[FOX] Former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown is targeting Republican Sen. Jon Husted over Ohio's growing data center industry in a new campaign ad that features a facility owned by Google — whose corporate PAC and lobbyists have contributed thousands of dollars to Brown's campaigns.
Whoops!
The Sept. 4 ad features an Ohioan blaming Husted for spearheading "the push to bring data centers to Ohio" and linking their expansion to "higher electric bills."
The facility featured in the ad, which opened in Lancaster in 2023, is owned by Google.
Campaign finance records reviewed by Fox News Digital show Google's corporate PAC contributed $20,000 to Brown over his political career. Brown also received thousands of dollars from individuals who lobby for Google, including two whose firms have worked on permitting, grid reliability and energy affordability issues.
"Apparently Google is terrible enough to put in a campaign attack ad, but perfectly acceptable when the political contributions are coming in," Mehek Cooke, a GOP strategist and attorney in Ohio, said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "That is the contradiction Brown needs to answer. If Google’s Lancaster investment is so bad for Ohio, why was Google political money acceptable to Sherrod Brown?"
Among the contributors are Google lobbyist Lisa Kountoupes, who donated $3,500 in March, and Google lobbyist Michael D. Smith, who donated a total of $10,200 to Brown since 2017, according to Federal Election Commission records. The contributions were made to Friends of Sherrod Brown, Brown's principal campaign committee.
Kountoupes’s firm, Kountoupes Denham Carr & Reid, was hired by Google in December to lobby on "issues related to permitting reform" tied to the company's data center needs, Politico previously reported. Smith's firm, Cornerstone Government Affairs, reported lobbying for Google on "issues related to permitting reform for grid reliability and energy affordability," according to federal lobbying filings.
[FoxNews] Newly obtained FD-302s reveal fresh information
Anyone who has a conversation with former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is likely to hear his claim that he was never going to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by former President Barack Obama in 2008, insisting his innocence in the high-profile case that led to him serving nearly eight years in federal prison.
Blagojevich has repeated for years that he was closing in on a deal to appoint Lisa Madigan to the U.S. Senate.
Hers is a name that has largely dropped out of the public arena. At the time of the scandal, Madigan served as Illinois attorney general. More relevant to this case, she is the daughter of the very powerful and entrenched then-Speaker of the Illinois House Mike Madigan.
The former speaker has since gone to prison for a separate corruption case. (Welcome to Illinois.) Blagojevich claims he would have appointed Lisa to the Senate in exchange for the father supporting his healthcare package and budget.
Shortly after the arrest of Gov. Blagojevich in December 2009, both President-elect Obama and his incoming chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, were interviewed by the FBI. Obama was interviewed Dec. 18, nine days after the governor was arrested. Emanuel was interviewed on the 20th. The records of those interviews were kept out of both criminal trials and away from the public, until now. Fox News has obtained the partially redacted FBI FD-302s of those interviews.
The Obama interview notes, "Obama was asked whether he was aware of Emanuel having a conversation with the Blagojevich administration regarding Lisa Madigan being considered for the Senate seat in exchange for legislation being passed.
[Reuters] US President Donald Trump said on Friday he is banning three major news outlets – CNN, MS NOW and Politico – from the White House in his latest threat to the independent press.
The move is almost certain to face legal challenges as free speech experts said it conflicts with the US Constitution's First Amendment protections for free speech and a free press.
Trump accused the outlets of "reporting FAKE NEWS" in a social media post, and said they "shouldn't be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they're covering the President of the United States." Trump added, "Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow."
Representatives of all three outlets could be seen working in the White House on Friday afternoon following Trump's post. The White House was informing all three they would be banned from the White House grounds as of Saturday, Fox News reported, citing an unnamed senior White House official.
Trump said there was no specific incident that prompted the ban, telling reporters in the Oval Office, "It's really just cumulative stories over the past few years."
Trump added, "I don't have to let them into my, into the people's house."
When asked what he meant by others "to follow," Trump mentioned the New York Times and Washington Post as what he called "fake news."
The extent of the ban announced by Trump was not immediately clear, and the legality of any move could depend on its scope.
Courts have given presidents broad discretion over selective access to events such as Oval Office meetings and small press pools, while broader exclusions from generally available White House press facilities or credentials could face stronger challenges under the First Amendment and constitutional protections for due process.
Trump's move came weeks ahead of the November 3 midterm elections in which Trump's fellow Republicans are defending narrow majorities in Congress. Reuters/Ipsos polls show the public souring on Republicans, as Trump's own approval ratings stand near historic lows amid the deeply unpopular Iran war he kicked off that has sent energy prices soaring.
DECADES OF TRADITION
The Trump administration has upended decades of tradition in dealings between the White House and press, cutting back the access many major news organizations have had to the president while elevating the presence of new media outlets seen as more sympathetic to the administration.
The three news outlets complained, so the White House Rapid Response group posted on X the following list of unfair and inaccurate reporting by CNN:
#1
It's his house just like a judge's courtroom. The judge can have the bailiff remove anyone from his courtroom. Are other news agents still there? If yes, then there is no 1A issue.
#6
#3 if you paid attention to the start of the term, Trump White House expanded to include reporters from alternate media (aka internet, podcasts, et al). There are now more 'credentialed' reporters than seats in the briefing room. Many of those alternate reporters reach a far greater audience than CNN, MS Now and Politico, which are redundant representatives of the daily DNC talking points.
#7
Nobody will stop the three from lying and misrepresenting. They just won't get direct access, pretending to be "journolists". That's not a 1A violation, but a black-robed Democrat Judge will say so
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/19/2026 11:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I guess the Supreme Court will say so, if it comes to it.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
09/19/2026 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Did somebody say "independent press"? What independent press?
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
09/19/2026 13:30 Comments ||
Top||
#11
"There's something wrong with a country that allows people to write purposely negative news stories." (Trump)
If you want to become Russia, China or North Korea, that's the way to go.
Posted by: European Conservative ||
09/19/2026 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#12
He just kicked out the commie mouthpieces. No free speech issue as they can continue to write all the commie/lefty drivel they want. They just can't get it from that source firsthand.
Let’s put this in context shall we? No one was banned, they were required to upkeep their credentials. HUGE DIFFERENCE!!! They were not flat out denied entrance to the White House. pic.twitter.com/iVKSnvcf5o
Posted by: European Conservative ||
09/19/2026 15:49 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Facts are a wonderful thing, especially when put into perspective. :-)
Was it President Biden’s people or President Obama’s who shoved the occasional unwanted reporter into a closet?
The wonder, to me, is that New York Times journalists are allowed anywhere near the White House, given their history of hiring fantasists for superficial reasons, then promoting their output as if it were true instead of merely well-written fiction.
#19
#13 He rather behaved like a commie government would do.
Posted by European Conservative
Or if the AfD won something?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/19/2026 17:36 Comments ||
Top||
#20
My understanding of these things is that even if they are not in the room, reporters have access to pool coverage and transcripts. This just means certain parties do not get a chance to be annoying on tv. Nobody is stopping them from writing. Not exactly the death of the Republic.
#21
If 'professional' media were treated like any other business that is subject to penalties for misrepresents their product, engaged in fabrications and fraud, most would have been out of business a long time ago.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
