An outside group plans to put more than $280,000 in Piqua. At first glance, that might sound like good news. any community of Piqua’s size can use new investment, especially when it comes from the outside.
But this money is not being pledged to a new shop, a road, or a place to work. It is backing a campaign to shape how people vote.
That is a different kind of investment and it calls for a different set of questions.
Safe Streets and Strong Schools for Piqua reported $280,700 in support in its recent campaign finance filing. This publication explore this group in an earlier newsletter.
Piqua’s Election Needs Better Facts
Watching Piqua’s election unfold has been a fascinating lesson in local democracy.
The committee lists an address in Kent, Ohio, and a treasurer in East Liverpool. All four reported gifts came from one source: Centera, which lists an address in Alexandria, Virginia.
To grasp the scale of this invenstement consider this: 5,514 Piqua residents voted in the last election for governor four years ago, the same type of election this year. If about the same number vote this year, the reported support works out to just over $50 for each voter.
That is not a claim that the group has spent $50 on each person. It is a way to show how much money stands behind this campaign. Especially when a competitive, robust local campaign can expect to spend around $8 to $10 per voter.
There is another point worth making clear. The full $280,700 did not arrive as cash. The report lists a $232,500 cash gift. It also lists three gifts of services: $10,000 for a website (that as of this writing, the webiste www.strongpiqua.com is still not operational), $3,200 for text messages, and $35,000 for digital ad work and placement. These are called in-kind gifts. The donor provides or pays for a service instead of handing over money.
Those services count because they help a campaign reach voters just as cash does. The cash could help pay for more ads, mail, signs, or other campaign costs. Some of that work might go to local firms. Sadly, most will not. The amount raised tells us nothing, by itself, about how much will stay in Piqua.
Then there is the donor.
Centera lists its address as 2308 Mount Vernon Avenue in Alexandria. That is a UPS Store that offers private mailboxes with a street address. A mailbox is not proof of wrongdoing. It is not proof that the donor is fake. But it does not tell voters who runs the group or where its money comes from.
But it does lead to questions that deserve straight answers.
Knowing the donor’s names is a start. Knowing who stands behind the donor would tell voters much more. Who leads Centera? Who funds it? What does it hope will happen in Piqua? Does it have a stake in the choices on the ballot?
These are fair questions. They would be fair if the donor were based in Troy, Toledo, or right down the street.
Being from outside Ohio does not make an argument false. Being from Piqua does not make one true. A claim should stand or fall on the facts.
But voters should know who is paying to put that claim in front of them.
A group can buy more ads without having better facts. It can repeat a message without answering the questions behind it. And a polished campaign name is not a substitute for a clear account of who is involved.
This publication has clearly stated in the past that proponents of the city’s data center, in which this recall and referendum elections are linked, have declared that any potential benefit will occur with guanranteed certainty. Just as every opponent has made claims that enviornmental catastrophe is just around the corner. Neither claim is correct and needs a better community discussion.
And an outside group spending over a quarter-million dollars in a community that they probably couldn’t find on a map a year ago is sadly not going to get us any more honest and open answers that would actually help residents discern the best option for the community at the ballot box.
And that is where the community will truly lose, no matter the outcome.
There is no basis yet to say how much this committee will spend in that election. But voters should not assume the questions about its funding end when this election does. More ballot issues will be facing voters in February. And sadly, it’s more likely that more hyperbolic campaigning that strives to influence voters, rather than encouarge thoughtful discourse between neighbors will be on offer.
Piqua does not need to shut out outside voices. It needs to know whose voices they are. If someone wants to spend more than a quarter-million dollars shaping a local vote, asking who they are is not an attack. It is a reasonable fact to ask questions about.
This is what it looks like when residents stay informed. If you find value in this work, share it with a neighbor, a colleague, or anyone who cares about this community. Paid subscriptions keep it going — $5 a month.
Civic Capacity runs on one thing: readers who believe local journalism matters. If you want to support this work without a subscription, you can now make a one-time contribution through Buy Me a Coffee — or in my case, Buy Me an Iced Tea. Click the button below. Every contribution goes directly into the work you read here every day.