Dee and Jimmy Haslam are free to spend their money any way they see fit. If they want to waste it on support of an unrepentant sexual predator, well, it’s not the first time.

There is something distasteful, however, about the owners of the Cleveland Browns funding politicians and policies that would marginalize members of the public while asking those same members of the public to build them a new stadium.

A YSL News Sports review of federal election spending records found the Haslams gave $729,037 to Republican organizations this election cycle. That’s on top of money they gave locally, which includes $100,000 to defeat an anti-gerrymandering proposal on the Ohio ballot.

The Haslams’ contributions to Ohio Works matches the second-largest individual contribution to the organization that opposes Issue 1, which would limit gerrymandering by taking redistricting out of the hands of politicians. Instead of the current Ohio Redistricting Commission, which is comprised entirely of politicians, there would be a 15-member citizen panel split evenly between independents, Democrats and Republicans.

Why should Browns fans care about that? Gerrymandering makes elections less competitive by drawing political maps so they favor the party in power. As a result, our elections — our representation — are less democratic.

The Gerrymandering Project currently rates Ohio as “poor,” giving the state a D for partisan fairness. According to The Associated Press, Ohio is about 54% Republican and 46% Democratic. Yet in 2022, Republicans won about 66% of Ohio House and congressional seats and 79% of the state Senate seats.

That means the Haslams are actively trying to disenfranchise some Ohio citizens, at least some of whom are Browns fans. At face value, it’s selfish and arrogant, believing their views are so superior that anyone who disagrees doesn’t deserve the chance to be heard.

“The family has always approached their civic responsibility and political participation with great care, thought and purpose. Their sole intent is always to support candidates who are dedicated public servants with the leadership necessary to strengthen and improve communities in Ohio, Tennessee and nationwide,” the Haslams said in a statement.

But there’s another, more troubling aspect to this.

The Haslams want to build a $2.4 billion stadium in the suburbs and have indicated they want the public to pay for half of it, with the state and local governments kicking in $600 million each.

And who would have to sign off on those state funds? You got it!

“There are a lot of theories for why people give, especially in large amounts. Special interest giving, or access or ingratiation with policy makers in a way that’s going to help their bottom line is (one) theory,” said Ian Vandewalker, senior counsel and manager of elections and government program at the Brennan Center, a nonpartisan law and policy institute dedicated to protecting democracy.

While there’s no guarantee stadium funding would be decided on party lines, the Haslams are likely to find more sympathy among Republican lawmakers, given their longtime support of the party. Which means it’s in their interest to ensure the current gerrymandered system stays in place for the stadium and many other issues.

“These things can often appear to be disconnected,” said Kenneth R. Mayer, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Wisconsin. “It wouldn’t be at all surprising for people to not make a strong link between gerrymandering and the success of the Cleveland Browns.”

The Haslams are hardly the only sports owners who throw their money around in hopes of influencing policies and politicians. The YSL News Sports analysis of federal campaign finance records found that owners of 31 NFL teams (the Green Bay Packers are owned publicly) gave a little more than $28 million in this election cycle.

The vast majority of that money went to Republican candidates and causes.

Again, these owners can do what they want with their money. But is it really all their money? How much of it is a direct contribution from fans whose rights these owners might be restricting through their political donations?

According to Forbes, every NFL franchise is worth at least $4 billion, with a league average of $5.7 billion. Every team is profitable, too, with Forbes estimating each team’s operating income to be at least $56 million. That means owning an NFL team has made their owners, even those who were already wealthy, exponentially richer.

Given that fans are the ones lining team owners’ pockets by watching games and buying tickets, concessions and merchandise, isn’t it a little unscrupulous for those owners to then prioritize their political interests at the expense of at least some fans?

Like when Jimmy Haslam contributes to the Jobs Freedom & Security PAC, which has a goal of overturning Obamacare, the program that has allowed millions of Americans to get health care. Or when Jerry Jones and Janice McNair donate to Ted Cruz, an architect of the scheme to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power and circumvent the will of the American people.

“These are people who, as a group, they’re going to tend to support policies that benefit them and their interests,” Mayer said. “If you were to talk to the Haslams, I’m sure they would deny what they’re doing has the effect of marginalizing their fans. But ultimately, I doubt they give a lot of thought to that.”

There are some owners who see themselves as public stewards, conscious that their decisions will affect their communities and their fans as well as themselves. But too many others are just out for themselves, and their political donations are one more example of that.