Lawyers are fighting back against political transparency activist Chris Hicks in his request for information into the failed campaign of Ohio House of Representatives candidate Allen Freeman.

Freeman was backed for the House District 66 seat by former Ohio House of Representatives Speaker Larry Householder in 2020. District 66 contains Brown County and a portion of Clermont County.

Following the election, he filed a campaign finance report with the Ohio Elections Commission that Hicks alleges contains false information.

The OEC has scheduled a full hearing on July 15 and has given Hicks subpoena power under its name so he can prepare his case against Freeman.

Freeman attorney Don Brey and Hicks have been exchanging emails in the case and Hicks provided those emails to The News Democrat.

Attorney Ron O’Brien is also objecting to Hick’s request for information on behalf of his client The Strategy Group, which was involved in advertising in the district on behalf of Freeman.

O’Brien was also involved in the email exchanges.

The following was exchanged between Brey and Hicks after the deadline for information requested by Hicks expired on April 9.

Dear Mr. Hicks,

As you know, I represent Allen Freeman regarding the Ohio Elections Commission case you have brought against him. You have purportedly served a subpoena upon my client demanding that he produce documents and answer certain questions posed by you. In fact, your “subpoena” is unlawful and void, and my client has no duty to respond to it.

Brey maintained that Freeman has the right not to answer any questions posed by Hicks and said that Hicks was deliberately trying to damage the reputation of Freeman.

Moreover, you have shown a consistent pattern of seeking to undermine my client’s reputation and good name. Given this, it is reasonable to anticipate that any answers to your questions would be misused by you to unjustly tarnish my client’s well-earned reputation for integrity.

Thus, we decline to answer questions that we have no duty to answer.

Brey also said that Hicks is going too far in his requests for information.

Furthermore, your illegal subpoena for documents is overbroad and unduly burdensome. You demand sensitive personal and political information that has absolutely nothing to do with the allegations of your complaint…You have demanded documents far exceeding these limitations. You have sought to conduct a “fishing expedition” for any documents – relevant or not – that can be misused by you to tarnish my client’s good name. This is an abuse of the elections commission process.

Meanwhile, O’Brien has submitted a motion to the Ohio Elections Commission to quash the subpoena issued by Hicks to The Strategy Group Company for documents and interrogatories.

O’Brien claims in the motion that his client is not a party to the dispute between Hicks and Freeman and is therefore not required to respond to Hick’s demand for information.

In an e-mail to OEC Director Philip Richter, O’Brien wrote “As you are aware, Mr. Hicks requested the issues be raised via motion rather than informal discussion seeking resolution. For the record I also note that the Subpoena for documents was not properly served, and is overbroad and unduly burdensome, which issues are presently reserved and not waived.”

Hicks responded to Brey and O’Brien in a collective email.

Mr. Brey / Mr. O’Brien:

Thanks for your notes, after 5 PM on the due date for discovery replies, that, in my view, attack the authority and legitimacy of the Commission. Namely the use of dilatory tactics, “distinction without a difference” arguments about “method of service” and blanket assertions that discovery is “unlawful.” Good faith and “working it out” are essential elements of civil discovery. Weak arguments on the day that discovery replies are due shows arrogance and bad faith.

Hicks pointed out that he was following OEC instructions in his requests for information.

He then closed the email with some demands of his own.

It is clear now that you both have no interest in getting to the bottom of these matters. Instead, you waste time with tactics deliberately intended to cause delay in the official business of the Commission and to interfere with my ability to be prepared for the full hearing. It is deliberate bad faith. Let me cut to the chase:

• I insist that Mr. Freeman respond to the full request before him by April 16.

• I insist Strategy in Media respond in full to the document discovery portion of the request before them by April 16.

• If they do not, I want a public hearing of the Commission set at their earliest convenience to compel responses and to consider sanctions.

Hicks told The News Democrat that one central issue in the dispute is that the subpoenas have not come from him, but from the Ohio Election Commission itself.

“I think that Don Brey is directly challenging the legitimacy of the Ohio Elections Commission. He is effectively saying that discovery in Ohio Election Commission matters is illegal,” Hicks said.

“It’s going to blow up in their faces if they keep going because all they are doing is drawing more attention to it.”

Hicks added that the OEC investigation boils down to one simple question.

“Who is the person that has put forth hundreds of thousands of dollars under the name of Allen Freeman’s campaign? Who that is and where that money came from might reveal things about how the money flowed in the (Householder) scheme.”

Hicks filed the original complaint against Freeman alleging that Freeman underreported spending on political advertising and on in-kind campaign contributions in required filings before and after the Ohio primary election on April 28.

Freeman finished in third place in the election behind winning candidate and current State Representative Adam Bird and Brown County Attorney Nick Owens.

If found guilty of a violation or violations, Freeman could be fined by the Ohio Elections Commission or the matter could be turned over to prosecutors for possible criminal prosecution.

Subpoenaed to testify and provide information are Freeman, Luke Householder, Steven Caraway, R. J. Mancini and the Strategy Group Company.

Householder is the son of Larry Householder, who Hicks reports witnessing numerous examples of Luke engaging in campaign activities on behalf of Freeman.

Caraway is a political consultant who was retained by Householder in his capacity as Ohio House Speaker and Mancini was listed as Freeman’s campaign manager on official documents.

The Strategy Group is a political strategy and media group that created and purchased advertising on behalf of Freeman and the Growth and Opportunity PAC, which the FBI alleges was controlled by Householder.

Hicks used publicly available documents as the basis of his complaints, including the pre and post campaign finance reports from Freeman and political spending records held by the Federal Communications Commission.

The News Democrat independently reviewed the documents referenced by Hicks for accuracy.

The “Committee to Elect Allen Freeman” reported contributions of $69, 634.70 and expenditures of $2810.13 on March 5 in a Pre-Primary filing.

The Post-Primary filing on June 4 showed $39,450 in contributions and $11,361.29 in expenditures. Total reported contributions for the campaign were $109,084.70 and total reported expenditures were reported as $14,171.42.

Regarding expenditures, the FCC records tell a different story.

They show a total spent on broadcasted political commercials alone of $118,094.50. The commercials ran on all four Cincinnati area television stations, the IHeartMedia radio group and Spectrum cable.

All of the invoices of the broadcasting entities have Freeman’s name on them.

In a story originally published in April of 2020 by The Brown County Press, it was reported that the Growth and Opportunity PAC spent $382,000 on broadcasting advertising, with 75 percent of it spent in House Districts 65 and 66 on behalf of Freeman and Jean Schmidt.

The spending was reported in a required filing to the Federal Election Commission.

Schmidt won the primary election and took office in January.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars in direct mail spending also took place during the campaign.

Growth and Opportunity PAC reported spending $247,166 in direct mail. Following the spending formula for television advertising, that means that about $185,000 was spent on direct mail supporting Schmidt and Freeman.

The postal permit number used to mail the political advertisements from both Growth and Opportunity PAC and the Freeman campaign is identical. The Growth and Opportunity PAC is also linked to recently indicted former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder.

Taking half of the $185,000 on direct mail for Freeman and adding the documented television advertising makes a total of $210,594 of media spending by Freeman. He reported total expenditures to the Ohio Elections Commission of $14,171.42.

In a telephone call with The News Democrat, O’Brien had no further comment on the matter on behalf of The Strategy Group.

Brey did not respond to an email requesting comment.