Sen. Sherrod Brown is facing a fresh problem in his tight Senate race against Sen. Jon Husted: a campaign ad that criticizes data centers in Ohio now has a money-trail problem.
A Sept. 4 campaign ad targets Husted over Ohio’s data center industry, featuring a Google-owned facility in Lancaster, Ohio. The ad includes an Ohioan blaming Husted for pushing data centers to Ohio and linking their expansion to “higher electric bills.”
The ad is a direct attack on Husted’s signature issue. But the source of the attack is not clean. Google’s corporate PAC has contributed $20,000 to Brown over his political career, and several Google lobbyists have given thousands more to the senator.
Brown’s Ties to Google
Two Google lobbyists gave Brown significant sums:
- Lisa Kountoupes gave $3,500
- Michael D. Smith gave $10,200 since 2017
Three additional Google lobbyists gave Brown a combined $6,000 over the past decade.
Kountoupes’s firm was hired by Google in December to lobby on permitting reform tied to its data center needs. Smith’s firm lobbied for Google on permitting reform for grid reliability and energy affordability.
Timing of the Ad
The timing is notable. The Lancaster facility opened in 2023, and Brown’s campaign is now running an ad against data centers just a few years later.
Brown’s Record on Data Centers
Brown was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006. He lost his 2024 reelection bid to Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio.
In 2015, Brown celebrated an Amazon data center in central Ohio, saying in a press release it “is great news for New Albany and central Ohio.” That is the opposite of the message he is running now.
President Donald Trump also weighed in, warning communities blocking data centers would “end up being backwards and poor.”
GOP Strategist’s Take
GOP strategist Mehek Cooke called the situation “Jekyll-and-Hyde politics.” Cooke said Brown lost in 2024 and now is back running the same playbook: saying one thing to Ohioans while his Washington record tells a very different story.
Cooke added: “America is in a global race for AI, computing capacity and energy infrastructure. China is not slowing down because American politicians discovered that attacking data centers makes a convenient campaign commercial.”
The Campaign’s Response
Brown’s campaign spokeswoman Lauren Chou defended Brown’s position without addressing contributions. She cited Husted as “a chief reason” Ohio has 226 data centers.
Husted’s campaign spokesperson Amy Natoce took a different line. She said Brown’s record included blocking Senate passage of Husted’s data center legislation.
Neither response directly answers the question of why Brown is running an anti-data-center ad while taking money from the industry.
The Numbers Behind the Attack
The money trail is simple to lay out:
- Google’s PAC gave Brown $20,000 over his career
- Kountoupes gave $3,500
- Smith gave $10,200 since 2017
- Three other Google lobbyists gave $6,000 combined
- Kountoupes’s firm was hired by Google in December
- Smith’s firm lobbied for Google on permitting reform
Each of those connections links Brown to the data center industry he is now attacking. None of them appear in the ad itself.
What Brown Is Actually Saying
The ad frames data centers as a burden on Ohio families. It ties higher electric bills to the industry’s expansion.
But Brown’s own history shows he has welcomed data centers before. He celebrated the Amazon center in 2015. Senate Democrats blocked Husted’s legislation in Washington.
The ad asks Ohioans to trust Brown to protect them from data centers, even as his record shows he has accepted their money.
The Political Calculus
Cooke’s framing captures the core problem for Brown. He lost in 2024. Now he is running the same playbook.
That playbook involves saying one thing to Ohioans while his Washington record tells a very different story. The ad runs on fear of higher electric bills. The record shows a senator who has accepted money from the industry he criticizes.
The Question Ahead
The question for Brown is whether voters can be convinced to ignore the money trail. The question for the race is whether the ad changes minds.
The Jekyll-and-Hyde label comes from Cooke, who describes Brown as saying one thing to Ohioans while his record tells a very different story.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs Sen. Sherrod Brown’s right to run ads attacking data centers but is against any rule that would treat Google’s ties to him as grounds for regulating its speech, since the same logic would apply to every lobbyist’s gift to every candidate. The ad is a matter of politics, not regulation.
The paper’s position on AI and technology is a light touch: startups should not be frozen out, and the danger is big tech dominance, not the technology itself. The danger here is the opposite of that: a regime that would regulate speech because of campaign contributions would hand the market to the incumbents, the very firms the paper wants kept honest.
Brown’s ad attacks data centers, which are tied to the same industry whose PAC and lobbyists have given him money. That is his right. But the paper would oppose any rule that lets the same logic govern speech: if a company’s contributions to a candidate count as grounds for regulating its speech, then every lobbyist’s gift to every candidate becomes a basis for regulating theirs. The paper has always opposed such concentration of power, and this case shows why: it would lock in today’s leaders and freeze out anyone who might challenge them.
Source material: “Dem’s data center attack in critical Senate race hits snag when money trail surfaces: 'Jekyll-and-Hyde',” Fox News.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.