Top Jon Husted Senate Aide Kept Working for Ohio Lobbying Firm

A top aide to Republican Sen. Jon Husted of Ohio maintained a paid consulting relationship with an Ohio lobbying firm while serving as the senator’s senior adviser, according to a federal financial disclosure filing.

Sean Dunn, who has served as Husted’s senior adviser and counsel since February 2025, disclosed working as a consultant for Statehouse Impact Group — a Columbus-based government relations and lobbying firm.

The disclosure — part of Dunn’s certified personal financial report covering calendar year 2025 and submitted to Congress on May 14 — shows Dunn received $22,652 from the firm while he also worked in Husted’s office.

Husted’s office did not respond to questions about the nature of Dunn’s work with Statehouse Impact Group.

“Our office holds our team to the highest ethical standards. In this case, Mr. Dunn has been in regular contact with the Ethics Committee to ensure he has reported everything to their satisfaction,” Olivia Tripodi, a spokesperson for Husted, said in a statement to NOTUS. “Our team is grateful for his willingness to capstone his career in public service.”

But Jeff Hauser, the executive director of the government watchdog group the Revolving Door Project, said Dunn’s double duty could create an uncomfortable dynamic for members and staff of the Ohio state legislature, where saying no could risk damaging relationships with one of Ohio’s two U.S. senators.

“This basically just comes down to the fact that, like, firewalls are a myth. There’s just no way anyone can be both the general counsel to Senator Husted and just a guy,” Hauser told NOTUS. “It’s unethical.”

Dylan Hedtler-Gaudette, the interim vice president of policy and government affairs at the nonpartisan Project on Government Oversight, agrees.

“If you’re an Ohio lawmaker, an Ohio state legislator, and you are talking to a number of lobbyists, and one of them happens to also work for the former lieutenant governor-slash-current senator, that’s going to add a bunch of additional juice and leverage whatever you’re advocating for,” Hedtler-Gaudette said. “It’s not the kind of practice I would want to see happening on a regular basis.”

At least one Ohio attorney familiar with Dunn’s work is petitioning the Senate to investigate.

Anne Griffin of Columbus, Ohio, filed a formal complaint on May 29 with the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, asking for it to investigate both Dunn and Husted, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by NOTUS.

Griffin, who did not respond to questions from NOTUS, argues that Dunn’s paid consulting work while working as a Senate staffer is a violation of Senate Rule 37.

This rule prohibits members and their staff from benefiting financially from their position of influence within the Senate. The rule also prohibits any staffer from using their official position for personal gain, and restricts staffers from holding “professional services” positions — defined broadly to include consulting and other roles that create a duty to an outside client. For senior staffers, the rule carries additional requirements.

The complaint also implicates Husted directly, arguing that the senator bore primary responsibility under Senate rules to prevent conflicts of interest among his staff and appears to have failed in that duty. The complaint asks the committee to investigate both whether Dunn received improper compensation and whether Husted was aware of the arrangement and failed to act.

Husted’s office did not acknowledge a NOTUS question about whether they were aware of the complaint, but said that Dunn was in regular contact with the Senate Ethics Committee.

The Senate Ethics Committee, which generally does not confirm or deny the existence of complaints it received, did not respond to a request for comment.

The committee can issue advisory opinions on outside employment arrangements, but those opinions, which serve to help officials comply with Senate rules and federal law, are not a matter of public record.

In January, a NOTUS investigation revealed that since 2007, the Senate Ethics Committee is 0-for-2,007 in issuing formal disciplinary sanctions stemming from complaints it has considered.