Six Million and One Reasons Why West Virginia Needs Clean Elections

by Janet Fout

I read recently that West Virginia is providing $93 million in incentives and tax breaks to the large outdoor gear retail store, Cabela's, to build its facility in our northern panhandle. It's a done deal-made in secret. That's how West Virginia's government does economic development these days-behind closed doors lest any citizen should find out that an objectionable project is being planned or that state officials are "giving away the farm" in a desperate attempt to create much-needed jobs. Call me business naïve, but somehow a $93 million give-away seems excessive, and as a tax-payer, I particularly object to finding out about it after-the-fact.

But secret deals have been the order of the day ever since the Charleston Gazette filed a freedom of information request in the early '90s to find out what economic perks were being promised to the proposed Apple Grove Pulp and Paper Mill. The Gazette exposed that $1.1 billion in tax-breaks, loans and infrastructure development were being promised to the company without the assurance that a single West Virginian would get a job from the would-be polluters and clear-cutters. Soon thereafter, when citizens began to raise their voices in protest over the massive giveaways (and the host of environmental problems the proposed mill could cause), our legislators passed a bill exempting the WV Development Office from Freedom of Information Requests regarding future deal-making. It was wrong then, and it's still wrong.

Why in the world would our state legislature allow this kind of government by stealth?

A major reason may be that heavy-handed influence peddlers "buy" favorable legislation. According to the People's Election Reform Coalition-WV (PERC), big special interests doled out a record-breaking $6 million dollars in campaign contributions in the 2002 election") to "our" legislators (PERC's latest report can be found on OVEC's website under "campaign finance reform."

"Self and family," not exactly a special interest, provided 20% of all identified contributions to candidates, indicative that a candidate is either wealthy or has access to wealth. The second runner-up in 2002 was big health care-giving $475,650 to legislative candidates. And what was the "return" on their investment? How about a cap of $250,000 on the amount an injured person may collect if he/she is successful in proving medical malpractice.

The coal industry provided $223,576 to legislative candidates in 2002. And after his election in 2000, Governor Wise's campaign cash AND his policy proposals began to resemble more and more those of his predecessor, former coal industry executive and governor, Cecil Underwood. Of the coal contributions Wise has received since becoming governor (and prior to bowing our of the 2004 race), many came as the legislature was debating increasing the weight limits for coal trucks.

A March 2002 fundraiser netted Wise over $73,500 with most of the contributions coming from coal companies, coal haulers and land companies. Employees and their spouses from Riverton Coal and its parent company, RAG Coal International gave $20,500. This is the largest single-day giving PERC-WV has seen from individuals within the same corporation since it began monitoring campaign contributions in 1996.

Predictably, Governor Wise and other coal-supported legislators strongly favored increasing weights for illegally loaded coal trucks, a measure which passed during the 2003 session.

PERC researchers have begun already to scrutinize 2004 donations. They have found that out-of-state people associated with pay-day lending companies (i.e. loan sharks), are contributing to key legislators who serve on the committee studying how to regulate these high-interest predators. These individuals, who until recently never before contributed to legislative races, now "have a dog in the fight", and suddenly, we're seeing this influx of donations. For all those folks who say that campaign contributions are NOT given for the purpose of influencing public policy, well…the evidence to the contrary just keeps on mounting.