About OCR

The OCR Story:

After the disappointment of the November 2012 General Election, conservatives were left with many questions.

The soul-searching and identity crisis of the GOP following the result of the 2012 General Election has been well-documented.  The lost races for the White House and U.S. Senate left conservatives wondering what role they had played, and would play going forward.  Many were anxious about whether the Republican party would recommit to the principles of its platform–those conservative ideals that helped the GOP take back the US House of Representatives and John Kasich defeat Ted Strickland in 2010.  Would the GOP or the ORP sell out their base and move toward the fiscal and social policies of the Left?  Are conservatives too philosophically scattered to exert any lasting political influence?

Stirred by these questions, a handful of men from southwest Ohio committed themselves to meeting once a month for dinner, prayer, and no-holds-barred critique of the state and strategy of the contemporary conservative movement.  Out of these dinners came two overarching determinations:

  1. Conservatives have a messaging problem. The public does not understand the value and relevancy of conservative ideas about truly American values. The political and cultural Left has out-messaged us. In order to compete, conservatives need to better engage the marketplace of ideas. Like Reagan, they need to convey the appeal of their ideas and beliefs, inspiring the same confidence, clarity, and optimism that the Great Communicator so famously did last century.
  2. History and recent political developments have illustrated that a group of committed and talented individuals, when led by conviction, can exert tremendous influence on the politics in their state. Often resources are wasted on the national level, when they could have deep and lasting impact on changing the landscape of local and state politics.

Out of these determinations arose an idea and an endeavor: Ohio Conservative Review.

Ohio Conservative Review is a platform for conservative beliefs to be expressed, debated, and promoted in Ohio. Our goal is to influence current policy and public opinion and to train the next generation in the benefits of conservative thought and ideas.  This site seeks out the best conservative minds in Ohio and gives them a forum to promote conservative beliefs. Its current writers hail from a range of sectors and include small-business owners, teachers, lawyers, public servants, political activists, and entrepreneurs.

This is our story. We hope you enjoy the site and our writers. We welcome your feedback and encourage you to share this platform with your friends.


The OCR Founders: Justin Powell, Michael Hamilton, and Adam Josefczyk




  1. Claudia Davison said:

    I’m not on Facebook, so here is the comment I could not post regarding Mr. Pudner’s article on campaign finance reform:

    Thank you, Mr. Pudner, for acknowledging that the vast majority of Americans no longer have an effective voice in their government. The popularity of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders reflects this accumulated anger. It took decades, but the military-industrial-financial industry finally subverted the will of the People, as President Eisenhower anticipated.

    Conservatives perceive themselves as independent and responsible; very worthy characteristics. Over many decades, I have also witnessed Americans’ goodness and generosity. And yet we defaulted in a major civic responsibility: we let others pay for political campaigns. Who did we think would become the boss?

    I now think of the $3.00 tax return donation to the FEC for presidential campaigns and political party conventions as the “original sin” in rent-seeking. Donors did not know whose money they were supplementing, or obtain a voice in choosing candidates. Thereafter, public subsidies to private businesses skyrocketed, as the wealth and influence of most Americans declined.

    For that reason I disagree with donation and public matching funds financing: the revenue needed is unpredictable and insufficient. It does not eliminate fundraising or expand who chooses candidates. Vouchers and tax credits divert funds needed for other uses. Fortunately, a variety of career experiences provided me with the skills necessary to develop an alternative to existing campaign financing practices. The result is draft legislation titled The Fair Elections Fund—a Whole New Ball Game, at http://www.thefairelectionsfund.com. I seek nothing in return, but I cannot idly witness the widespread harm being inflicted by unfettered greed. If we want a real Representative Democracy, we must fund it. Is your government worth $7.00 a year to you?

    Alameda, CA
    (510) 521-6555

    • Ohio.Historian said:

      I find your post interesting, especially since it is posted on an Ohio site from Alameda, CA. You obviously care a lot. However, why do you insist that each taxpayer pay $7.00/year, when the tax code insists “the rich” pay much more than their proportional share? Or, why should a person who pays no income tax not have to pay for this? The whole approach you have stinks, in my opinion. It allows the bureaucrats to control how a nominee is presented while not recognizing the free advertising of the media and even the Internet.

      No, as bad as your “unfettered greed” is, it is far better than the solution you propose.
      I also do not Facebook, so I will respond similarly to your post.

      OCR, you need to get off from antiquated Facebook logins.

  2. Brian Garrison said:

    Oh my goodness, Claudia! I agree 100%. I was struck when I read the following: “…And yet we defaulted in a major civic responsibility: we let others pay for political campaigns. Who did we think would become the boss?” I just drafted an article for OCR (if it’s accepted…it’s my first article) that says exactly the same thing, but less eloquently. I follow talk radio and the Conservative press, and I have heard no one else say this.