Sherrod Brown’s attack on Ohio data centers now faces a Google-linked money trail and his own past praise for similar investment.
Brown’s campaign is targeting Republican Sen. Jon Husted over Ohio’s data center growth, blaming that expansion for pressure on electric bills and the state’s power grid.
But the Democratic former senator previously celebrated an Amazon data center project. Federal Election Commission records also show contributions to his campaign from Google’s corporate PAC and several Google lobbyists, Fox News Digital reported.
The Sept. 4 campaign ad features an Ohio resident blaming Husted for “the push to bring data centers to Ohio.” It shows a Google-owned facility in Lancaster that opened in 2023.
The contradiction gives Husted an opening in a Senate race where utility costs, new technology and campaign money have converged into one argument.
Brown’s current position differs sharply from the message he delivered in 2015. That year, he celebrated construction of an Amazon data center in central Ohio as “great news for New Albany and central Ohio.”
Now seeking a return to the Senate after losing to Republican Bernie Moreno in 2024, Brown is blaming Husted for helping the industry expand across Ohio.
Brown campaign spokeswoman Lauren Chou said Husted was a “chief reason” Ohio has 226 data centers and called him “the face of data centers” in the state.
Chou said residents should not have to cover costs tied to those facilities. She also argued that local communities, rather than Husted and his allies, should decide whether data centers get built.
Those concerns deserve direct answers. Large power users should pay the costs they create, and families should not receive the bill for politically favored development.
But Brown’s campaign has not reconciled its attack with his past support for data center construction. That gap matters more because Google-related political money flowed to his campaign committee.
Fox News Digital reported that FEC records show Google’s corporate political action committee contributed $20,000 to Brown over his political career.
The records also show Google lobbyist Lisa Kountoupes gave $3,500 to Friends of Sherrod Brown in March, though the year was not identified. Lobbyist Michael D. Smith donated $10,200 to Brown beginning in 2017.
Three other Google lobbyists contributed a combined $6,000 during the past decade, the records showed. The names of those three lobbyists were not provided.
The FEC disclosures place Brown’s campaign in the same broader debate over Senate campaign money that often tests whether a candidate’s public message matches his financial support.
Campaign contributions do not settle the policy argument. They do, however, create an accountability question when a candidate attacks an industry represented by donors to his own committee.
Ohio GOP strategist Mehek Cooke put the issue plainly: “Apparently, Google is terrible enough to put in a campaign attack ad, but perfectly acceptable when the political contributions are coming in.”
Cooke called it “Jekyll-and-Hyde politics” and asked why Google political money was acceptable if the company’s Lancaster investment was so harmful to Ohio.
The campaign donations sit beside another part of the record. Federal lobbying filings show firms working for Google on the same grid and permitting issues now driving Brown’s attack.
Cornerstone Government Affairs reported lobbying for Google on “issues related to permitting reform for grid reliability and energy affordability.”
Google also hired Kountoupes Denham Carr & Reid in December to lobby on permitting changes tied to its data center needs. The year of that hiring was not identified.
Brown’s campaign has not provided a direct response to the reported Google-related contributions. Nor has Brown personally explained how his 2015 praise fits with his current campaign’s criticism.
The dispute adds another pressure point for Husted, whose campaign has faced separate political scrutiny. On data centers, however, his team is pointing to legislation rather than denying that the power-cost problem exists.
That distinction matters. Brown is attacking Husted for encouraging data center growth, while Husted’s campaign says he pursued a plan to prevent companies from shifting their power costs onto families.
Husted campaign spokeswoman Amy Natoce said his bipartisan bill would require data center companies to pay for the electricity they use. She said Senate Democrats blocked it after the House approved it.
The New York Post reported that the House passed Husted’s Ratepayer Protection Act by a 417-3 vote. Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich then objected to an effort to fast-track it in the Senate.
Heinrich proposed his GRID Savings Act instead. His measure would require large electricity users, including data centers, to pay for facilities connecting them to the power grid.
Moreno objected to Heinrich’s proposal, leaving both measures stalled. The sequence shows a familiar problem in high-stakes Senate clashes: broad agreement on the concern can still collapse over competing bills and control of the outcome.
Neither campaign can honestly treat rising power demand as a minor issue. The dispute is over who pays, who decides where facilities go and which proposal can clear Congress.
Brown’s ad ties Ohio’s data center growth to higher electric bills. But the material cited by the campaigns does not establish that a specific Ohio data center caused a confirmed increase in household rates.
That leaves voters with competing campaign claims and an incomplete policy result. Husted can point to overwhelming House support for his bill, while Brown must explain why his criticism arrived after years of praise and Google-linked contributions.
Sen. Bernie Moreno has warned that local concerns about grid strain could shape the coming midterm elections. President Donald Trump has pushed data center expansion, while Vice President J.D. Vance has presented such facilities as important to America’s artificial intelligence growth.
Cooke argued that the United States is competing with China in artificial intelligence, computing capacity and energy infrastructure. Her point does not erase local cost concerns, but it places them inside a larger national contest.
A sound policy should protect ratepayers without driving major investment away. It should also require candidates to state the same position before and after the campaign cameras start running.
Brown’s case against Husted may depend on proving that Husted’s policies harmed Ohio families. Before that argument can stick, Brown still owes voters an answer about his old praise and Google-linked campaign money.
Working families deserve honest costs and honest politics. A candidate who demands accountability from an industry should begin with his own record.