating against positions advanced by

agents of the state government and those advanced by agents of cities, villages, townships,

school boards, and other local government entities.

69. As a result of the exception in the Statute that allows former members of the Ohio

General Assembly to “represent” state agency or political subdivision on any “matter” pending

before the Ohio General Assembly, any committee thereof or the controlling board, Plaintiff

COAST is at a particular disadvantage under the Statute as compared to state agencies and

political subdivisions.

70. Further, as a result of the exception in the Statute that allows former members of

the Ohio General Assembly to “represent” state agency or political subdivision on any “matter”

pending before the Ohio General Assembly, any committee thereof or the controlling board,

Plaintiff Brinkman and other former members of the Ohio General Assembly who desires to

16
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 17 of 23

affiliate with Plaintiff COAST (or other organizations that are not state agencies or political

subdivisions) in a principal-agent relationship are at a particular disadvantage under the Statute

as compared to those who desire to advocate for state agencies and political subdivisions.

71. Thus, one effect of the Statute is advancing the interests of those who advocate

for more government spending and power (i.e., state agencies and political subdivisions) against

Plaintiff COAST and other organizations similarly situated who desire to advocate for less

government spending and more limited government powers.

Violations of Plaintiffs constitutional rights

72. The Statute unconstitutionally restricts Plaintiffs’ core political speech rights,

associational rights and petitioning rights in violation of the First Amendment to the United

States Constitution, as made applicable to the several states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution, as well as unconstitutionally discriminates against the Plaintiffs in

violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution.

73. Beyond the use of Representative Brinkman to advocate on behalf of Plaintiff

COAST on issues before the Ohio legislature, Plaintiff COAST desires in the future to utilize the

services of recent retirees (i.e., less than one year) from the Ohio General Assembly to lobby

members of the Ohio General Assembly, its Committees and the Controlling Board.

74. Further, others in both the positions of Plaintiffs COAST and Brinkman will be

unconstitutionally burdened by the restrictions of the Statute.

17
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 18 of 23

COUNT I

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION

(Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201, et seq., Fed. R. Civ. P. 57
and to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and FED. R. CIV. P. 65)

75. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the foregoing

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

76. The Statute on its face, and as applied, impermissibly burdens Plaintiffs’ core

political speech rights, associational rights and petitioning rights guaranteed by the First and

Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

77. By prohibiting Plaintiff Brinkman from “advocating for [his client, Plaintiff

COAST], whether compensated or not, by direct communication with legislators, legislative

staff, or executive branch officials on any legislative matter pending before the General

Assembly,” and imposing sanctions if he should engage in those activities, including the

potential for criminal sanctions under Section 102.99 of the Ohio Revised Code, the Statute

violates or unconstitutionally infringes the core political speech rights, associational rights and

petitioning rights of Plaintiff Brinkman under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution.

78. By prohibiting Plaintiff COAST from associating with Plaintiff Brinkman in an

principal-agent relationship for the purpose of having Plaintiff Brinkman “advocate[e] for

[Plaintiff COAST], whether compensated or not, by direct communication with legislators,

legislative staff, or executive branch officials on any legislative matter pending before the

General Assembly,” and potentially exposing Plaintiff COAST to criminal sanctions for

engaging in these activities, or attempting to engage in these activities, the Statute violates or

unconstitutionally infringes the core political speech rights, associational rights and petitioning

18
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 19 of 23

rights of Plaintiff COAST under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution.

79. Further, under 102.03(A)(4) Plaintiff COAST cannot legally utilize the services of

a lobbyist that served in the Ohio General Assembly in the past year (such as Plaintiff Brinkman)

to lobby the Ohio General Assembly, its committees and the Controlling Board, while State

agencies and political subdivisions may legally engage in this came affiliation and conduct. This

disparate treatment is in violation of the Equal Protection rights of Plaintiff COAST as

guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

80. Furthermore, because former members of the Ohio General Assembly (such as

Plaintiff Brinkman) are prohibited by the Statute from affiliating with and lobbying on behalf of

private persons or entities (such as Plaintiff COAST), while such former members are permitted

to affiliate with and lobby on behalf of state agencies and political subdivisions on any matters

pending before the Ohio General Assembly, any committee thereof or the controlling board, the

Statute impermissibly violates the Equal Protection rights of Plaintiff Brinkman as guaranteed by

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

81. As a proximate result of the Statute and Defendants’ interpretation and

application thereof as described above, Plaintiffs (and others) have suffered irreparable injury

and will continue in the future to suffer irreparable injury, in that they have and will be deprived

of their the core political speech rights, associational rights and petitioning rights as guaranteed

by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

82. In order to prevent further infringement or restrictions upon the constitutional

rights of Plaintiffs and others, it is appropriate and proper that a declaratory judgment be issued,

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and FED. R. CIV. P. 57, declaring the Statute unconstitutional.

19
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 20 of 23

83. Furthermore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and FED. R. CIV. P. 65, it is

appropriate and hereby requested that this Court issue a preliminary and permanent injunction

enjoining the Defendants from enforcing the Statute.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS

TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
(U.S.C. § 1983)

84. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations set forth in the foregoing

paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

85. All acts alleged herein of the Defendants and their agents, servants, employees, or

persons acting at its behest or direction, were done and are continuing to be done under the color

and pretense of state law.

86. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have

suffered additional compensable injury in the nature of constitutional deprivations.

87. The Statute and the policy, practice and custom (and the implementation thereof

by the Defendants) of making criminal the association of Plaintiff COAST with Plaintiff

Brinkman for the purpose of communicating to others violates Plaintiffs’ core political speech

rights, associational rights and petitioning rights under the First Amendment (as incorporated

against Defendants by the Fourteenth Amendment) and the Fourteenth Amendment right to the

equal protection of the laws.

88. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have been irreparably

injured, and, together with others seeking to exercise their constitutional rights, will continue to

be irreparably injured in the future, in that they have been and will continue to be deprived of

20
 Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 21 of 23

their right to free speech and association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the

Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants and that the Court:

A. Declare Sections 102.03(A)(4) of the Ohio Revised Code to be in violation of the

United States Constitution;

B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing Sections

102.03(A)(4) of the Ohio Revised Code and the rules promulgated pursuant
thereto against Plaintiffs and others similar situated;

C. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988 and other applicable law, award Plaintiffs’ their
costs and expenses incurred in bringing this action, including their reasonable
attorneys’ fees; and

D. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems equitable, just and proper.

Respectfully submitted

_/s/ Christopher P. Finney____________

Christopher P. Finney (0038998)
FINNEY, STAGNARO, SABA & PATTERSON CO., LPA
2623 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45208
Telephone: (513) 533-2980
Facsimile: (513) 533-2990
Email: cfinney@fssp-law.com

Curt C. Hartman (0064242)

THE LAW FIRM OF CURT C. HARTMAN
3749 Fox Point Court
Amelia, Ohio 45102
Telephone: (513) 752-8800
Facsimile: (513) 752-6621
Email: hartmanlawfirm@fuse.net

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

21
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 22 of 23
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 23 of 23
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1-2 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 1 of 4

Exhibit A
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1-2 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1-2 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:09-cv-00326-SJD Document 1-2 Filed 05/11/2009 Page 4 of 4