Senate Moves Vetoed Election Bill Across Legislative Finish Line

The Senate amended and re-passed a rules bundle bill during its Thursday floor session after Governor Patrick Morrisey vetoed it on April 1.

The West Virginia Senate amended and re-passed a rules bundle bill during their Thursday floor session after Gov. Patrick Morrisey vetoed it on April 1.

Senate Bill 369 was vetoed and returned to the Legislature by Morrisey on Tuesday for what the governor’s office called, in a letter to Senate President Randy Smith, “its imprecise and unwieldy regulation of political action committees [that] will likely cause confusion for those attempting to have their voices heard in our political process,” 

The Senate took the bill back up during its Thursday morning floor session.

West Virginia’s Secretary of State, Kris Warner, released a statement minutes before the Senate’s floor session, expressing frustration over Morrisey’s veto and asking legislators to override it.

Warner said in the release that the rules bundle had been published for public review and comment for at least eight months, and he was shocked when Morrisey vetoed the bill.

“Not only is it questionable whether a governor can ‘veto’ a Legislative Rule, this was the first time anyone raised concerns with this rule’s language in the last eight months,” Warner wrote.

In addition to state agency regulations, Warner said the rules bundle in Senate Bill 369 updates campaign finance rules that aim to increase transparency in political campaign finances, and alleged that to be the real reason for the governor’s veto.

“Who, I wonder, is ‘attempting to have their voices heard in our political process’ that cannot under our existing or proposed rules? Federal and state laws provide broad protections and rights for citizens to voice their opinions,” Warner wrote. “The government’s interest in regulating that speech has been extensively litigated.”

Warner said in his statement that the public deserved the time to review the new version of the bundle, which he, senior counsel, and staff of the House and Senate, the governor’s attorney, and his staff revised and “had their days hijacked because of this easily avoidable situation.”

“I’m confident that the revised language is palatable—it merely provides guidance for existing law,” Warner wrote. “But what if it were something else such as a topic that impacts the daily lives of citizens, the public health, our schools? Had we been approached, we would have explained the well-researched updates and offered to clarify any ambiguous provisions. But that’s not what happened.”

Sen. Patrick Martin, R-Lewis and Senate Majority Leader, made the motion for the body to reconsider the bill during Thursday’s floor session.

“I move that, in accordance with section 14, Article Seven of the Constitution the state of West Virginia, that the Senate proceed to reconsider enrolled committee substitute for Senate Bill 369 and heretofore disapproved and returned to His Excellency, the governor, with his objections,” Martin said.

Senators amended the bill without discussion to provide clarity for candidates who form and operate separate political action committees under existing law. 

Martin explained the amendment on the floor.

“The state election commission, by the Secretary of State, revised the language in Section 14 of the rule to provide clarity and guidance as requested in the public comment as follows,” Martin said. “To provide clarity for candidates who form and operate separate political action committees under existing law, which must be separate from candidates’ committee funding and activities, two reinforcing existing law regarding coordinated expenses and prohibited use of funds for personal use, I urge adoption.”

The bill passed unanimously, as amended.

The bill was made effective upon passage and is designated as completed legislation on the legislature’s website.

Warner closed his statement by expressing his frustrations, but acknowledging and thanking the staff who made the revisions possible under a tight deadline.

“So while we were able to get the rule back on track, I’m frustrated with how we got here,” he said. “I’m frustrated with how many legislators, staff, and attorneys had their days hijacked because of this easily avoidable situation. Election-related regulations are directly within my jurisdiction according to the State Constitution and West Virginia Code as the State’s Chief Election Officer. Campaign finance regulations fall to the State Election Commission, of which I am a member by law. In the future, I’m hopeful that concerns with election regulations are raised before the timeclock runs out, and so the public has ample opportunity to participate.”

Morrisey’s office did not respond to WVPB’s request for comment. But, on Thursday afternoon, Morrisey responded to two journalists’ X posts discussing Warner’s statement from his campaign and personal account, claiming his office “helped them fix the issues and clean things up. We do need to get things right.”

X Screenshot captured at 4:35 p.m. on April 3, 2025.

The original version of Senate Bill 369 also had two technical errors.

The first technical error was in the proposed changes to the licensure and regulation of pharmacies.

Lawmakers passed and sent Senate Bill 291, allowing the Board of Pharmacies to provide registration every two years, instead of annually, to the governor for his signature on March 18. Morrisey signed the bill into law on March 24.

Language included in the original version of Senate Bill 369, which was passed by lawmakers and sent to the governor for his signature on March 25, would have required the Board of Pharmacies to provide annual registration and annual license fees, conflicting with Senate Bill 291.

The second technical error was the absence of a section name on a proposal for the Board of Respiratory Care that, according to Morrisey’s office, would have made it inconsistent with procedural formatting standards.

Consumers Feel The Rising Cost Of Eggs And Our Song Of The Week, This West Virginia Morning

On this West Virginia Morning, a visit to a diner in Lancaster, PA gauges how people feel about rising egg costs, and our Song of the Week from Joy Clark.

On this West Virginia Morning, reports indicate the Justice Department is investigating whether big egg producers are price gouging. To gauge how people are feeling about the prices, WITF reporter Rachel McDevitt went to Lancaster County Pennsylvania restaurant The Pancake Farm – where a sign on the door tells customers to expect a dollar-fifty upcharge for any meal that includes eggs.

And our Song of the Week is from a premiere broadcast of Mountain Stage. Joy Clark performs “Tell It To The Wind”, a song written in a moment of gratitude when she was on tour in Waterford, Mississippi.

West Virginia Morning is a production of West Virginia Public Broadcasting which is solely responsible for its content. 

Support for our news bureaus comes from Shepherd University and Marshall University School of Journalism and Mass Communications.

West Virginia Morning is produced with help from Bill Lynch, Briana Heaney, Chris Schulz, Curtis Tate, Emily Rice, Eric Douglas, Jack Walker, Maria Young and Randy Yohe.

Eric Douglas is our news director. Teresa Wills is our host. Maria Young produced this episode.

Listen to West Virginia Morning weekdays at 7:43 a.m. on WVPB Radio or subscribe to the podcast and never miss an episode. #WVMorning

House Says No To Corporate Campaign Contributions

Members of the West Virginia House of Delegates chose to uphold a state policy that prohibits corporations from contributing funds to political campaigns.

In West Virginia, corporations are prohibited from contributing funds to political campaigns. That is a policy members of the West Virginia House of Delegates chose to uphold this week.

House Bill 2719 was voted down Thursday by a vote of 54 to 41, with five lawmakers absent. The bill would have enabled corporations to donate up to $2,800 per individual campaign during an election cycle, plus up to $5,000 per political action committee — private groups that use their funds to promote candidates and pieces of legislation.

Del. Mike Hornby, R-Berkeley, was lead sponsor on the bill, and said his initial intent was to allow minor campaign contributions from businesses.

“I think a candidate should be able to have a business support them in their elections,” Hornby said on the House floor Thursday.

Speaking in favor of the bill, Del. Jordan Maynor, R-Raleigh, noted that several other states currently permit corporate campaign financing, and argued that reporting requirements made the bill more transparent.

Under state law, large campaign contributions generally must be reported to the State Election Commission or the secretary of state. Corporate contributions above $250 would have required donating entities to disclose things like their address and primary type of business.

“This is a transparency bill. This allows your local business [to contribute],” Maynor said.

Del. Mike Hornby, R-Berkeley, was lead sponsor on House Bill 2719, which was voted down Thursday. He is pictured here at a House Education Committee in January 2023.

Photo Credit: Perry Bennett/WV Legislative Photography

But the bill faced a wave of pushback from both sides of the aisle on the House floor. House Minority Leader Sean Hornbuckle, D-Cabell, said he worried corporate involvement would muddy the democratic process.

“No one at home wants more money in politics. We have this fascination with money and greed, and what happens is we don’t get elected officials based upon merit, or what they can do,” Hornbuckle said. “It just becomes a rich man’s game. That’s all it is. So, effectively, we’re not representing the people at home, because it’s going to the highest bidder.”

Del. John Williams, D-Monongalia, expressed concern that there is no limit on how many corporations an individual can create, so individuals could register multiple corporations with the intent of surpassing contribution limits for individual entities.

Speaking on behalf of the House Judiciary Committee, Maynor confirmed the text of the bill did not include stipulations surrounding an individual donating through multiple corporations.

“We just banned food dyes from certain foods. I’m not sure which is more harmful, the dyes in the foods or the money in politics,” Williams said in reference to House Bill 2354, a bill banning certain food additives that passed earlier in the floor session.

Concerns over the bill were also voiced from Hornby’s own party. Del. Henry Dillon, R-Wayne, said he worried companies’ contributions could outpace “the average voter constituent in our districts” who “can’t even begin to afford to part with that type of money.”

Dillon said he found the bill worrisome “when we think about whether or not they’re even considering putting $2,800 toward influencing an election, or whether they’re thinking about putting their $2,800 toward purchasing groceries for that week, or gasoline, or their electric bill.”

Ultimately, concerns over the bill won out. With a majority of delegates voting against it, House Bill 2719 was not communicated to the West Virginia Senate for further consideration Thursday, which would have marked its next step to become law.

 Campaign Donors In Primary Race For Governor Spark Voter Attention 

There’s more to glean from a candidate’s campaign financial reports than the amount of money raised. Who and where the contributions come from can spark voter alerts.

There’s more to glean from a candidate’s campaign financial reports than the amount of money raised. Who and where the contributions come from can be a reason for voter alerts. 

Third quarter campaign finance reports in the West Virginia governor’s race show the four leading candidates, all Republican, raised nearly $1.2 million combined.  Attorney General Patrick Morrisey accounted for nearly half that amount.

Marybeth Beller, Marshall University associate professor of Political Science, looked closely at in-state versus out-of-state contributions. She noted that of the two front-runners, 57 percent of Del. Moore Capito’s donations came from West Virginia donors, while 83 percent of Morrisey’s donors come from out-of-state. Beller said voters should pay attention to that.

Voters need to really be wary, no matter who the candidate is, if the bulk of that candidate’s support is coming from outside the state,” Beller said. “What did those out-of-state interests have? And what are they trying to get from the gubernatorial position in West Virginia?” 

The quarterly reports list donors that have given contributions under $250. Each donation is counted separately, creating multiple donations from single sources.

Beller noted that among the four leading candidates, businessman Chris Miller had 78 donations under $250, with just four multiple donations. 

Secretary of State Mac Warner listed 281 individuals donating under $250 with 17 multiples. Capito had 322 individual donations with 25 multiple donors. 

Morrisey reported 21,990 individual donations, with most from donors that contributed small amounts multiple times. Beller said this counting system can skew campaign ads.

“Morrisey can say in his ads that he has nearly 22,000 people contribute individual donations,” Beller said. “What would be misleading is for the audience to think that that meant they were individual donors. Most of those are recurring donations.”

Beller said that unlike his competitors, where most contributors list their address and occupation, the bulk of Morrisey’s contributors are unidentified.  

“I would urge the Secretary of State’s office to really investigate those disclosures,” Beller said. “I think the public deserves to know where these contributions are coming from for all of the candidates.”

What Justice’s Senate Disclosure Form Shows, And What It Doesn’t

We spoke with Robert Maguire, research director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, about the limitations of candidate disclosures.

Gov. Jim Justice filed his required Senate candidate financial disclosure form last month. It reveals more than what he’s required to disclose on his state ethics form, but it, too, doesn’t include everything.

We spoke with Robert Maguire, research director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, about the limitations of candidate disclosures.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

TATE: Why are the required financial disclosures for federal candidates so vague?

MAGUIRE: The issue is that you have people with incredibly complicated finances filing in a system that wasn’t built for such wealth. And so you have, for example, very vague totals that are reported where some of these members have assets that are well above $50 million in value. And the highest bracket in the disclosure is just over $50 million. No matter how far above that it goes, you don’t really get any precision in terms of what the actual value is. There’s also the issue of there not being a uniform manner of filing. Some members still file on paper, and some of those paper filings are almost comically illegible. Some of them have handwritten information on them. And then you add to that, there is just not enough enforcement in terms of even when they file and what they file where. There are members who haven’t filed, still haven’t filed their paperwork for last year. There’s no real penalty for that kind of thing that happens all the time. We routinely see members go back and add major investments or major sales or major acquisitions, long after the fact. So there’s really just all around a kind of lack of enforcement. Now granted, having the information that we have is better than nothing. 

TATE: Justice’s filings at the federal level omit many of his liabilities. At the state level, he’s exempt from disclosing any of them. What problems does that create?

MAGUIRE: The purpose of these laws is supposed to be that the public can view and and confirm that their elected officials, the people who are elected to serve the public, to serve the interests of their state or to serve the national interests, are actually serving those interests and not their own personal financial interests. And so when you exempt these things that can be subject to the sway of creditors or the sway of wealthy interests, then you have to ask yourself, why have the rules to begin with, if you’re going to exempt such important information? What we see so often in a lot of these filings is something that smells bad, but you can’t really tell exactly and if what you’re actually sensing is as off is actually off. That’s the problem with a lot of these instances. A lot of it could be aboveboard, it could be totally legit. But it’s also not particularly difficult in a lot of these instances to see how they could be used for undue influence.

TATE: Justice has legal troubles, and he’s not alone. But why run for office under such a cloud?

MAGUIRE: One thing that we have been seeing over the years is this idea that a run for federal office is a way of protection against some of the legal troubles that you are facing. And so there is this growing issue that once you get into office, it becomes harder to prosecute you. Basically there is a protection against legal accountability that comes with federal office that I think is perceived by a growing number of people that if there’s going to be any sort of federal charges, if there is going to be any sort of financial fine, the stakes when it comes to bringing those kinds of things against a federal official, become higher, because it can be politicized. I cannot say that that is what is happening in this instance. But it is certainly something that appears to be a part of the thought process among certain people.

TATE: What are some potential conflicts of interest should Justice be elected to the Senate?

MAGUIRE: Jim Justice the senator could potentially have oversight of agencies that could be prosecuting him or pursuing legal action against him. There are certainly implications there that are different from a governor. And so I can think that there could be other instances akin to that, that would change the dynamic there.

TATE: In what other ways does the wealth of candidates influence what the public knows about them?

MAGUIRE: Whether you’re talking about wealthy donors and wealthy members of Congress is that if you are wealthy enough to spend millions of dollars in politics, then you are wealthy enough to hire the best lawyers and accountants in the country to present the narrative financially that you need to present. That’s true, whether you’re talking about wealthy donors using dark money groups. That’s true, whether you’re talking about wealthy members of Congress, providing the best possible face to their financial disclosures as possible. So yes, I think a part of that is going through, what do I have to disclose and what can I conceivably omit? What can I arguably omit, based on the advice of my lawyers and accountants?

W.Va. State Auditor McCuskey Exits Governor’s Race, Enters 2024 Attorney General Campaign  

State Auditor J.B. McCuskey announced Monday he has dropped out of the governor’s race and is now running for attorney general.

State Auditor J.B. McCuskey announced Monday he has officially dropped out of the governor’s race and is now running for attorney general. 

In changing campaigns, the former delegate and two term state auditor said he realized he was behind in the polls and fundraising in a primary race for governor that included a U.S. Senator’s son, Del. Moore Capito, R-Kanawha, businessman Chris Miller, current Attorney General Patrick Morrisey and current Secretary of State Mac Warner. McCuskey said seeking the AG’s office was a better goal.  

“I looked at the offices,” McCuskey said. “I believe that the combination of my experience as the executive of one of the largest constitutional offices in the state of West Virginia, with my extensive legal background, makes me an ideal candidate to be the next attorney general.”

McCuskey says his nearly $700,000 campaign war chest stands strong in running against the other republican AG candidates, State Sens. Ryan Weld, R-Brooke, and Mike Stewart, R-Kanawha. He came in fourth in fundraising for the governor’s race, showing $412,083 cash-on-hand. 

That’s a good deal more than his two AG primary opponents. 

Stating he’s a strong and principled conservative, McCuskey said the AG’s office acts as the state’s lawyer for all of the agencies, all of the boards and commissions, and all the constitutional officers.

“As the person that managed all the finances for every single one of those agencies,” he said. “Often dealing in the legal realm as to what is legal and what is possible, I think that being the state’s lawyer with all those relationships is going to be a huge help.”

McCuskey said he wants “to continue what Patrick Morrisey has accomplished over his time as attorney general that has been wildly successful.”  He said his campaign will focus on being a consumer protection advocate, civil rights protector, criminal justice reformer and empowering the state’s public defender service.

“We have worked long and hard in our office to make sure that they’re getting paid very quickly,” McCuskey said. “We need to make sure that we’re paying them appropriately so that we can have a great public defender’s office to ensure all of those duties are running smoothly.”

J.B. McCuskey lives in Charleston, with his wife Wendy, and daughters Martha and Charlotte. 

Exit mobile version