Listen to the article
As the trial against two former FirstEnergy executives begins in Akron, a $4.3 million payment to a state regulator stands at the center of Ohio’s sprawling utility corruption scandal.
Former FirstEnergy CEO Chuck Jones and Senior Vice President Michael Dowling face felony corruption charges for allegedly orchestrating a multimillion-dollar payment to Sam Randazzo in 2019, shortly before his appointment as chair of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). Prosecutors claim the payment was made in exchange for regulatory decisions that would benefit the utility company.
Both executives have pleaded not guilty and maintain the money represented legitimate consulting fees owed to Randazzo through a long-standing business arrangement. Opening statements in the closely watched trial were expected to begin Tuesday.
The case represents the latest chapter in what prosecutors describe as a $60 million bribery scandal that has already sent former Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder to federal prison. Householder is currently serving a 20-year sentence following his 2023 conviction on racketeering charges, though he continues to fight his case in the U.S. Supreme Court.
FirstEnergy admitted in 2021 to using dark money groups to fund the scheme, which allowed Householder to secure the speakership, elect allies, and pass House Bill 6—legislation providing a $1 billion bailout for nuclear plants owned by a FirstEnergy subsidiary. The company also acknowledged thwarting efforts to repeal the controversial legislation.
Jones and Dowling were among several executives fired by FirstEnergy after the 2020 arrests of Householder and four associates when the scandal first broke open.
Randazzo, who died by suicide earlier this year after pleading not guilty to numerous state and federal charges, will not testify at the trial. However, the defendants have indicated they may call up to 58 witnesses, including high-profile political figures.
Most notably, Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and former Lieutenant Governor Jon Husted appear on the potential witness list. DeWine appointed Randazzo to the PUCO position in 2019, while Husted—now a U.S. Senator appointed by DeWine—is campaigning to retain his seat against likely Democratic challenger Sherrod Brown this fall. Neither DeWine nor Husted has been accused of wrongdoing in the case.
Court documents reveal that DeWine and Husted dined with Jones, Dowling, and FirstEnergy lobbyist Josh Rubin at Columbus’ Athletic Club on December 18, 2018. Text messages included in the criminal complaint show that earlier that day, Rubin had coached the executives on lobbying DeWine regarding the company’s preferences for the PUCO chairmanship.
According to these documents, Rubin specifically warned the executives not to mention to DeWine that they would be meeting Randazzo at his residence after dinner. Later that evening, Randazzo texted Dowling figures totaling $4,333,333 for the years 2019 through 2024.
“Got it, Sam,” Dowling reportedly replied. “Good seeing you as well. Thanks for the hospitality. Cool condo.”
The following day, Jones texted Randazzo: “We’re going to get this handled this year, paid in full, no discount. Don’t forget about us or Hurricane Chuck may show up on your doorstep! Of course, no guarantee he won’t show up sometime anyway.”
Randazzo’s response: “Made me laugh — you guys are welcome anytime and anywhere I can open the door. Let me know how you want me to structure the invoices. Thanks.”
Governor DeWine has maintained that Randazzo never disclosed his consulting arrangement with FirstEnergy, and that he first learned of it when it was reported in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
The trial underscores the far-reaching impact of the scandal, which has shaken Ohio’s political establishment and utility regulation framework. It also highlights ongoing concerns about the influence of corporate interests in state government and regulatory decisions that affect millions of Ohio utility customers.
As the case unfolds, it could have significant implications for energy policy, political campaigns, and corporate governance in the state for years to come.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
While the allegations are disturbing, I’m glad to see prosecutors taking this case seriously and pursuing accountability. Rooting out this kind of systemic corruption is critical for maintaining public trust in our institutions.
This bribery scandal seems to run deep within FirstEnergy. It’s concerning to see executives at the highest levels allegedly orchestrating such a large-scale corruption scheme. I’m curious to see what evidence emerges during the trial and if any further wrongdoing is uncovered.
Absolutely. The size of the alleged bribery payments is shocking. This case will likely have significant implications for the utility industry and corporate governance more broadly.
A $60 million bribery scandal is a staggering amount of money. I hope the trial results in meaningful consequences for those responsible, both to provide justice and to deter similar misconduct in the future.
Agreed. The scale of the alleged corruption is truly breathtaking. Sending a strong message through tough sentences would be an important step in restoring faith in the system.
Regulatory capture is a serious issue that can undermine fair and effective oversight. If the allegations against these executives are true, it’s a disturbing abuse of power and public trust. I hope the trial sheds light on the full scope of the scheme.
You make a good point. Maintaining the independence and integrity of regulatory bodies is crucial, especially in industries like utilities that have such a broad public impact.
This seems like a textbook case of the revolving door between industry and government enabling cronyism and undermining effective oversight. I’m curious to learn more about the specific mechanisms the executives allegedly used to bribe the regulator.
Exactly. The alleged payment to the regulator shortly before his appointment raises serious red flags. This case highlights the need for stronger conflict of interest policies and revolving door restrictions.
It’s disappointing to see corporate greed and influence-peddling apparently run amok at the expense of consumers and the public interest. I’ll be following this trial closely to see if justice is served.