THE APEX TIMES
Philip Stearns, related to Democrat Amy Acton, released a new response ad attacking Republican nominee Vivek Ramaswamy after a video circulated online that shows Acton’s estranged mother calling her a liar and urging Ohioans to vote against Acton, according to The Hill.
A new political advertisement from Philip Stearns, the brother of Ohio gubernatorial candidate Amy Acton, escalated a dispute over a circulating online video that includes statements attributed to Acton’s estranged mother, who says Acton is a liar and urges Ohio voters to reject her daughter, according to a report by The Hill published October 20.
The Hill reported that Stearns’s new ad directly blamed Republican nominee Vivek Ramaswamy for the spread of the video, portraying the campaign matter as part of an effort to influence the Ohio governor’s race.
At the center of the dispute is the content of the circulated video itself. The Hill said the video features Acton’s estranged mother making statements about Acton and urging Ohioans not to support her candidacy. The article describes Acton as appearing to be the target of the mother’s remarks, with the message framed as an instruction to vote against her.
Stearns’s response also appears to position the controversy as a question of character and credibility in a statewide election, with the brother taking aim at the GOP nominee’s role in bringing the video into the campaign conversation. The report characterizes Stearns’s ad as a denunciation, including the line “Not fit to lead,” aimed at Ramaswamy.
The episode underscores how quickly personal and family-related material can become part of election-season messaging, particularly when material is uploaded or shared in a way that can spread beyond the originating context. While the controversy focuses on Acton’s family, the response ad shifts attention to the Republican nominee and the role of allied messaging in amplifying it.
No court filings, official election complaints, or determinations about the authenticity or sourcing of the video were described in The Hill’s report. The next factual step for voters and campaigns would be whether any parties challenge the video’s provenance, accuracy, or distribution, or whether campaigns confine the exchange to additional advertisements and statements as the race proceeds.