By Deb Hogshead

Guest Column in Miami Valley Today, January 18, 2026

The proposed data center in Piqua brings home an important fact: Corporate power and big money affect us locally—and a local response is necessary to help rein in their influence over issues that affect us directly and indirectly.

Like folks in other Ohio communities, including Sidney, Piqua residents raised objections upon learning of plans to build a data center in their hometown. Among their concerns, which I share, are threats to the environment and limited water resources, and questionable promises of economic development and stable residential electric bills. But the deal was already done, slid secretly into the community under a nondisclosure agreement.

Nondisclosure agreements are just one tool in the tech industry’s tool box.

As true of any large corporate entity, big tech companies have lots of money and a “constitutional” right to spend it—and they spend it to garner support in Congress and state legislatures for such things as limited regulation and the fast-tracking of approvals.

Big Tech can do this thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court. Since 1886 and the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad decision, the court has considered a corporation a person with constitutional rights. In 1976, the court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that spending money on campaign communications is equivalent to 1^st Amendment protected speech. In 1978, it ruled in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti that a corporation has a 1^st Amendment right to influence an election. More recently, the court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission led to the rise of Super PACs and even more money flowing into politics, often from unnamed donors.

I list below a few figures based on information publicly available through OpenSecrets.org.

$33,333,888 – Total contributions in 2024 to federal candidates, made by individuals and affiliates associated with Amazon, Microsoft, Palantir Technologies, and Meta. (OpenSecrets.org gave no information for Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company.)

$2,571,866 – Total contributions during the 2023-2024 election cycle, from political action committees for Amazon, Microsoft, Palantir Technologies, Meta, and Alphabet.

$57,925,000 – Total spent in 2025 on lobbying Congress, by Amazon, Microsoft, Palantir, Meta, and Alphabet.

These same companies pay lobbyists to influence Ohio legislators and executives. According to the Ohio Lobbying Activity Center, Amazon currently has 7 registered lobbyists, Microsoft has 1, Meta 13, and Google 18. They are joined by lobbyists representing groups such as the Ohio Business Roundtable, which wants to streamline the permitting process for data centers, and Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Ohio and the Buckeye Institute, both of which want fewer permit restrictions.

Public opposition to the proliferation of data centers has grown. So has awareness of our power grid’s limitations and the need to upgrade at considerable expense. In July 2025, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO) ruled those costs should be borne by the companies that own the data centers, as opposed to expecting small businesses and ordinary ratepayers to pick up the tab. The tech industry has objected, given the investments companies have already made in Ohio. Sharing this discontent is the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, whose lawyers have appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, claiming the ruling amounts to discrimination against certain types of utility customers. 

Discriminating against a person based on race, sex, and other immutable characteristics is wrong and illegal. A corporation, however, is not a person. And a big corporation that poses risks to the quality of life in our local communities should be discriminated against, or at least held to higher expectations.  

I’m not saying Big Tech (or any corporate entity) shouldn’t have a voice. Nor am I saying a big tech company shouldn’t have privileges, “statutory” rights, and protection from government overreach. What I am saying is Big Tech’s voice should never be louder than ours or carry greater weight with our representatives. And a corporation of any kind, which is created on paper through a chartering process, should not have inherent, inalienable constitutional rights same as you and me.

If we are to regulate money in politics and end the misguided doctrine of “corporate constitutional rights,” we must pass the proposed We the People Amendment, House Joint Resolution 54 in the current Congress.

January 21 is the 16^th anniversary of the Citizens United decision. Use this day to call Reps. Mike Carey and Warren Davidson and urge them to cosponsor the We the People Amendment.

And encourage your local elected officials to go on record in support of the We the People Amendment. Given what’s happening with data centers across Ohio, municipal leaders cannot defend inaction by saying money in politics and corporate power are not relevant to their work as public servants.

By Deb Hogshead, guest columnist

If there was anything I knew as a kid about the American Revolution it was that we toppled a king. I always took pride in this fact because I have ancestors on both sides of my family who fought in the war. One of them, Isaiah Hoskinson (1749-1836), is buried in the Hupp-Hoskinson Cemetery in Licking County.

At least three veterans of the Revolutionary War are buried here in Miami County at Troy’s Rose Hill Cemetery: John W. Meredith (1761-1844), Alexander Telford (1760-1844), and Aaron Tullis (1751-1840).

These four men were either teenagers or in their mid-20s when the Declaration of Independence was signed. I know little else about them beyond a general understanding of the principles for which they fought—and for which an estimated 25,000 died.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So begins the first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.

To justify separation from Great Britain, our founding document lists 27 specific examples of abuses perpetrated by King George III. Listed as the first grievance, “He has refused his Assent to [approval of] Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.” Here are just a few others:

• “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass [sic] our people, and eat out their substance”

• “For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury”

• “For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments”

Where are we now, 249 years later? Are we once again living under a king?

Democrat or Republican, a president is not a king. The current administration, however, is acting like one, and the majority in Congress seems to be abdicating its constitutional duty to be a check on the executive branch. But even after the President leaves office, kings will remain. These other kings have been at work for well over 100 years, thanks to a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases that have given them constitutional advantages over the rest of us. I’m speaking of the ultra-wealthy and large corporations, the power brokers with the big money to influence elections and the decisions of the elected—decisions about issues such as funding for public education, access to healthcare, protection of the environment and public health, corporate use of public lands, and the privatization of government services. Their agendas put profits over the most wholesome laws necessary for the public good. Ending their rule requires us to do something revolutionary.

By revolutionary I don’t mean war. I mean a dramatic change to the U.S. Constitution, a change that embodies its aspirational preamble, which opens with the words “We the People.”

As the Declaration of Independence states, governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and the people have the right to alter it, “laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

If we are to have a government of, by, and for the people—as opposed to a government of, by, and for the ultra-wealthy and large corporations—we must amend the Constitution, adopting and putting into practice two additional guiding principles: a corporation is not a person with unalienable, constitutional rights, and money spent on political campaigns is not free speech and shall be regulated.

It’s time to topple the kings of today with a constitutional amendment. I can’t think of a better way to honor Isaiah, John, Alexander, Aaron, and all those who made our nation possible.

The writer is a Troy resident and a volunteer with Move to Amend Miami County.

This letter by Stephen Griffith was published May 31, 2025, in the Miami Valley Today (Troy, Ohio).

To the editor:

Since the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision held that corporate political contributions were the same as speech and were protected by the First Amendment, massive amounts of the “dark money” have flowed through Political Action Committees to political parties and candidates. These contributions are made to influence the actions of politicians of both parties.

These donations are made by corporations and industry groups far removed from the Miami Valley, but they have local consequences. One alarming example concerns the more than $21 million in contributions made by the owners, employees, and family members of employees of Mountaire Corp., one of the largest chicken producers in the nation, in the 2024 election cycle. These contributions resulted in the Trump administration withdrawing a planned USDA effort to limit the amount of salmonella contamination in processed poultry.

As a result, we will all be potentially exposed to higher Salmonella levels in our food. The Centers for Disease Control estimates that there are 1.35 million Salmonella infections annually, with some 420 deaths. Yet, dark money political contributions succeeded in preventing regulations that would protect all of us. We need to act to amend the Constitution to eliminate this type of blatant political influence on the part of corporations under the guise of free speech. Move to Amend is working to gain support for this amendment and to return the control of politics to the people.

Write or phone your Senators and Congressmen and urge them to support House Joint Resolution 54, the We the People Amendment to correct this situation and end the treatment of corporations as individuals.

Stephen Griffith

Troy

City of Cleveland Heights
Council Office
40 Severance Circle
Cleveland Heights, OH 44118

June 10, 2025

The Honorable Bernie Moreno
SR-284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Jon Husted
SR-304 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Shontel Brown
2455 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Rob McColley
1 Capitol Square, Second Floor 201
Columbus, OH 43215

The Honorable Matt Huffman
77 South high Street 14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215

CC:
Mayor Kahlil Seren, City of Cleveland Heights
Director of Law William R. Hanna, City of Cleveland Heights

Dear Senators Moreno and Husted, Representative Brown, President McColley, and Speaker Huffman:

On behalf of the Cleveland Heights City Council, I am writing to share a summary of the 12th Annual “Democracy Day” Public Hearing, held on June 5, 2025, in Council Chambers.

This public hearing is required by a 2013 citizen-initiated ordinance titled “Calling on Congress to Amend the U.S. Constitution to Establish That Corporations Are Not People and Money Is Not Speech.” Passed by 77% of Cleveland Heights voters, the ordinance mandates an annual public hearing to examine “the political influence by corporations and big money in connection with the most recent election.” It also requires the City Council to notify elected officials of the hearing and to reaffirm the will of the voters, who in November 2013 called for a constitutional amendment declaring:

• Only human beings, not corporations, are legal persons with constitutional rights; and
• Money is not equivalent to speech, and therefore, regulating political contributions and spending does not equate to limiting political speech

At the June 5 hearing, eight individuals provided oral testimony, and one submitted written remarks. Topics included:

Samantha Madar  | May 24, 2025

Columbus Dispatch

https://www.dispatch.com/picture-gallery/news/2025/05/24/nato-protest-rally-downtown-dayton-ohio/83840769007 

Mary Snapp and her husband Ian of Dayton hold signs against NATO during a rally near the barricade for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at Cooper Park on Saturday, May 24, 2025 in Dayton, Ohio.
Samantha Madar/Columbus Dispatch

...

Deb Hogshead of Troy speaks about Move to Amend Miami County during a rally near the barricade for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at Cooper Park on Saturday, May 24, 2025 in Dayton, Ohio.

Samantha Madar/Columbus Dispatch

...

Sandy Bolzenius of Columbus speaks about Move to Amend Miami County during a rally near the barricade for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at Cooper Park on Saturday, May 24, 2025 in Dayton, Ohio.
Samantha Madar/Columbus Dispatch

...

Deb Hogshead of Troy shows off her hat and pin during a rally near the barricade for the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at Cooper Park on Saturday, May 24, 2025 in Dayton, Ohio.
Samantha Madar/Columbus Dispatch

May 24, 2025 

https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/live-updates-trump-baby-balloon-debuts-protests-planned/RWOUYLLWQNCKFMNTIHRBU5MUKE/

A group marched from Deeds Point to the Riverside Drive bridge to protest the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in downtown Dayton on Saturday, May 24, 2025. NICK GRAHAM / STAFF

LOCAL NEWS

By Staff Report

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly is in Dayton for its spring session, which is causing a lot of changes downtown. Here are things to know about Saturday.

• PHOTOS: Scenes from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly events in Dayton on Saturday

May 24, 2025 

https://www.daytondailynews.com/community/dayton/video-greg-coleridge-co-director-at-the-move-to-amend-coalition-at-cooper-park/b2be3094-c38f-4ab1-98d1-2bedea5c1a62/

Heather Sturgill, a volunteer with Move to Amend Miami County, Ohio, explores how corporations have more rights than people. She calls on readers to urge their representatives to support House Joint Resolution 54, the We the People Amendment.

As we approach the May 10th anniversary of the 1886 Supreme Court’s Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company decision it is becoming increasingly clear that corporations have more rights than flesh and blood people. Though the decision itself did not explicitly grant corporations personhood, the headnote written by the court reporter stated that corporations are entitled to protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, a provision originally designed to protect freed slaves.

Section 1 of the 14^th amendment of the U.S. Constitution includes “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

In subsequent decades, this clause has been applied in a range of contexts, including to shield corporations from certain forms of government action. A notable example occurred in General Dynamics Corp. v. United States (2011), when the Supreme Court held that the government could not pursue its claims against the defense contractor without disclosing classified information essential to the company's defense. Because the evidence in question involved state secrets, the Court concluded that the proper course was to dismiss the claims, effectively protecting the corporation’s procedural rights under the due process clause.

Critics of the expanding scope of corporate rights contend that this legal doctrine has increasingly insulated powerful economic actors from accountability, even as individuals—particularly immigrants and undocumented residents—face significant hurdles in asserting their own rights.

In recent months, the Trump administration has intensified immigration enforcement, often citing national security to justify withholding information. For instance, in March 2025, the U.S. designated the Tren de Aragua gang, as a terrorist organization, then rounded up over 250 supposedly Venezuelan migrants and deported them to El Salvador, claiming they were linked to the gang. However, the U.S. government did not provide families or the media with names, evidence of crimes, or affiliations, citing operational security.

The use of national security to withhold information in immigration cases is not new. Senator Chris Van Hollen recently criticized the current administration for deporting Kilmar Ábrego García, a Maryland resident. And, despite a unanimous Supreme Court decision that ordered the administration to facilitate his return, he has yet to be brought back. The administration accuses García of MS-13 gang affiliation but has not filed any charges related to that accusation, raising questions about the use of unverified allegations to justify deportations. ​

Withholding information prevents individuals from challenging their detention or deportation effectively. And, the lack of access to evidence and legal recourse raises concerns about potential abuses of power and the erosion of constitutional protections.

Now, if we contrast the actions of the U.S. administration when dealing with people, vs when dealing with corporations we see that in the last decade, the principle of corporate personhood has been used to the advantage of powerful corporations, while ordinary flesh and blood persons often face less favorable outcomes when seeking justice.

As the country marks the anniversary of the Santa Clara decision, some activists and lawmakers are calling for a reevaluation of corporate rights and their broader implications.

Contact your State level representatives (www.ohiosenate.gov and https://ohiohouse.gov/) and ask them: “In the Ohio Senate, Kent Smith and Nickie Antonio have introduced S.R. No. 93 that calls for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to end ‘corporate personhood’ and ‘money as speech.’ We expect a similar resolution to be introduced in the House. Will you support this?”

Contact your representative in Congress (202-224-3121) and ask them: “Please support House Joint Resolution 54 (HJR 54). It’s a call for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that restores that fundamental promise of our Republic: government of, by, and for the people.”

Contact your Senators (Husted & Moreno 202-224-3121) and ask them: “Please to cosponsor a companion resolution to House Joint Resolution 54 (HJR 54) when it's introduced in the Senate. It’s a call for a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that restores that fundamental promise of our Republic: government of, by, and for the people.”

Letter to the Editor
April 19, 2025
https://miamivalleytoday.com/democracy-begins-at-the-local-level/

To the editor:

Democracy begins at the local level. It’s where we discuss community problems and find solutions. It’s also where we explore questions of principle—in particular, principles that guide our country and affect each of us, regardless of our political affiliation. This has been true since our nation’s founding.

In Ohio, 26 communities have explored the question of corporate power and big money in politics. As a result, they have passed resolutions, ordinances, and/or citizen ballot initiatives supporting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that makes two things clear: (1) corporations and other artificial entities do not have constitutional rights and (2) money is not speech and campaign spending should be regulated.