The decision lands with a thud heard in corporate boardrooms across the state. Ohio’s major business groups have thrown their considerable weight behind the two Republican candidates for the Ohio Supreme Court. It’s a move that, on its surface, confirms a familiar political alignment. But the leaders of these powerful organizations are framing it as something deeper—a cold, hard calculation about judicial philosophy and its direct impact on the bottom line.
The Ohio Chamber of Commerce PAC is backing incumbent Justice Dan Hawkins against Democratic appellate Judge Marilyn Zayas, and it supports former judge Colleen O’Donnell over Democratic Justice Jennifer Brunner. Since 1998, this PAC has never endorsed a Democrat for the high court. For Chamber President Steve Stivers, a former congressman, this is about predictability. Businesses need certainty, Stivers stated firmly. They need to know what the rules are and how the rules will be applied, and that they’ll be applied fairly and consistently. He argues Hawkins and O’Donnell will interpret the law and not write the law from the bench.
The endorsement process, according to Stivers, involved reviewing judicial records, not conducting interviews. He pointed to specific liability rulings as a key differentiator, alleging the Democratic candidates have a record of expanding liability and effectively legislating from the bench. Liability contracting and expanding is not a partisan issue, Stivers insisted. The party labels really mean nothing compared to the records of the candidates.
Another case cited was the 2022 DuBose v. McGuffey decision, which limited judges to considering only flight risk, not public safety, when setting bail. The business community strongly opposed this ruling. Lawmakers subsequently placed a constitutional amendment on the ballot to overturn it, which voters passed overwhelmingly. This episode, for groups like the Ohio Business Roundtable, crystallized the court’s tangible influence.
The Supreme Court makes decisions that affect how Ohio’s laws are interpreted and applied, and those decisions can have a real impact on businesses that are trying to create jobs, make investments, and grow right here in Ohio, Stivers explained. Pat Tiberi, head of the Ohio Business Roundtable, echoed this, stressing the practical stakes. And the business community and business owners see this impact in real-world life understand that better than most.
- Ohio Chamber of Commerce PAC supports GOP candidates
- Focus on predictability in judicial rulings
- Criticism of Democratic candidates’ liability records
- Impact of public safety decisions on businesses
- Unified support from multiple business organizations
- Judicial elections reflect larger blocs’ interests
This unified front includes the National Federation of Independent Business-Ohio, the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association, and the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation. It represents a significant mobilization of resources and messaging aimed at shaping the judiciary. The subtext is clear: a court viewed as favorable to business is seen as essential for the state’s economic climate.
| Organization | Support for | Opposition to |
|---|---|---|
| Ohio Chamber of Commerce PAC | Hawkins, O’Donnell | Zayas, Brunner |
| Ohio Business Roundtable | Hawkins, O’Donnell | Zayas, Brunner |
| National Federation of Independent Business-Ohio | Your candidates | Your candidates |
| Ohio Manufacturers’ Association | Your candidates | Your candidates |
| Ohio Farm Bureau Federation | Your candidates | Your candidates |
Yet, the business coalition’s move underscores a relentless truth in modern judicial elections. These races are increasingly less about quiet deliberation and more about identifiable blocs—trial lawyers, labor unions, business interests—vying for a bench they believe will rule in their favor. The language of judicial philosophy often becomes the acceptable veneer for these high-stakes calculations. When business leaders say this transcends partisanship, they are speaking to a specific brand of conservatism they equate with stability. Their endorsements are a direct investment in that perceived stability, a bet that the chosen justices will interpret the law within boundaries favorable to commerce and predictability. The real impact will be measured in future rulings on liability, regulation, and workers’ rights.
