Pardoned Ex-Ohio Councilman Seeks Supreme Court Absolution

P.G. Sittenfeld was forgiven for his crimes. But that’s not enough for him, and he’s still working to clear his reputation—at least legally—as a corrupt politician.

The 41-year-old former Cincinnati councilman, who was a rising star in Ohio Democratic circles, served less than five months in prison after being convicted of bribery and attempted extortion by a government official. Yet a year after his release, Sittenfeld says he was shocked to find himself on a list of pardons from President Donald Trump, alongside ex-Republican New York Congressman Michael Grimm and reality television stars Todd and Julie Chrisley.

Despite the pardon—from a member of the opposite party, no less—Sittenfeld is continuing his legal fight, backed by a team of pro bono Jones Day lawyers that includes Trump’s former Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco. He is pushing the US Supreme Court to overturn his convictions and rule on what juries can accept for proof of corrupt agreements in cases like his.

“The stakes go far beyond me—the consequences touch every candidate and donor engaged in lawful, constitutionally-protected political conduct,” Sittenfeld tells audiences on a speaking tour about his experience with the criminal justice system.

The case—which split a Sixth Circuit panel of Trump appointees—offers the high court an opportunity to revisit its free-speech guardrails around politicians’ efforts to fundraise while acting on policies that might affect donors. But it isn’t clear if Sittenfeld’s pardon will dissuade the court from taking his case, no matter how good a legal question he raises.

“Are we really going to spend millions on government money on a guy who doesn’t have a conviction?” asked David M. DeVillers, the former US attorney for the Southern District of Ohio who brought the case against Sittenfeld.

The Justice Department has until Nov. 10 to weigh in. A spokesman declined comment on what position it’ll take. Sittenfeld declined to answer questions about his situation.

Rising Star Turned Felon

The investigation into Sittenfeld began in 2018 with two undercover FBI agents posing as out-of-town investors looking for city support in redeveloping a run-down property. During one of several meetings and conversations, the agents offered Sittenfeld a $10,000 cash contribution.

While he refused that offer and later instructed them how to make a lawful contribution, he eventually accepted $20,000 for his PAC from the agents.

Sittenfeld has stressed that he explicitly turned down invitations to cross a bright line promising official support for campaign dollars. Jurors felt differently, finding him guilty on two of six counts, for which he was sentenced to 16 months in federal prison.

“It never seriously occurred to me to accept a plea deal because I simply couldn’t fathom saying that I’d done something that I hadn’t,” he’s said.

He served less than five months before his 2024 release by a US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit panel.

Explicit Agreements

The panel split, though, when it affirmed Sittenfeld’s convictions in February, ruling that a jury could interpret two FBI-recorded conversations as a quid pro quo agreement. However, they suggested the Supreme Court review the issues in the case, specifically how explicit an agreement needs to be for a jury to convict.

The Sixth Circuit’s handwringing stems from a pair of decades-old high court rulings.

In 1991’s McCormick v. US, the justices said “explicit” evidence of a quid pro quo is required when campaign donations are involved. A year later, Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurrence in Evans v. US said that doesn’t mean the evidence must be “express” and the content of a corrupt agreement can be inferred from other evidence.

Three conservatives dissented in Evans and current Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have questioned the opinion in the past decade. Gorsuch in 2021 said he’d reconsider Evans given “thoughtful criticisms” of the ruling.

Some legal observers have concerns about juror confusion when they’re asked to find “explicit” agreements through other evidence in cases concerning politicians soliciting campaign money.

“The idea that you can have an unspoken agreement is a minefield in a world where most political donations go to candidates that favor one’s economic interest,” said Martin G. Weinberg, a Boston defense attorney who faced the issue in a recent bribery case involving a Massachusetts tribal official.

DeVillers, now a partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP, said he has concerns about the jury instructions in Sittenfeld’s case, which referenced “winks and nods” when talking about the standard needed to prove the corrupt agreement.

“It’s definitely an issue,” said DeVillers, who stepped down as US attorney before the trial. “I don’t know if it’s fatal.”

Waiting Game

If the court’s interested, Sittenfeld’s pardon may not be an impediment, said Daniel Epps, a law professor at Washington University.

Sittenfeld says there are lingering collateral consequences that weren’t addressed by his pardon that the court should consider when deciding whether to accept his case: he wants returned a $40,000 fine, and Cincinnati is demanding he repay more than $80,000 of his councilman’s salary.

He’s also armed with an amicus brief led by former Attorneys General John Ashcroft and William P. Barr, the latter of whom oversaw the DOJ when the indictment was issued. They said the Sixth Circuit’s decision “opens the door to prosecutions for campaign contributions for ‘general influence,’ not quid pro quo bribery.”

Sittenfeld says his crusade is also meant to spare others from the pain he experienced.

In the meantime, he’s been active with speaking engagements since his release. He’s also written about his time behind bars in The Washington Post, Esquire, and other publications. His tour speaking about his case, which includes Federalist Society chapters, stopped at Washington University in St. Louis, Yale, and Harvard—where Bloomberg Law saw him speak Oct. 14.

“This experience has unleashed a deep skepticism about too much government power combined with too little accountability,” Sittenfeld tells audiences.