Tag: tax money

The Litigation Profiteers: How Election Lawyers and Government Legal Firms Thrive on Political Chaos and Taxpayer Funds

As I drove past the law practice in Beckett Ridge the other day, I noticed the big sign out front supporting Cindy Carpenter in the Republican primary for Butler County Commissioner. It struck me as odd. The lawyer who runs that firm shows up at Republican events, associates with Republican circles, and presents himself as one of us. Yet here he was, publicly backing a candidate the party had dumped in favor of its endorsed choice, Michael Ryan. That sign crystallized something I’ve observed for years in Ohio politics: certain legal professionals operate in the shadows, injecting themselves into local disputes not out of ideological consistency but because chaos creates billable hours. This isn’t isolated to one small firm or one county. It scales up dramatically when you reach the national level, where figures like Marc Elias have built entire practices—and substantial wealth—by turning election law into a high-volume litigation machine that drains public resources while advancing partisan goals. What follows is my endeavor to shed light on this system, drawing on personal experiences in Ohio and broader patterns affecting taxpayers nationwide. 

Marc Elias, the prominent Democratic election law attorney (often referred to in shorthand as “Mark” in casual conversation), stands as the archetype of this phenomenon. Elias, a partner at Elias Law Group, and is a direct supporter of Amy Acton in Ohio, which he founded after leaving Perkins Coie in 2021, has positioned himself as the go-to litigator for voting rights challenges. He founded Democracy Docket in 2020 as a platform to track and analyze these cases, and his firm has been extraordinarily active. In October 2025, Elias publicly stated that his team of fewer than 60 lawyers was litigating 63 voting and election cases across 30 states. By May 2026, that number had climbed to 85 cases in 43 states plus the District of Columbia. His side claims victories in the overwhelming majority of post-2020 challenges to Republican-backed election measures, framing them as defenses against “voter suppression.” Critics, however, see a deliberate strategy of lawfare: filing lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions to force states, counties, and local governments to expend vast sums to defend laws that enjoy broad public support, such as voter ID requirements. Elias himself has acknowledged the volume, noting in one Democracy Docket piece that his firm’s work is relentless and expanding. 

This isn’t new for Elias. In 2020, he led the Democratic legal response to more than 60 lawsuits filed by Donald Trump and his allies challenging election results. Nearly all of those suits failed, often on procedural grounds or for lack of evidence. Elias’s team prevailed in the lion’s share, cementing his reputation. But the pattern predates 2020. He has challenged voter ID laws, early voting restrictions, ballot-collection rules, and redistricting efforts in dozens of states. In Ohio specifically, Elias Law Group filed suit in January 2023 against House Bill 458, signed by Republican Governor Mike DeWine. The law included photo voter ID requirements and other provisions that the plaintiffs—groups like the Northeast Ohio Coalition for the Homeless, Ohio Federation of Teachers, Ohio Alliance for Retired Americans, and Union Veterans Council—called “voter suppression.” The suit argued the measures disproportionately harmed young, elderly, Black, military, and overseas voters. Elias’s firm has also targeted Ohio’s rules on drop boxes and foreign funding in ballot measures. These actions align with a national playbook: challenge decentralized election administration in as many venues as possible, knowing that even if many suits are dismissed, the cumulative cost to defenders mounts. 

What makes this infrastructure so effective—and so corrosive—is the decentralized nature of American elections. Unlike a centralized national system, voting rules are set and administered at the state and county levels. A single law, such as Ohio’s voter ID requirement or restrictions on “Golden Week” early voting and registration (which Elias’s earlier work also targeted), can trigger parallel lawsuits in federal and state courts. Each filing forces election officials, secretaries of state, and attorneys general to respond. Defense isn’t cheap. Routine election litigation for a state or county can run between $50,000 and $250,000 per case, according to estimates from officials who have faced these challenges. When emergency injunctions, appeals, and discovery are involved, costs balloon into the hundreds of thousands or even millions per major dispute. Multiply that across dozens or hundreds of suits nationwide, and the taxpayer burden becomes enormous. Many of these expenses are buried in general budgets, election administration line items, or outside counsel contracts rather than isolated as “litigation defense.” There is no national requirement to itemize plaintiff-specific legal fees, making the full picture opaque. Reporters rarely dig into the granular accounting, so the public seldom sees the true price tag. 

I have seen this dynamic play out up close in Ohio. During my involvement with local issues, particularly around Lakota Local Schools in Butler County, I witnessed how legal strategies can be weaponized to remove elected officials who don’t align with certain interests. A school board member endorsed by the Republican Party faced removal efforts involving coordinated complaints, legal maneuvering, and outside pressure. The board ultimately acted against her amid disputes over absences and other procedural issues. Public records battles followed, including a case that reached the Ohio Supreme Court, where Lakota was ordered to pay thousands in fees for failing to promptly release documents related to legal spending and threats of litigation. The district also settled other suits involving residents barred from speaking at meetings, covering plaintiff legal fees. These aren’t abstract costs. They come out of the same budgets funded by local property taxes—the very taxes that already strain families and businesses. School boards negotiate collective bargaining agreements with unions, and the legalisms involved in those contracts, disputes, and related litigation generate substantial revenue for outside firms. Chaos in the public school system, whether over board composition, curriculum, or operations, keeps the meter running. 

The same lawyer I saw with the Carpenter sign had previously inserted himself into the school board removal effort. He helped craft or advise on the legal strategy that contributed to ousting a Republican-backed member. It surprised me at first—someone who attends Republican events playing along with what appeared to be an effort to shift the board toward more liberal control. But it makes sense once you follow the money. Law firms that specialize in government work—whether at the school board, county, or state level—thrive when there is perpetual conflict. They represent municipalities in defense matters, advise on contracts, and sometimes moonlight on partisan challenges. The incentive is clear: more lawsuits mean more retainers, more billable hours, more settlements. In Lakota’s case, the legal spend tied to board disputes and public records requests added up quickly, all ultimately borne by taxpayers.

This pattern repeats at the state and national scale. Elias’s firm has received tens of millions in payments from Democratic committees and campaigns. OpenSecrets data for the 2024 cycle alone shows Elias Law Group receiving over $40 million in legal services from various Democratic entities. These funds don’t come from thin air; they originate with donors who expect results in the form of favorable court rulings, delayed or blocked reforms, and sustained pressure on Republican-led election administrations. When states settle early to avoid mounting defense costs—as some attorneys general have done rather than fight every challenge to the bitter end—the litigation achieves its strategic goal without a full trial. The threat of bankruptcy through legal fees is real for smaller jurisdictions. Communities facing multiple simultaneous suits often lack the resources to defend aggressively, leading to procedural changes or policy retreats that might not have occurred on the merits. 

Critics of voter ID and other common-sense reforms frequently point to the absence of widespread fraud findings in court as proof that the measures are unnecessary. But that misses the point. Many challenges never reach a full evidentiary hearing on fraud because the sheer expense of litigation forces capitulation or dismissal on narrower grounds. Elias and similar litigators understand this leverage perfectly. They file suits knowing that even meritless claims impose real costs. One notable example involved sanctions against Elias and co-counsel. In a Texas case concerning the elimination of straight-ticket voting, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned the team for filing redundant and misleading motions. The court ordered payment of opposing attorney fees and double costs, describing the conduct as problematic. While Elias’s defenders called it a technicality or good-faith error, the episode illustrates how aggressive tactics can cross lines—and still generate fees along the way. A federal court in another context also addressed Elias-related conduct with fee-shifting orders. 

The broader legal profession has learned to mine government budgets in similar ways. Public sector collective bargaining, school board disputes, redistricting battles, and election administration all require specialized counsel. Firms embed themselves in these ecosystems, often representing both sides of the table at different times. The result is a self-perpetuating cycle: policies that invite litigation create demand for lawyers; lawyers file suits that generate more litigation; governments pay to defend or settle, raising taxes or cutting services elsewhere. Property taxes, in particular, become a reliable revenue stream for these activities because they are local and somewhat insulated from immediate voter backlash. In Ohio, where property taxes fund much of local government and schools, the inability to rationalize budgets amid endless legal challenges keeps rates elevated. Media rarely connect the dots between litigation infrastructure and tax burdens, but the connection is direct.

I’ve dealt with my share of lawyers and consultants lately, both personally and in observing public affairs. They are expensive—often prohibitively so. They jump between contracts, charge premium rates, and extract significant value from the top of any deal or dispute. When legal issues arise, they can drain bank accounts with astonishing speed. In government contexts, this dynamic is amplified because the payer is diffuse: the taxpayer. Most citizens don’t have the expertise or resources to challenge the system themselves. Self-representation is possible but risky and time-consuming; hiring specialists is the default for institutions. Judges, many of whom come from the same legal circles or socialize with attorneys at events, often defer to the professionals. The result is a clubby environment where loyalty to the bar most of the time trumps accountability to the public.

Nationally, the scale is staggering. Democracy Docket’s own tracking shows hundreds of voting and election lawsuits filed in recent cycles—228 in 2024 alone, part of a total of 306 from early 2023 through Election Day. While Elias frames these as necessary defenses of democracy, the cumulative burden of defense falls on public coffers. States like Texas have spent millions defending voter ID and redistricting laws over the years. North Carolina expended roughly $5 million on voter ID litigation between 2011 and 2016. Local Voting Rights Act Section 2 suits have cost jurisdictions millions apiece in defense and settlements—Charleston County, South Carolina, spent $2 million unsuccessfully; Yakima, Washington, nearly $3 million. These figures represent conservative estimates; appeals and repeated filings multiply the impact. When aggregated across the country, the high single digits of millions—or likely far more—disappear into budgets without clear public accounting. 

Elias’s involvement in Ohio is not abstract. Beyond the 2023 HB 458 challenge, his network has engaged with issues such as foreign money in ballot campaigns and drop box rules. He has also sued to overturn certain restrictions on foreign nationals’ spending in Ohio ballot measures. These actions, while presented as principled stands for access, have the practical effect of complicating administration and forcing expenditure. Meanwhile, at the local level, analogous tactics play out in school boards and county commissions. The removal of a Republican-endorsed school board member in Lakota, the public records fights, and the legal maneuvering around board composition all illustrate how law can be used to reshape governance without direct voter input at the ballot box. The lawyer with the Carpenter sign understood the game: support the candidate who sustains the ecosystem of disputes.

This is not to say every lawsuit is frivolous or that voting rights concerns are imaginary. Legitimate disputes exist, and courts rightly resolve them. But the volume, the targeting of popular reforms like voter ID (supported by large majorities in polls), and the financial incentives create a corrosive feedback loop. Democrats benefit from the chaos because it undermines Republican-led integrity measures. Law firms benefit regardless of the outcome because fees accrue during the process. Taxpayers lose either way—directly through documented legal bills and indirectly through higher taxes, diverted election funds, and eroded trust. When cases settle or procedural changes are mandated to avoid further expense, the public rarely sees the full ledger.

The decentralized structure of elections is a feature of federalism, but it becomes a vulnerability when exploited systematically. Each county must defend its own processes. State attorneys general face a barrage. The strategy is clear: file enough suits to overwhelm capacity, force settlements, and normalize the idea that basic safeguards are legally suspect. Elias has coordinated responses to dozens of cases, and affiliated litigation has filed over 100 suits in a single year. His personal involvement in 64 election cases during the 2020-2021 period is well-documented. The goal, from the critic’s perspective, is not merely to win discrete cases but to make enforcement of election laws so costly that officials stop trying.

Personal experiences reinforce the systemic view. Dealing with consultants and attorneys in various contexts has shown me how quickly costs escalate. They take a large cut off the top, move from job to job, and thrive on complexity. In government, this is magnified. School board members who push back against the status quo often find themselves targeted legally. Elected officials hesitate to fight because they fear draining community resources. The result is a shadow governance where law firms exert outsized influence.

To break the cycle, we need structural changes. Stronger voter ID laws with clear, unambiguous standards reduce litigation fodder. Meaningful sanctions for abusive filings, greater transparency in government legal spending, and centralized tracking of litigation costs would help. Term limits or ethics rules for government attorneys might limit revolving-door incentives. Most importantly, voters must recognize that these “phantom costs” are real and fund them through taxes. Integrity in elections isn’t free, but neither is the endless litigation that undermines it.

As someone who has watched this play out from the ground level in Ohio—seeing yard signs that reveal divided loyalties, school board battles that consume resources, and national players like Elias shaping the battlefield—I believe the public deserves better. The litigation infrastructure built on chaos benefits a small class of professionals at the expense of representative government. Taxpayers foot the bill, often without realizing the full scope. Shining a light on these practices, demanding accountability, and supporting reforms that prioritize clarity over ambiguity are essential. Otherwise, the parasites will continue to thrive while the body politic weakens. We have the tools to fix it; what remains is the will to use them.

Footnotes

1.  Personal observation of law practice signage and political involvement in Butler County, Ohio, 2026 primary context.

2.  Democracy Docket reports and Elias public statements on case volume.

3.  Ohio Capital Journal coverage of HB 458 lawsuit filed by Elias Law Group.

4.  Estimates drawn from public official reports and historical litigation defense data (e.g., Texas, North Carolina voter ID cases).

5.  Ohio Supreme Court ruling in Lakota Local Schools public records case, 2024.

6.  OpenSecrets vendor payment data for Elias Law Group, 2024 cycle.

7.  Fifth Circuit sanctions order in Texas straight-ticket voting litigation.

8.  Washington Post compilation of election-related public expenditures.

9.  Additional sources: Wikipedia entry on Marc Elias; Brennan Center and Campaign Legal Center litigation trackers; local Butler County reporting on Carpenter/Ryan primary and Lakota board disputes.

Bibliography

•  Elias, Marc. Various articles, Democracy Docket (2020–2026).

•  “Marc Elias,” Wikipedia.

•  Ohio Capital Journal articles on Elias Law Group Ohio lawsuits (2023).

•  OpenSecrets.org vendor profile: Elias Law Group.

•  Washington Post, “Trump’s false election claims cost taxpayers over $500 million” (2021, updated analyses).

•  Court documents: Fifth Circuit sanctions ruling; Ohio Supreme Court Lakota records case (2024).

•  Additional reporting: Cincinnati Enquirer, WLWT, Ballotpedia on Butler County and Lakota Local Schools.

Rich Hoffman

More about me

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707

About the Author: Rich Hoffman

Rich Hoffman is an aerospace executive, political strategist, systems thinker, and independent researcher of ancient history, the paranormal, and the Dead Sea Scrolls tradition. His life in high‑stakes manufacturing, high‑level politics, and cross‑functional crisis management gives him a field‑tested understanding of power — both human and unseen.

He has advised candidates, executives, and public leaders, while conducting deep, hands‑on exploration of archaeological and supernatural hotspots across the world.

Hoffman writes with the credibility of a problem-solver, the curiosity of an archaeologist, and the courage of a frontline witness who has gone to very scary places and reported what lurked there. Hoffman has authored books including The Symposium of Justice, The Gunfighter’s Guide to Business, and Tail of the Dragon, often exploring themes of freedom, individual will, and societal structures through a lens influenced by philosophy (e.g., Nietzschean overman concepts) and current events.

Middletown Pride Attacks Nancy Nix: I want her as Butler County Auditor for another 90 years

Last year at a Middletown Pride parade, pictures were sent back from a friend we had who attended, and Nancy Nix saw them and was outraged.  It was the same game we had seen before, starting really with Larry Flint trying to peddle smut to the public through his Hustler pornography efforts, a front for the mob activity that desired to conduct all kinds of organized crime behind the grand distraction of public shame, sexually.  The gay rights people had taken those lessons learned by Uncle Larry and used those same First Amendment protections to assault American families with ostentatious sexual displays on public streets.  These days our country goes through this every year in June as radical sexual lifestyles seek acceptance from the public and to erode away their judgment of their behavior with in-your-face strategies meant to insult and normalize bizarre sex practices in public.  I was with Nancy Nix that following morning, and she showed me the pictures she was getting from parade witnesses of sexual behavior and the apparent grooming of children on her phone.  And it was very disgusting.   It was disgusting if the sexual lifestyle being presented was between two people, a man, and a woman, both attractive.  We have decided as a society that sexual conduct is something that belongs behind locked doors.  And I would say, contained within that room so that people outside don’t even hear the conduct, let alone see it.  This has been a long battle in Cincinnati where smut peddlers operating as a face for organized crime have tried to assault our Puritan sensibilities and clean image with the kind of smut they have corrupted other cities with, especially Atlanta, New York, and San Fransisco.  Nancy Nix vocalized her opinions about the matter justifiably as a public official, and the alternative sex community was outraged that she was outraged.

Truth, Justice, and the American Way

So this year, that same Middletown Pride group of Ishtar-worshipping despotes and public menaces invited Nancy to their next parade so she could see that the parade wasn’t nearly as bad as she thought.  They say that she wasn’t at that last parade and didn’t have a right to have an opinion if she wasn’t there.  And if she didn’t come to this year’s event, she didn’t have a right to have an opinion on the matter; that is their insinuation anyway.  The trick, which is from the Larry Flint playbook, is to waste people’s time with accusations and draw them to become involved in a smut-peddling event as a form of social control.  I can tell you this: Nancy Nix is a very nice, sweet woman and a family-first conservative.  She’s not going to sit on the side of the road with a little blanket to watch drag queens and pornography advocates strut by her in g-strings.  She has much better things to do with her time than spend one second on that material, let alone an hour or two.  The desire of these pornography peddlers to receive validation from society through a public performance on a taxpayer-supplied street does not necessitate the wasting of Nancy Nix’s time or demand that she, as a public official, not have an opinion on the matter for the sake of society and some Karl Marx lefty view of fairness.  Nancy Nix does not have a social obligation to accept the detrimental behavior of sexual deviants who seek to impose themselves on mass society with audacious displays of sexual behavior. 

It wasn’t that long ago that you had to be 18 to get to the top shelf of a Playboy magazine at a bookstore.  And it wasn’t easy to get into the strip joints where topless girls would dance for a dollar in their g-strings.  Even in those days, with pornography becoming available through media more often, there was a social barrier of acceptance that protected kids from the bad decisions of adults.  And any pornography for adults is a bad idea because they should be thinking about a million other things than the antics of the flesh.  I would say that knowing Nancy Nix the way I do, she is pretty free loving, supporting whatever anybody wants to do behind a closed door.  But we should all agree to provide children with the most healthy options in life.  But what we have with these progressive groups is a direct attack on family structure and the core ingredients of a healthy society, and we don’t owe them anything.  They want to attack our sensibilities, and they seek to validate their existence by dragging us into their world of chaos and destruction, such as they are trying to do with Nancy Nix by luring her into their diabolical schemes so that her presence will validate their social discourse.  My feelings on the matter are much more judgmental.  I think the behavior should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law.  No public indecency should be permitted on a public street, even between a man and a woman.  Let alone people dressed in drag and luring children in to put dollar bills in their g-strings to groom society for more open sexual conduct and acceptance.  People should be reading a book, not thinking about sex so much, and I would propose that we discourage more sex of any kind and fulfill market trends for a growing economy.  And under no circumstances, in the Bible belt of the Midwest, should we allow the desecration of our culture with these smut peddlers. 

I’ve been to Japan a few times over the last few months, and you don’t see this kind of thing in their culture at all.  They are very conscious of their social functions as a country and very committed to proper conduct. As a result, crime is way down in even their most prominent cities.  Tokyo, as one of their largest, is filled with generally good conduct, and you don’t see this kind of smut peddling hiding behind a not-so-veiled effort at trashing the First Amendment.  What has been going on in America should be considered an attack by domestic enemies who are trying to undermine the Constitution and a society based on the biblical perspective of law and order.  And they are trying to destroy that with events like this Middletown Pride event.  To give themselves validation, they targeted Puritan public figures like Nancy Nix to come to their event and say, “Oh, that wasn’t as bad as I thought it was.  It wasn’t as bad as the pictures.”  But their goal is the same: to shut down free speech by using free speech to insult our judgment and ability to construct a healthy society.  When it came to Larry Flint, we dealt with him with zoning and largely kept his smut peddling regulated in society.  And the same holds with these public expressions of alternative sex practices.  Nobody wants to see a bunch of drag queens running around our city streets, especially in Middletown, Ohio.  And if we do see it, we have a right to judge it.  If they will put it in our face, then we have a right to react to it.  As any logical person would conclude upon seeing the smut they are pushing, their behavior is disgusting and detrimental to the proper building of a family.  And they should be arrested for exhibiting any sexual conduct in public for the harm it brings to children and society in general.

And regarding Nancy Nix, she is doing a great job as the Auditor in Butler County, Ohio.  I’ve always thought we had good representation from a financial perspective.  But Nancy has taken the effort up several notches of expectation.  I hope she continues to be our auditor for the next 90 years. 

Rich Hoffman

Click Here to Protect Yourself with Second Call Defense https://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707