An Illinois Republican megadonor with ties to efforts to attack unions and overturn the 2020 presidential election was reportedly also the main donor behind the unsuccessful effort to make it much harder for Ohioans to protect the right to abortion care in their state constitution. On Tuesday, Ohio voters rejected that effort, Issue 1, by 57%.
On one hand, the giving of Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein can be seen as a call to action for wealthy donors concerned about this sort of multipronged effort to roll back progress on abortion and LGBTQ peoples’ rights, workers’ rights, and free and fair elections. But it’s also another disheartening reminder that so many of the critical ideological conflicts of our time are being fought out via the checkbooks of the ultra-wealthy.
Inside Philanthropy first covered Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein’s extensive giving to libertarian and conservative causes back in 2018. At that time, between their personal giving and the money they moved through their Ed Uihlein Family Foundation, the couple were responsible for providing tens of millions of dollars to right-wing candidates and causes. The 2018 SCOTUS decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which significantly hampered public sector unions by forcing them to advocate for free for non-dues-paying public employees, was also heavily backed by organizations that have benefited from Uihlein largesse. Since that time, Uihlein’s efforts have included moving significant money to influence the 2020 election — and when Trump lost, the couple’s foundation reportedly spent heavily, including on organizations designated as hate groups, to try to steal the election from President Joe Biden.
Given that record, it’s hardly surprising that Richard Uihlein, who lives in Illinois, reportedly provided the bulk of the money spent to convince Ohio voters to limit their ability to amend the state constitution. Had it passed, Issue 1 would have mandated that citizen-backed ballot initiatives win by 60%, rather than a simple majority, in order to become law. The initiative was put on the ballot by the state’s heavily-gerrymandered Republican legislature after reported pressure to do so, again by Uihlein. In addition to anti-abortion extremists, Issue 1 was supported by gun rights groups and the state Chamber of Commerce.
While the nature of Issue 1’s other supporters make clear the breadth of issues that would have been affected by its passage, it was put on the ballot specifically to make it much harder for Ohio voters to approve a planned state constitutional amendment this November to protect the right to abortion in that state. According to a July USA Today poll, 58% of Ohioans, including a third of the state’s Republicans, currently support the abortion rights amendment. If 68% of Ohioans were in support, it seems likely that the Republican legislature would have set Issue 1’s threshold to 70%.
Issue 1 is also only the first salvo of a reported move, also backed by Uihlein, to amend the constitutional amendment process across the country, ostensibly in response to votes in Kansas, Michigan and elsewhere proving that the majority of American voters, including in otherwise red states, support abortion rights.
While the details above may be new information, none of it should come as a surprise. Neither was the February report by The Guardian that Richard Uihlein spent money earlier this year to protect the former conservative majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Meanwhile, his cousin, Lynde Bradley Uihlein, supported the successful effort to flip that court to the Democrats. In addition to protecting abortion rights, that single election may well end the state’s heavily gerrymandered legislative districts and make it more difficult for conservatives to tamper with the 2024 presidential election. It’s also necessary to note that roughly a third of the money that was spent to defeat Ohio’s Issue 1 came from donors who don’t live in Ohio.
Inside Philanthropy is hardly alone in reporting on the outsized role of big money in our country’s politics, our nonprofits, and virtually every sector of American life. IP founder David Callahan’s 2017 book “The Givers” talks about the ways that donors, both left and right, throw their money around, wielding disproportionate influence on matters that profoundly impact everyday Americans. Katherine Stewart’s 2020 book “The Power Worshippers” chronicles big money efforts to use Christianity as the club with which to attack everything from abortion rights to unions and efforts to confront climate change. Much of wealthy donors’ influence on American life happens through political donations, but increasingly, such giving is part of a broader philanthropic strategy that funds think tanks, advocacy groups, and other nonprofits.
It’s easy to argue — and I have argued, in this very publication — that progressive and moderate philanthropists need to open their checkbooks wider in response to this decades-old, ramped-up assault on democracy and social progress. And as someone who highly values both the right to bodily autonomy and democracy, reports that the pro-Issue 1 crowd were being outspent by more than roughly 4 to 1 certainly made me happy, no matter where the money was coming from.
At the same time, I can’t help reflecting on the words of Brennan Center for Justice’s counsel, Douglas Keith, in that February Guardian article. Keith asked, rightly, whether or not Wisconsin voters really wanted the makeup of their state Supreme Court to be determined as the result of a rich family’s feud. The fact is, the ultra-wealthy on both ends of the political spectrum have more in common, and more common interests, with each other than any of them will ever have with the rest of us. It’s hard not to wonder when American voters will finally unite to stop so many of the issues that confront us from being reduced to the rope in their game of tug of war.
