Richland Farmland Preservation is pushing Ohio voters to keep a county ban that blocks utility‑scale wind and solar projects in 11 of its 18 townships. The ban, which limits new solar projects of 50 MW or more and wind projects of 5 MW or more, could set a precedent for other counties resisting renewable development. Context Ohio now has more than three dozen counties that bar renewable energy under a 2021 law that imposes extra hurdles on siting. Richland’s effort is unique because residents mobilized to place the ban on the ballot for a May 5 election, offering voters a chance to restore case‑by‑case consideration of renewables. Key Data As of April 21, Richland Farmland Preservation reported only five contributions totaling $8,000. The campaign agreed to pay $12,400 to the Republican political advertising firm Majority Strategies LLC for text messaging and digital advertising. A $2,500 donation from Whatman Farms LLC , a business linked to the campaign’s chief strategist, was the largest single contribution. The group also received $1,500 from Ohio state Sen. Mark Romanchuk’s campaign committee. In contrast, the opposing group, Richland County Citizens for Property Rights and Job Development , spent more money and attracted a broader range of donors, with individual contributions ranging from $5 to $500. Their report lists cash and in‑kind donations from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Ohio Citizen Action , and expenses for fundraisers, town hall rentals, and campaign materials. Quotes Dave Anderson, policy and communications manager for the Energy and Policy Institute, said the campaign’s framing "reminds me … of this overall abuse by either front groups or political operatives for the gas industry." Emily Adams, treasurer for the opposition group, noted that the donor mix "shows real buy‑in from people in the county to help get this message out to voters." Anderson added that these organizations oppose solar and wind by framing arguments "around farmland preservation, while also advocating for lifting any limits on oil and gas extraction in those same rural counties." Adams noted, "I’m not surprised that people with direct ties to the natural gas industry would be giving money to the vote-yes campaign," adding, "I guess it just kind of shows that it’s not really about preserving farmland for them. It’s about preserving the land for their own use and personal gain." Outlook If the referendum passes, it could provide a blueprint for other rural counties to challenge renewable restrictions, potentially reshaping the balance between fossil fuel interests and clean energy development in Ohio’s energy landscape.