The Dispatch gets it.

They still don't ask the question on people's minds: What did Strickland know and when did he know it?

I know it's not in the GOP's nature to do this sort of thing, but the Senate should investigate what the Governor knew about this. Did he approve of this? Due to the lenient penalty, one wonders.

Dave Yost's blog has been on top of this.

Editorial: Weak response
Governor should have sent a stronger message about the abuse of office
Sunday, November 23, 2008 3:30 AM
Two serious examples of unethical behavior should be more than enough for Gov. Ted Strickland to demand the resignation of the head of a state agency. But instead of being removed from office, Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Department of Job and Family Services, was penalized with nothing more than a month of unpaid leave for misusing her office for political purposes.
In a report unveiled on Thursday, Inspector General Thomas P. Charles found that Jones-Kelley used a state computer and e-mail account to raise money for the presidential campaign of Barack Obama, violating the governor's policy against such abuse of position. She also authorized an attempt to dredge up dirt on "Joe the plumber," an Ohioan named Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher who gained sudden fame after questioning Obama on his tax policies during a Toledo-area appearance by the candidate. Republican Sen. John McCain used Wurzelbacher's question to challenge Obama in their Oct. 15 presidential debate.
Jones-Kelley justified the search of agency records on Wurzelbacher on the grounds that the agency occasionally reviews personal data on people who suddenly appear in the public spotlight. But Charles' report said Jones-Kelley had no legitimate reason for reviewing Wurzelbacher's records and that her explanations for doing so were not credible. Charles' report didn't conclude that the data-checking was politically motivated, but that's the only logical explanation. Officials in a Democratic administration were mining damaging information on an Ohioan who had challenged their presidential candidate.
This misuse of government power against a citizen is a grave matter. Americans should be able to challenge politicians without fear that government officials will try to damage their reputations. Fear of being targeted in that way can chill political speech and participation.
After Charles issued his report, the governor unveiled a directive calling for clear policies on when state employees can access private personal data and restricting such activity to legitimate government purposes. Agency directors must appoint data-privacy officers to help achieve better controls on access to sensitive personal data.
This directive is useful, but how much weight will it carry when state employees see how little penalty there is for violating it?
If two such glaring violations of public trust do not merit removal from office, what would the governor consider worthy of such punishment? For an administration that launched itself with much fanfare about its strict ethics policies, the response to Jones-Kelley's actions is inexplicable.
In light of the governor's failure to impose an appropriate punishment, the legislature has all the more reason to step in with statutes that spell out the limits for government workers with access to confidential information about Ohioans and penalties for those who overstep them.