In Richland County, Ohio, local landowners were outspent 30-1 in a fight over solar. They won anyway.
May 18, 2026
By Gary Abernathy
Question: Why would a local ban on solar and wind farms in a north-central Ohio county attract hundreds of thousands of dollars from interests in New York and Columbus backing a campaign to
overturn it?
A referendum on the May 5 Richland County, Ohio, primary ballot asked voters to affirm or reject a decree from the commissioners that banned large solar and wind projects in 11 of 18 townships.
In the end, 53 percent voted to sustain the ban, with 47 percent voting to overturn it. Not surprisingly, leftwing media was on the side of repeal. Stories blamed that go-to villain, “fossil fuel interests,” for the referendum’s failure, along with, naturally, “confusing ballot language.”
In the weeks leading up to the vote, some outlets raised suspicions about those on the side of the ban, even if it required a version of “Eight Degrees of Separation.” For instance, a story by “clean energy” advocate Canary Media (published verbatim in the Ohio Capital Journal) noted that the main group supporting the ban was called Richland Farmland Preservation.
“Its recent campaign finance report is telling,” the story insisted. “As of April 21, the organization reported only five contributions, totaling $8,000. On the spending side, the campaign has agreed to pay more than $12,400 to the Republican political advertising firm Majority Strategies LLC for text messaging and digital advertising.”
What’s wrong with that? Plenty, according to the story.
“Majority Strategies has known links to the fossil fuel industry. For years, it has been the largest recipient of money spent by The Empowerment Alliance, which promotes natural gas use and has pushed for policies that define the fossil fuel as ‘green energy.’”
In fact, Majority Strategies has worked with “over 8,000 campaigns and clients in every state in the nation” across 30 years, according to its website. But since some clients have “known links to the fossil fuel industry” – whatever that means – let’s sound the alarm!
Equally as worrisome was the fact that “the chief strategist at Majority Strategies, Tom Whatman, has a long history of working against renewable energy … It also appears that one of Whatman’s other businesses is the largest donor to the Richland Farmland Preservation campaign. He shares an address with and signed the articles of incorporation for Whatman Farms LLC, which gave the campaign group $2,500, its largest reported donation.”
This was all very suspicious, according to the tone of the story, which quoted Dave Anderson
from the Energy and Policy Institute saying so, too. “It reminded me … of this overall abuse by either front groups or political operatives for the gas industry,” Anderson said.
Abuse? Of what?
Full disclosure: The Empowerment Alliance is one of the clients I write for (this is one of those
columns). I have also worked for Majority Strategies. Additionally, I’ve known Tom Whatman for going on 30 years. He’s a friend.
Know what else Tom is? A legitimate farmer. Where? Richland County, Ohio. His 500-acre farm
(also stretching into adjoining Knox County) is operated as a business called Whatman Farms LLC. Not exactly a name designed to hide anything. Yes, “he shares an address” with the farm on which he lives. Call the cops!
For the record, The Empowerment Alliance was not involved with the campaign. Whatever
money Whatman spent was from his personal funds. (In Ohio, most LLCs are treated as individuals for campaign finance purposes.) To produce the relatively low-cost digital ads that were used for the pro-ban side, it made sense to use Majority Strategies, a firm with which Whatman has a long association. Why use another firm?
But here’s the kicker. While the spending on the side of maintaining the solar ban will likely
amount to about $15,000 in its entirety when the post-election report is filed – all from Richland County property owners – it was dwarfed by the spending on the other side, which, counting both direct and in- kind contributions, amounted to at least $427,707.36, according to a pre-primary report (a figure readily available but conveniently omitted from the Canary Media/Ohio Capital Journal story).
To be sure, there were some local small-dollar donors involved with the pro-solar campaign. But
the bulk of the nearly $428,000 – about 98 percent – came from outside the county, thanks to just two groups – the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund ($250,000 for paid media), based in New York, and Ohio Citizen Action ($169,273.68) located in Columbus. The winning side was outspent nearly 30 to 1 by the losing side. And the $15,000 side is the suspicious one?
The pro-solar side settled on a “property rights” campaign, possibly after Citizen Action spent
$23,500 back in January on “communication message testing.” Residents were inundated with mail from outside the county (and from outside the state in some cases) about the importance of defending “our property rights.” All of which leads back to same question: Why did outside groups get so heavily involved in this local issue?
According to its website, the NRDCAF is devoted to “stopping the Trump agenda,” helping states
“kick gas,” and urging everyone to “go all in for climate action.” Ohio Citizen Action, meanwhile, touts campaigns devoted to “repeal(ing) the OVEC coal subsidies,” “expanding the reach of Power a Clean Future Ohio” and “aggregating Cincinnati residents into an electricity buying group and securing 100% clean, renewable energy to meet their needs.”
A “Clean Energy Jobs Ohio” post-election video claimed the defeat happened because advocates
were “up against powerful forces and backroom deals with political operatives from the natural gas
industry.” Again, they were actually local landowners who were outspent nearly 30 to 1.
Perhaps trying to send a warning to other Ohio counties that might ban solar, the video ominously warns that “this is just the beginning,” adding that “from Mansfield to Columbus our message is clear – what we do with our own land should be our choice.” Considering the final vote, another $23,500 finding a message that works might be money well spent.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing
columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation.