With many candidates for 2024 state offices announcing early, campaign finances are beginning to flow.
With many candidates for 2024 state offices announcing early, campaign finances are beginning to flow.
This is what is known as the pre-candidate stage in the election cycle. To legally begin financing a campaign, candidates have to file with the Secretary of State’s (SOS) office. As a pre-candidate, one is not bound to run for office. On the SOS website, under elections, there’s a campaign finance reporting system tab.
Once filed for pre-candidacy, candidates must deliver detailed quarterly finance reports to the SOS. Missy Kinder, campaign finance specialist, said on the reporting system website the public can see how much money candidates have received from a person or group – and how much the candidate has spent.
Missy Kinder, campaign finance specialist in the Secretary of State’s office.
“You can sort through the data by the race they’re entering, by office, by their political affiliation, there’s just several different ways that you can find the information that you’re looking for,” Kinder said.
Kinder said the website details money from fundraising events, campaign loans and just who is contributing to campaigns.
“If you’re looking to see if a certain individual has given to candidates, you can even break it down that far,” she said. “If they have contributed any expenditures that a particular candidate has made, you can search through that. There’s also a data download portion of our website that you can go to and that will show any transactions that have occurred in a regular calendar year.”
Relating to transparency in the election cycle, Kinder said it’s important to show that campaign contributions are coming from reliable sources legally allowed to give.
“Corporations cannot give,” she said. “If that corporation would have a separate segregated PAC, a political action committee, that political action committee can give. It all comes from West Virginia State Code.”
Republican candidates in West Virginia’s 2020 congressional races appear to be significantly out raising Democrats, according to third quarter campaign finance reports.
Republican Sen. Shelley Moore Capito has nearly $2.4 million dollars cash on hand for her reelection bid in 2020. She raised nearly half a million dollars from July 1 to the end of September. Democrat Paula Jean Swearengin raised almost $48,000 in the same period and reports nearly $34,000 on hand.
Incumbent Republican David McKinley of the 1st District raised nearly $90,000 this quarter. That’s about 25 times what his Democratic opponent, Natalie Cline, brought in over the same period.
In the 2nd District, Republican Alex Mooney hauled in about $228,000 in the third quarter, which puts him at more than $1.6 million cash on hand. Democrat Cathy Kunkel raised nearly $60,000 and now has more than $46,000 cash coming into the final quarter of the year.
Freshman congresswoman Carol Miller — a Republican from the 3rd District — raised more than $94,000 this quarter. Hilary Turner, one of two Democrats hoping to challenge Miller in 2020, took in less than a thousand dollars.
A third quarter report for Lacy Watson, who is also running in the 3rd District as a Democrat, was not immediately available on the Federal Election Commission’s website.
The deadline for third quarter reports was Tuesday, October 15.
The indictment of Rudy Giuliani’s associates has a connection to West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey.
Global Energy Producers, the company owned by Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, made a donation to a Morrisey-focused political action committee in his failed U.S. Senate bid last year. NPR reports the two foreign-born Florida businessmen helped Giuliani dig up dirt on Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son in Ukraine — a scandal at the core of House Democrats’ ongoing impeachment inquiry.
Morrisey won the Republican nomination just days later — but lost in the general election to incumbent Democrat Joe Manchin.
Through a spokesman, Morrisey declined to comment on the donation to the political action committee that spent money on his race.
“35th Inc. PAC is an independent entity, and any questions should be directed to them,” Morrisey spokesman Brian O’Neel said in an email to West Virginia Public Broadcasting.
According to federal campaign finance law, an independent expenditure — such as 35th Inc. — involves election spending “that is not made in cooperation, consultation, or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee, or their agents, or a political party committee or its agents.”
An attorney representing the Morrisey-focused political action committee said they were unaware of the circumstances surrounding donation from Global Energy Producers.
“Your question is the first indication that 35th Inc. has received anything untoward regarding any contribution that it received,” Sloane Carlough said in an email. “Based upon the news today, the PAC would like to disgorge the contribution in question, but does not have the funds available to do that.”
Charles Gantt, treasurer of 35th Inc., did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.
An indictment from the Southern District of New York says Parnas, Fruman and two others “conspired to circumvent the federal laws against foreign influence” by filtering donations through Global Energy Producers. The indictment does not reference Morrisey or 35th Inc.
The company also made a $325,000 donation to America First Action, which supports Donald Trump.
Hours ahead of a midnight deadline to take action on bills from the regular legislative session, Gov. Jim Justice has announced a final set of approvals and vetoes.
Governor Holds Bill Signing Event at Marion County Mine
Justice signed three bills Wednesday at Harrison County Coal Company, a Murray Energy Company subsidiary based in Marion County.
Miners joined Justice as he signed bills focused on the coal industry — House Bill 3142 (reducing the severance tax on thermal or steam coal), House Bill 3144 (North Central Appalachian Coal Severance Tax Rebate Act) and Senate Bill 635 (relating generally to coal mining activities).
With the Murray Energy mine focused on thermal coal, Justice spoke at length about House Bill 3142. He says the bill is aimed at saving thermal coal mining jobs across the state. It will reduce the tax rate from 5 percent to 3 percent over three years and translates to a $60 million annual loss in revenue upon full implementation, according to a fiscal note from state revenue officials.
“We can’t do without these jobs — there’s no way around it,” Justice said in an interview following the event. “The multiplier effect of a coal miner’s job is astronomical. At the end of the day, we need to do everything in our power to preserve it. That’s what I’m trying to do.”
Bills to Up Limits on Campaign Contributions Becomes Law
Justice also signed a controversial bill that increases the contribution limits in the state’s campaign finance laws. Senate Bill 622 allows up to $2,800 in donations to candidate committees, $5,000 to political action committees and $10,000 to state party executive committees. Each of those limits had been set at $1,000 per year or election cycle.
Del. Andrew Robinson, D-Kanawha, was one vocal opponent of Senate Bill 622.
“I think it is one of the worst bills we have passed since I’ve been in the Legislature for three years,” Robinson said in a Wednesday phone interview.
While the measure does call for more stringent reporting requirements on expenses made by independent expenditures, Robinson argued that those updates don’t require the reporting of donors to those groups.
“I would describe them as very miniscule attempts to provide transparency,” he said.
In committee and during debate on the floor, Robinson and other House Democrats pushed to keep the contribution limits as they had been. Members of the minority also sought to increase transparency for independent expenditures. Each of the Democrats’ attempts to amend the bill failed.
“I think adding more money into politics is one of the worst things we can do for our constituents,” Robinson said, specifically taking issue with money spent as independent expenditures. “Those messages can be misleading, can cause disruption and put people in office who don’t represent the values of everyday West Virginians.”
Attempts to reach Senate Bill 622’s lead sponsor, Sen. Eric Tarr, R-Putnam, went unreturned as of Wednesday night.
Veto Targets Medical Cannabis Vertical Integration Because of Tax Classification
While Justice announced Tuesday he had signed a bill providing a banking solution for the state’s yet-to-launch medical cannabis program, he decided to veto a measure that would have allowed the industry’s growers, processors and dispensaries to be vertically integrated.
Vertical integration would allow those in the industry to take on more than one role. Law regarding the medical cannabis program currently does not allow a grower or processor to act as a dispensary.
In a veto message for House Bill 2079, Justice said the proposal “favors wholly vertically integrated businesses” rather than those who act in a single function within the industry.
“While the Legislature has the authority to classify different businesses and to tax them differently, the classifications must be (1) reasonable, (2) based on pertinent and real differences, and (3) have as their object a purpose that is germaine to the enabling legislation,” Justice wrote.
Del. Mike Pushkin, D-Kanawha, was the main sponsor of the medical cannabis vertical integration measure. He expressed frustration over the veto in a news release.
“The Governor’s veto of this legislation effectively means suffering people will not have access to treatment and the promise of jobs, investment and additional tax revenue that would have come with the passage of the bill will not be realized for West Virginia,” Pushkin said.
The veto puts West Virginia’s medical cannabis program — which was set to have the Department of Health and Human Resources being issuing permits on July 1 — further in question.
“My bill allowed investments in the cannabis industry in West Virginia to be treated the same way as any other business for tax purposes. Without the ability to make the same type of deductions that other businesses are allowed, it’s doubtful that any cannabis business in West Virginia could exist,” Pushkin said. “The Governor couldn’t successfully run the Greenbrier under this tax structure and neither can medical cannabis growers.”
‘Randy’s Dream’ Nixed
Justice also vetoed Senate 522, dubbed “Randy’s Dream” for Sen. Randy Smith’s (R-Tucker) plan to address issues with secondary roads. The bill would have allowed the Department of Highways to put up to $80 million into what would have been a new Special Road Repair Fund.
The measure also called on county roads supervisors, in consultation with the county commission and state lawmakers, to prioritize repair projects. The state auditor would have also been tasked with providing transparency in the way money was spent on roads projects across the state.
In a veto message for that measure, Justice said the proposal overstepped the bounds of the Legislature.
“The purpose of this bill, while well-intentioned, is problematic because it represents a legislative encroachment into executive functions,” Justice wrote.
Smith took issue with Justice’s veto in a Wednesday phone interview.
“I cannot understand why the governor would veto a bill that would provide accountability and transparency in fixing the roads,” Smith said.
In recent weeks, Justice has called for money to be redirected from state surpluses and bond money from the Roads to Prosperity project to address issues with secondary roads. The Department of Transportation released this week lists of secondary roads in need of repair after Justice called on highway district supervisors to compile that information.
“No matter what he is doing with the roads now, there is still no transparency there. The press and the public won’t be able to know how he is spending the money,” Smith said. “The only thing I can come up with as to why he vetoed my bill is that it wasn’t Jim Justice’s idea. He’s a self-serving governor.”
Regular Session Bills Finished, Special Session Looms on Education
More bills are likely headed Justice’s way in the coming months. A special session on “education betterment” aims to achieve a pre-midterm election promise from Justice and Republican legislative leaders and to consider other aspects of public education.
An omnibus education reform measure — which included pay raises along with the establishment of charter schools and education savings accounts — failed during the regular session. But some Republican leaders, particularly those in the Senate, have said they want to include charter schools and education savings accounts in the special session.
A series of meetings on public education is ongoing around the state.
The West Virginia Senate has cleared a bill that would make changes to the state’s campaign finance laws. While the measure increases the limits on donations to candidates and other political groups, opponents say the bill fails to provide transparency on so-called dark money in elections.
Senate Bill 622 seeks to increase the limits an individual would be allowed to give to a candidate, state party executive committee and a political action committee each election cycle or year. It also offers changes to reporting requirements for funds spent in support or opposition of candidates without their knowledge.
Individual contributions to a candidate committee would be capped at $2,800 per election cycle. Limits on donations to state party executive committees would be set at $10,000 per donor each calendar year. Contributions to a political action committee would be limited to $5,000 per person per year.
All of those limits — for contributions to a candidate committee, a state party executive committee and a political action committee — currently stand at $1,000.
Senate Bill 622 would also require independent expenditure reporting to be more immediate and frequent. Independent expenditures expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a particular candidate or set of candidates — but not in cooperation with or at the request of those candidates.
Sen. Stephen Baldwin, D-Greenbrier, argued against the bill saying it doesn’t go far enough. He cited a November article from West Virginia Public Broadcasting that analyzed independent expenditures in the 2018 midterm elections.
“Dark money is going to continue to infiltrate the system — both sides — when what we need is some sunlight,” Baldwin said. “Now, I do think there is a hint of sunlight that comes through this bill and I appreciate that. I just don’t think we go far enough.”
Sen. Mike Romano, D-Harrison, also argued against the bill and stated that a lack of transparency on independent expenditures hurts the public.
“This money, misleads the public, creates mistrust in our government, gives elected officials a black eye that’s unnecessary and causes good people not to run. Setting sunlight on the on the contributors behind these types of conduct would certainly inform the public and perhaps cause people to think better before they level baseless attacks against candidates,” Romano said. “I also don’t appreciate the increase in in limits. I know that seems to be a goal. But for both individuals and political parties, I think we make a big mistake by injecting more money into the process.”
While the proposed changes to contribution limits to candidates, state party execuitve committees and other groups would make the state consistent with federal law, West Virginia’s current campaign finance statute has no limit on the amount of money a person is allowed to be give to an independent expenditure.
Judiciary Chair Charles Trump, R-Morgan, pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC declared no such limitation shall be made under the First Amendment right to free speech.
He spoke in favor of Senate Bill 622.
“Candidates who run for office in West Virginia have surrendered or lost a portion of their ability to control the speech that arises in those campaigns and these unlimited groups fill the vacuum, fill the void,” Trump said about groups that make independent expenditures. “So this bill will bring our definitions into compliance with law. It will clarify things. It will provide additional transparency with more reports — regular reports, every quarter, every couple weeks before every single election. It is a reasonable and balanced measure.”
The bill also would add language that would ban political donations from a foreign national. That provision, originally offered as a separate proposal (Senate Bill 276) by Baldwin, was added into Senate Bill 622 in the Judiciary Committee.
Advocates for campaign finance reform say the bill has some good components but falls short in many ways. Julie Archer of West Virginia Citizens for Clean Elections said there was a key missed opportunity to provide more transparency.
“One of the problems in our elections now is there’s sort of a shell game that goes on — where the money that gets spent on elections is funneled through a series of groups or organizations so that the original source of the money is obscured,” Archer said. “There was a great amendment offered in committee that would it would have addressed just that situation and and shine a light on on the secret money that’s being spent in our elections.”
That amendment, offered Friday in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Romano, would have forced the disclosure of donors who give more than $10,000 to an independent expenditure group. It was rejected on a party line vote.
“Basically, it’s disastrous for working West Virginians who are already struggling to have their voices heard over the wealthy in the special interests that are trying to buy our elections,” Archer said.
Senate Bill 622 passed the upper chamber on a 19-15 vote. Sen. Bill Hamilton, R-Upshur, broke with the majority party to join Democrats in voting against the measure.
The measure now heads to the House of Delegates for consideration.
When you opened your mailbox, watched television or listened to commercial radio in the lead-up to the election, you and other would-be voters were likely bombarded by political advertisements. Like in elections past, some of those materials were paid for by candidate committees and are easily identified as such. But the sources of the materials from other groups — known as independent expenditures and not authorized by a candidate or a candidate committee — are often more difficult to discern.
Advocates for campaign finance reform say current state law falls short in enabling the public to track who is funding some of these groups in a centralized and uniform manner.
“We have all of these groups that are reporting to the Secretary of State’s office. But I think it is important to note to that these reports don’t tell us a whole lot as to who is behind these groups. Some of these groups don’t disclose who is making contributions and those who do use shell corporations or other means to keep things in the dark,” said Julie Archer of West Virginia Citizens for Clean Elections.
Tracking state-level spending by federally registered groups can be difficult. Some of these groups use loopholes in West Virginia’s campaign financing laws to avoid disclosing donors and expenditures to the Secretary of State’s office. In addition, federal campaign finance law does not require these groups to disclose details regarding the candidates or races they targeted in state-level races.
During the 2018 general election cycle, independent expenditure political action committees registered in West Virginia spent more than $5.4 million to meddle in House of Delegates, Senate and Supreme Court races. That figure only represents expenditures filed with the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office.
Mountain State Values, WV Patriots for Liberty Pushed for Democrats with Union Backing
Union-backed, pro-Democrat groups represent a significant chunk of independent expenditures this election. Mountain State Values focused mostly on House of Delegates races, while WV Patriots for Liberty exclusively targeted state Senate races.
Mountain State Values received more than $1.8 million in total contributions for the 2018 midterms. These donations came mostly from labor-backed political action committees and organizations, including the American Federation of Teachers’ Solidarity fund, the West Virginia state Building & Construction Trades Council, the Mid-Atlantic Laborers Political Education Fund, the West Virginia AFL-CIO, and the AFT-West Virginia Committee on Political Education.
Mountain State Values targeted 18 of the 67 districts in the House of Delegates and on one race in the state Senate — District 17 — by spending money opposing incumbent Tom Takubo and supporting Terrell Ellis. Takubo won the race by more than 4 percentage points.
An ad from Mountain State Values supporting House of Delegates 36th District Democratic candidates Amanda-Estep Burton, Del. Andrew Robinson and Del. Larry Rowe. They all won election in the three-member district.
WV Patriots for Liberty took a similar tactic in fundraising but spent funds differently. The group raised more than $1 million from trade unions, including the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132, the Engineers Political Education Committee and the West Virginia State Building & Construction Trades Council.
Every bit of $832,561.38 spent by WV Patriots for Liberty went to oppose Republicans running for the state Senate in five districts — Ryan Ferns (District 1), Eric Tarr (District 4), Mark Maynard (District 6) Ed Gaunch (District 8) and Mike Oliverio (District 13).
Ferns, Gauch and Oliverio were defeated; Maynard and Tarr won their races.
Neither group responded to requests for comment about their respective donors and spending.
Former Gubernatorial Hopeful Goodwin Targets House, Senate Races with Re Set West Virginia
Former U.S. Attorney and one-time gubernatorial hopeful Booth Goodwin is listed as director of Re Set West Virginia. Filings by the group list the National Education Association, West Virginia Strong, Inc. and Expanding West Virginia Opportunities as major donors.
The organization focused on the state Senate’s 10th and 17th districts and six races in the House of Delegates — districts 12, 16, 21, 63, 65 and 67. In total, Re Set West Virginia spent $178,337.19 supporting Democrats and opposing Republicans.
Goodwin said his motivation to start the group was to make a push for Democrat candidates from within the state. He also deemed the efforts successful.
“Nearly half of the candidates that Re Set West Virginia endorsed ended up winning — even in some really tough races. We plan to do even better in 2020 in order to put the state’s politics back in the hands of leaders who are not beholden to extreme and out-of-state interests,” Goodwin said.
1863 PAC, Shale Energy Alliance Boosted Republicans, Haven’t Disclosed Donors
Two pro-Republican organizations delved into the 2018 general election but have yet to fully disclose from where their donations came. As a result, they have drawn attention from the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office for those practices.
1863 PAC — which initially sprung up to support Del. Roger Hanshaw’s bid to become House Speaker — spent $281,182.33 in support of Republican House of Delegates candidates and opposed Democratic rivals. However, the group has not listed its donors on filings with the Secretary of State’s office.
Luke Thompson, a New York-based political consultant who serves as executive director of 1863 PAC said the group is in compliance with state campaign finance law.
“1863 PAC received several contributions from several hundred organizations and individuals — from numerous sectors of West Virginia’s economy — who agreed with our mission of protecting the Republican majority in the House of Delegates and protecting the speakership of Roger Hanshaw,” Thompson said.
“No contributions were above six-figures and a majority of contributions were in the three-figure range,” he added.
But public filings don’t specify where that money came from. Less than two weeks before the election the Charleston Gazette Mail reported that the Secretary of State’s office issued a cease and desist order to 1863 PAC, citing no registration as a state or federal political action committee.
Many questions about the group’s origins and efforts have centered around Riley Moore, a Republican delegate from the 67th House District who was ultimately defeated in the 2018 midterms by Democrat John Doyle.
Thompson said the idea for the group came from Moore and Hanshaw. In an interview with West Virginia Public Broadcasting, Moore disputed that characterization, saying the organization’s board created the group and dictated its focus.Hanshaw said he was told of the 1863 PAC’s establishment by Moore and said he had no involvement.
Thompson also said he and Moore coordinated on fundraising efforts, which Moore confirmed.
“I raised money for almost for every Republican that was running this election cycle,” Moore said, “and 1863 was certainly one of those entities supporting Republican candidates. As we’ve seen, there are fewer groups raising money for Republicans as compared to those who support Democrats. As such, I helped raise money for 1863.”
Moore has weaved back and forth on explaining his involvement, affiliation or knowledge of anyone at 1863 PAC. First, he told WVMetroNews he had personal relationships with those involved with the group. Later, the Gazette-Mail reported Moore denied affiliation with 1863 PAC and declined further comment.
“I certainly encouraged somebody like Luke to get involved in West Virginia. He’s been involved in Republican politics throughout the country for a long time,” Moore told West Virginia Public Broadcasting.
Hanshaw recently became House Speaker, putting Moore in line to take over as majority leader at the beginning of the 2019 legislative session. Moore and Thompson both say Moore was not involved in spending decisions made by 1863 PAC, which is in compliance with the state’s campaign finance laws.
“Some of that proof is in the pudding. Riley and [Jill] Upson lost,” said Thompson, noting no specific focus on helping Moore or Hanshaw in their respective races. “We spent for almost every Republican candidate in House races.”
Thompson pointed out that pro-Democratic independent expenditures far outspent those who aimed to help Republicans and, therefore, deemed his group’s efforts successful. He cited losses by Democratic incumbents such as Scott Brewer, Richard Iaquinta, Dana Lynch and Ricky Moye.
“We counterpunched in a year we were supposed to be on defense and the results speak for themselves,” Thompson said.
An ad from 1863 PAC in support of Del. Riley Moore. Moore, who was in line to become the next majority leader, lost to Democrat John Doyle in the 2018 general election.
Thompson noted that 1863 PAC used a targeted texting campaign — known as peer-to-peer or P2P — as part of its strategy. That tactic drew a lawsuit from Jefferson County resident Mariah Norton, who says she was spammed by text messages in support of Moore. Norton and her attorney — former Democratic House of Delegates member Stephen Skinner — say those texts were in violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Secretary of State’s office also cited another organization for election engineering activity during this past election cycle: Shale Energy Alliance. The group was also issued a cease and desist order for not registering as a state or federal political action committee.
Republican Del. John Kelly filed a complaint against Shale Energy Alliance, which prompted the cease and desist. According to the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Kelley said the group is funded by natural gas company EQT Corp. and that they targeted him in the May primary for not running legislation the company was supporting. Kelly is the vice chairman of the House Energy Committee.
Shale Energy Alliance spent $69,759.25 supporting Republicans in a handful of races between the House and Senate in the general election.
Representatives of Shale Energy Alliance could not be reached for comment.
West Virginia’s Future PAC Aimed to Keep GOP Majority in State Senate
Republican state Senate hopefuls — and even some off-ballot incumbents — got help this election cycle from a independent expenditure known as West Virginia’s Future PAC. Public filings show the group supported GOP candidates and opposed Democratic rivals.
Notable donors to West Virginia’s Future PAC leading up to the 2018 midterms include Republican Gov. Jim Justice and Cary Communications, a company owned by media mogul and Justice senior advisor Bray Cary. Each contributed $50,000 to the committee.
The Coalition for a Stronger West Virginia gave the group $75,000. The 501(c)(4)’s website states they advocate “much-needed pro-jobs policy improvements that simplify the tax code, reduce the tax burden, balance the state’s budget, end lawsuit abuse, promote a skilled workforce, and rein in regulatory costs.”
Coal company Murray Energy contributed $72,000 and donations from beer distribution companies around the state totaled more than $10,000.
According to expenditures filed with the Secretary of State’s office, West Virginia’s Future PAC offered support to Republican Senate candidates Ryan Ferns (District 1), Eric Tarr (District 4), Ed Gaunch (District 8) and Tom Takubo (District 17).
The committee also spent money to oppose Democrats in those same races, including William Ihlenfeld (District 1), Brian Prim (District 4), Richard Lindsey (District 8), and Terrell Ellis (District 17). They also spent money to oppose Bob Beach (District 13), John Unger (District 16).
Republicans will still hold a majority in the Senate — but based on results in races that West Virginia’s Future PAC targeted and tried to influence, the only Republican winners were Tarr and Takubo.
An attorney representing West Virginia’s Future PAC did not respond to a request for an interview.
National Republican Group Delves into a Handful of Statehouse Races
The Republican State Leadership Committee — a federal 527-organization with no cap on donations or expenditures — spent money on candidates in 12 House of Delegates districts and one contest in the state Senate.
Of the $45 million the group says they spent in the 2018 general election, $150,000 was dedicated to West Virginia statehouse races. RSLC president Matt Walter said that the group targeted those contests in a calculated manner.
“The first thing we do is determine what the macro environment looks like — what the likelihood of races changing and what those target districts are — so narrowing down to where the competitive races are going to be. And then sharing information with the voters of West Virginia to help them understand what the candidate stands for, and how they’ll govern once they get into the state Capitol,” Walter said.
“Depending upon the region of the state — and the composition of the district — we are picking the most convenient and appropriate communications method to share that information with voters,” he added.
Ultimately, the RSLC appears to have been successful in a majority of its efforts.
Supreme Court Special Elections Also See Big Spending from RSLC, Other Groups
While the RSLC focused on a small number of legislative races, the bulk of the group’s spending was directed toward electing prominent Republicans to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals — although seats on the state’s high court have been non-partisan since 2016.
The committee’s Judicial Fairness Initiative spent a total of $1,749,319.98 between former West Virginia House Speaker Tim Armstead and former CongressmanEvan Jenkins in their respective bids for a seat on the court. According to the Secretary of State’s website, both remain registered Republicans.
The RSLC’s spending on the state Supreme Court special elections — which was more than 10 times what they spent on legislative races — was a matter of the breadth of voters they wanted to reach, Walter said.
“When you’re talking about two statewide races with multiple candidates within each of the divisions — and a state with very expensive media costs at a statewide level, given obviously the competitive U.S. Senate race and and all the activity you had during this election — it’s just more expensive to run those statewide races,” Walter explained.
West Virginians for Fair Courts was another group that got involved in the two state Supreme Court races. The group — funded in part by West Virginia Citizens against Lawsuit Abuse and the American Tort Reform Association — supported Armstead, Jenkins and “several candidates.” The group spent $334,702.11 in total. Of that figure, $250,640.11 was spent specifically on Armstead or Jenkins.
Of those expenditures, West Virginians for Fair Courts paid television stations WVVA, WTOV, and WDTV to air a 30-minute program featuring Gov. Jim Justice and his senior advisor Bray Cary. The program, titled Perfect Storm, showed Justice and Cary discussing the effectiveness of Republican policies and boosted Armstead and Jenkins. The video was promoted by and West Virginia Republican Party and was also shared on their Facebook page.
Also notable in the races for Supreme Court, Berkeley County resident William Stubblefield spent $6,639.63 in support of Division 1 candidate Chris Wilkes.
Other Groups Not Listed on the Secretary of State’s Campaign Finance Reporting System
Independent expenditures mentioned thus far in this report show the activity of groups filing with the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office, but there are other groups trying to sway statehouse races that may or may not be registered with the Federal Elections Commission. As a result, no centralized agency can track these disclosures in any uniform way.
For example, the Working Families Party noted in a news release following the 2018 general election that they spent $50,000 supporting Democratic candidates in four West Virginia Senate races and more than two dozen in the House of Delegates.
The director of the West Virginia independent expenditure campaign, Andrew Cockburn, said election officials told him not to bother filing disclosures with the state.
“I knew we had to report to the FEC and [the West Virginia Secretary of State] told me that since I was working with a federal PAC, basically, to get lost. They said they had lots of things to do, and they didn’t need some extra paperwork that was not required under state law,” Cockburn said.
The group is registered as a political committee with the Federal Election Commission and, therefore, is not obligated to detail its financials with the West Virginia Secretary of State’s office.
Another group known to have made independent expenditures in West Virginia statehouse races is Grow WV, Inc, another political committee registered with the Federal Election Commission.
Grow WV Inc. also made independent expenditures in West Virginia statehouse races in 2018, but public filings with the Federal Election Commission from the group do not detail the candidates they targeted. A 2014 investigation by the Sunlight Foundation found that officers with the group also held executive committee positions with the West Virginia Republican Party.
Officials with Grow WV could not be reached for comment.
Election Officials, Campaign Finance Reform Advocates Weigh In
Pushing for more transparency in donor and expenditure disclosures would require action from the Legislature.
Chuck Flannery, the deputy Secretary of State and the office’s general counsel, acknowledged loopholes in state law that prevent independent expenditure disclosures in state-level races from being able to be compiled in a centralized and uniform system.
“The West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office stands prepared to assist the Legislature in addressing campaign finance laws to get disclosure standards uniform for independent expenditures and advocate for the electronic filing of the reports to allow a quicker and more transparent access to the information to the public,” Flannery said.
Julie Archer of West Virginia Citizens for Clean Elections said closing loopholes in state campaign finance law are among the group’s priorities.
“We have been and we will continue to push for increased disclosure and transparency in who is spending money in our elections,” she said.
The Legislature’s next regular session — where many lawmakers who benefited from independent expenditures now have the ability to push for campaign financing reforms — begins Jan. 9.
