Quote of the Day

“These are a bunch of immature kids who try to be important, and I don’t have time to fool with them,” he said. “I have bigger fish to fry.” - Dr. Doug McKinney, Chairman of the WVGOP, about grassroots Republicans that cite criticisms of McKinney

2012

Though one election cycle has just passed, candidates throughout West Virginia are positioning themselves for the 2012 gubernatorial election. While few candidates have formally filed papers with the Secretary of State, political strategists continue to toss around names of potential candidates who could actually win.

Regardless of the candidate, it is certain that the next governor will deal with critical issues that are currently in full debate. West Virginia, and this nation, is facing questions that could drastically change the legislative landscape for future generations, while literally altering the path that generations travel: healthcare debates flood Washington, Cap and Trade stands before the Senate, states continue to spend stimulus dollars throughout the nation, and consumer confidence rests upon an unstable economy.

However, it is uncertain if West Virginians will select a governor who supports, or deviates from, the current leadership on these issues. Though voter fatigue has caused few to entertain thoughts of 2012, it is worth noting the positions of current leaders in West Virginia. One of these leaders may be our next governor, and it is helpful to know how they stand on these critical issues.

It's an Image

"Republican for a Reason"- State WVGOP Director Dr. Doug McKinney often touts this iconic slogan to describe why he, and others, choose to identify themselves as Republicans. However, what is that reason?

In light of recent disagreement and turmoil within the party, reasons to identify with and support the state Republican party are often mixed with reports of bickering and financial instability. The Charleston Daily Mail recently captured the point of contention that leads to separate visions between members and leaders of the party, visions that carry deep-seeded beliefs.

Critics of McKinney point to irresponsible leadership that undermines associate leadership, approves of embarrassing "paper bag" donation solicitation, and poor financial responsibilty, specifically with the paid executive director position formerly held by Gary Abernathy. McKinney, on the other hand, believes one thing is connected to another: an executive director must be hired, to raise funds, to support and recruit candidates and initiatives, so that more funds can be raised, etc.

I think the party has the potential to support our outstanding officials already elected and support future candidates to take the state by storm. However, the party must find unity in an image to harness this potential. The recent paper bag campaign was an indicator of the financial desperation by the director, and the effects of that silly campaign have far reaching consequences. All is not lost though.

The party, with the Underwood Institute, is slated to put on an excellent Republican summit this weekend in Charleston, with outstanding leaders who will teach and inspire Republicans from all around the state.

The solution, in my opinion, to revamping the WVGOP is not in raising money, or emphasizing logistical difficulties and intra-party differences. These are critical items, and great leaders like Melody Potter have the experience to coordinate satisfactory solutions. In my opinion, support will be gathered, candidates will be slated, and unity will come from the image - an image of what the reason is to be a Republican. The image: strong defense, lower taxes, less government, social conservatism, and responsible law making.

Party members will believe in the image, and campaign on the image. Voters will identify with a unified party and apply the message when pulling the lever in precincts around West Virginia. Party leadership will thrive with a unified base that is willing and ready to support the cause.

There is great hope and opportunity for the West Virginia Republican Party, and many of its best minds are assembling upon the Charleston Embassy Suites this weekend for the Republican Summit. Hopefully participants will talk about what the Party should be, which roads we will take in the future, and how to accomplish these goals. The opportunity is there, but so is a counter-productive image of confusion and disunity. We have a great resevoir of elected politicians, leaders, supporters, and organizers within the state Republican party. I'm looking forward to what the future holds.

West Virginia and Obesity

With the red-hot debate boiling in Washington over healthcare, and while members of Congress sift through thousands of pages of documents, one major cost that health care providers incur is related to obesity: Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurance providers.




"More than $300 billion is spent a year for obesity related diseases."































Numerous studies highlight West Virginia's concentrated population of obese residents, and even Huntington has been labelled the "Fattest City in the Nation". The author of "Supersize Me," Morgan Spurlock, hails from Beckley, WV. The West Virginia Health Statistic Center of the WVDHHR illustrates West Virginia obesity rates far above the national average since 1990, by multiple percentage points. The average weight for West Virginia's males and females increased by 30 pounds, since 1984. And many suggest that low socioeconomic status is targeted areas of West Virginia correlates to high obesity patterns.

Further, CDC authorities have labelled the situation in West Virginia as an epidemic, supported by the following numbers from an online forum from the CDC:

• 64% of West Virginia adults are obese or overweight. (CDC BRFSS, 2002)
• 28% of non-Hispanic white adults and 37% of non-Hispanic black adults in West Virginia are obese. (CDC BRFSS, 2002)
• 29% of West Virginia high school students are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. (CDC YRBSS, 2003)
• 26% of low-income children between two and five years of age in West Virginia are overweight or at risk of becoming overweight. (CDC PedNSS, 2002)
• The obesity rate among West Virginia adults increased by 83% from 1990 to 2002. (CDC BRFSS, 1990, 2002)

So what is the state doing? Well, in 2006 WVU led the way creating an afterschool program to focus on kids dancing their way to better health and weight loss (based on the hit game, Dance Dance Revolution).

Also, the state Legislature passed Senate Bill 414 in the May 2009 special session. Part of its motivation and mission is:

"(3) West Virginia is among the highest in such health care indicators as childhood and adult obesity which provides a direct connection to higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, heart disease, pulmonary disorders and comorbid depression experienced in West Virginia. Nearly one third of the rise in health care costs can be attributed to the rise in obesity throughout the state and the nation. Additionally, high rates of chronic illness represents a substantial reduction in worker productivity."

Also, cities like Wheeling are taking the initiative locally to promote programs like "Wheeling Walks". This program has seen dramatic increases in physical activity through programming and marketing campaigns, according to in-house polling.

This is certainly not an exhaustive list of initiative throughout the state. But it does give some hope for a healthier future in West Virginia, made possible by the public and private sectors from government mandates and grassroots initiatives.

West Virginia and Space Travel on the Anniversary of July 20, 1969

From the FY2010 State Budget Appedix:
Captain Jon A. McBride (1943- ) became an astronaut in August 1979 and piloted the Challenger when it was launched on October 5, 1984. He was a Republican candidate for Governor of West Virginia in 1996. McBride was born in Charleston, Kanawha County.

Quote of the Day

"Taxes cost more than they raise - whatever amount collected cannot counter balance the disincentives to spend and invest, the vast administrative overhead costs of governmental agencies, and the lack of discretionary incomes that consumers can spend."
- Dr. Eugene Steurele, Vice President of the P.G. Peterson Foundation and former Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Treasury, at the West Liberty University Government Policy Research Center

WV Library Commission Looks at Benefits of Coal

As I was flipping through the channels last night, I found a great, low-budget show that the WV Library Commission sponsors: "Coal Seam". On this edition of Coal Seam, guests from the Logan County Commission and West Virginia Citizens for Coal explained the benefits of coal for West Virginia and the United States. The following benefits are just some of the highlights:

The coal severance tax benefits all of West Virginia. Though there are 55 counties in WV that accept these taxes, twenty-some of them actually produce the coal... and just 7-8 extract a vast majority of the state's gross production. The taxes, according to Art Kirkendoll-Logan County Commissioner, are split according to 75-25. 75% of the taxes benefit the county from which the minerals were extracted, and 25% of the taxes are exported to support programs throughout the state- many counties receiving dollars without extracting a single piece of coal.

Also, in Logan County for example, residents have access to an elaborate fire, ambulance, and police service to support ALL residents within the county, and in surrounding counties if needed. The funding for these services come from a levy, of which 80% is funded by the corporations of Logan County. So there are two options, if these mining companies cease to exist because of Cap and Trade, etc.

First, homeowners will be forced to pay more property taxes to support the levy- including lower income families.

Or second, these emergency services lose funding and provide sub-standard services at best.

This leads into the next point, in emergency services and coal companies assist with drastic flooding that all West Virginians in the Southern coal fields are all to familiar with. Many coal companies offer their machinery to assist with clean-up, and Commissioner Kirkendoll said counties assist each other: machinery, man-power, and support.

Further, the show emphasized the need for the passage of more extensive mine reclamation economic planning- taking advantage of the manpower, machines, and engineers to move the land in such a way that allows an easy transition to economic post-mining development. This would save many tax payer dollars, and perhaps make projects that seem too expensive more feasible. Let's not forget that some of West Virginia's most beautiful tourist destinations are built upon reclaimed mine sites, including the Pete Dye Golf Club in Bridgeport, WV (home of a professional golf tournament annually).

Let's understand the benefits, and drawbacks, of heavy coal production in order to have a thorough debate in the future.

Quote of the Day

"We are going to re-arrange some of the dollars on the deck, so we can provide health care to America." - Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-PA) = RE-DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH for a health care plan that will only cost Americans more, in troubled times, that will inevitably be inferior to private competition between health care companies and providers.

Justice is Blind, but 'I Know it When I See It'

State Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin is forced to recuse himself from a very controversial case. On June 8, the United States’ Supreme Court issued a ruling in Harman v. Massey that limits Benjamin’s First Amendment right of free speech, citing the appearance of impropriety because of Don Blankenship’s $3 million donation to defeat former Justice Darryl McGraw. This mandate carries far-reaching consequences and will complicate an already complex court system, limiting the abilities of judges to rule efficiently and effectively. Recusal is a necessary tool for the courts to uphold due process, but only required with actual bias to limit judicial manipulation.

In either an elective or appointive selection process, a judge is determined by his or her qualifications for the position, including a moral obligation to uphold the values of the legal practice. Therefore, a judge should be able to determine his ability to afford an unbiased ruling, or not. Relying on cheerleaders and naysayers to uphold our esteemed court system is risky and irresponsible. Limiting judicial insulation weakens the power of bench strengthens the power of manipulative interests. Chief Justice John Roberts, dissenting, “I, of course, share the majority’s sincere concerns about the need to maintain a fair, independent, and impartial judiciary—and one that appears to be such. But I fear that the Court’s decision will undermine rather than promote these values.”

Not only do judges have the obligation and ability to determine the need for recusal, many judges and justices have operated ethically throughout history. Dating back to Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816), Chief Justice John Marshall appropriately recused himself because he had an active financial interest in the case could not rule appropriately. On the other hand, judges and justices have appropriately decided not to recuse themselves based upon the appearance of impropriety. For example, Bracy v. Gramley(1997) held that states are free to implement more rigorous recusal standards such as religious affiliation and prior speech, if they choose. Judicial equilibrium is supreme, but forced recusal under these circumstance is inconsistent with West Virginia’s lesser recusal standard.

Therefore, the United States Supreme Court stepped too far in mandating Benjamin’s recusal, and wrongfully interjected into West Virginia affairs. The United States Code (Title 28> Part I> Chapter 21> §455) outlines the recusal requirements for all judges and justices in the United States. Last amended in 1940, this portion of the U.S. Code is filled with subjective terms such as “substantial interest” and explicitly says that a judge “shall recuse himself.” Also, the language of the code was amended in 1940 to loosen the constraints upon judges, substituting “in which he has a substantial interest” in place of “concerned in interest in any suit”. The federal statute increased a judge’s discretionary recusal ability within reason, but apparently, the High Court feels no obligation to abide by these rules.

The high court’s majority sympathized with Caperton’s defense, trading judicial discretion for an “objective recusal standard” that establishes a concrete separation between honesty and impropriety. However, our standard burden of proof requires the accuser to prove actual bias; no one in the American legal system is expected to prove themselves innocent, but only to be proven guilty. Chief Justice Roberts says this protects against court manipulation, and limits mandatory recusals to specific Constitutional requirements: a judge’s financial interest in the outcome, or the judge as a defendant. Where can the line ever be drawn?

James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech, filed an amicus brief supporting Benjamin’s right to adjudicate without proof of any actual bias. "If someone wants to manipulate justice, mandatory recusal based on campaign spending makes it easy to do so. All a party has to do is donate to judges they don’t think are favorable to them, and they can ensure that judge will never hear their case. Effectively, this is little more than an attempt to second guess the voters’ decision and undermine the existence of judicial elections."

With this recent ruling of the United States Supreme Court, a slippery slope has formed that is sure to yield more power to manipulative parties that argue technical process rather than the facts of the case. Opening the door for such manipulation, something must have disrupted the system to arrive at this conclusion. If the problem is Blankenship’s active interest in elected officials, he has a right to donate to and advocate issues freely. If this problem highlights a rogue court Justice, Benjamin previously issued a solid opinion, defending his right to rule based upon the absence of actual bias.

In this highly charged legal battle, the overarching dilemma rests between merit-based judicial appointments and elective means of selecting judicial candidates – and how we hold our judges and justices accountable. Without proposing massive policy changes toward non-partisan elections, the citizens of West Virginia must demand more dialogue before judicial elections to ask the tough questions of candidates and his or her opinions on specific issues. Moving forward, residents of the Mountain State must know whom they are selecting before seemingly hypothetical issues face subjective appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The questions are not: whether Blankenship is a crook, Benjamin is unethical, or whether the system is broken because politics reign over justice. The questions should be: whom are we electing, what does he or she stand for, and will they represent the interests of West Virginia within the law? Since many issues are determined subjectively with the “I know it when I see it” test, it is wise to know who is judging our fate and if they are qualified to assume the powers and responsibilities of a judge. If we elect judges through the political process, let them judge. If politics are the problem, let’s talk about how we select them.

Stimulus Money Goes Blue

Commentary: USA Today

By Brad Heath, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in federal aid delivered directly to the local level to help revive the economy have gone overwhelmingly to places that supported President Obama in last year's presidential election.

That aid — about $17 billion — is the first piece of the administration's massive stimulus package that can be tracked locally. Much of it has followed a well-worn path to places that regularly collect a bigger share of federal grants and contracts, guided by formulas that have been in place for decades and leave little room for manipulation.

"There's no politics at work when it comes to spending for the recovery," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says.

Counties that supported Obama last year have reaped twice as much money per person from the administration's $787 billion economic stimulus package as those that voted for his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, a USA TODAY analysis of government disclosure and accounting records shows. That money includes aid to repair military bases, improve public housing and help students pay for college.

The reports show the 872 counties that supported Obama received about $69 per person, on average. The 2,234 that supported McCain received about $34.

Investigators who track the stimulus are skeptical that political considerations could be at work. The imbalance is so pronounced — and the aid so far from complete — that it would be almost inconceivable for it to be the result of political tinkering, says Adam Hughes, the director of federal fiscal policy for the non-profit OMB Watch. "Even if they wanted to, I don't think the administration has enough people in place yet to actually do that," he says.

"Most of what they're doing at this point is just stamping the checks and sending them out," Hughes says.

The stimulus package Obama signed in February includes about $499 billion in new spending, and to date, the Obama administration has allocated about $158 billion to specific projects and programs. Most of that money has gone directly to state governments, which then disperse the money to prevent school layoffs, repair roads and fund social services. That contrasts with the $17 billion that Washington distributes directly to local communities.

Including the larger chunk of money given to state governments, the aid favors states that voted for Obama, which have received about 20% more per person

Not all of the money favors places that supported Obama. About a third of the $17 billion, or $5.5 billion, in contracts that the federal government has signed for projects ranging from repaving runways to cleaning up nuclear waste has gone overwhelmingly to counties that supported McCain.

Jake Wiens, an investigator with the non-profit Project on Government Oversight, says it's too soon to draw meaningful conclusions about whether the type of aid in the stimulus favors Obama's constituents.

But, he says, "it will be important to pay close attention as the data come in to ensure that political favoritism plays no role."

The imbalance didn't start with the stimulus. From 2005 through 2007, the counties that later voted for Obama collected about 50% more government aid than those that supported McCain, according to spending reports from the U.S. Census Bureau. USA TODAY's review did not include Alaska, which does not report its election results by county.

West Virginia More Responsible Than Most

Updating a previous entry, "No 'Free Lunch'":

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released its second analysis of the $787 billion federal stimulus program. It's conclusion: less than satisfied.

GAO analysts concluded that $29 billion of the $49 billion of state-directed stimulus funds has been distributed thus far. The problem is that 90% of this $29 billion was allocated by the states to stabilize state budgets and supplement Medicaid programs. No new jobs, few "shovel ready" infrastructure projects, and increased size of government. So far, $1.3 billion of the total $1.8 billion for West Virginia has been reported.

The GAO made no specific study of West Virginia, but the numbers don't lie. According to the state's recovery website, West Virginia is doing a fairly good job providing transparency of stimulus expenditures. Regardless of feelings about the federal spending, West Virginia lawmakers are pretty close to their mission statement: "to jumpstart the nation’s economy, create or save millions of jobs, and provide a monumental investment in our future." Here's the result:

Nationally: 63% of funding to date has been allocated to Medicaid FMAP spending
WV State: 27% of funding to date has been allocated to Medicaid FMAP spending

Nationally: 13% of funding to date has been allocated to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to supplement education programs
WV State: 16% of funding to date has been allocated to the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund to supplement education programs

Nationally: 6% of funding to date has been allocated to "shovel ready" Highway Infrastructure fund to create and preserve jobs immediately
WV State: 18% of funding to date has been allocated to "shovel ready" Highway Infrastructure fund to create and preserve jobs immediately

Quote of the Day

"I don't think 'reform' comes in the form of increased taxes and billion or trillion expenditures. Instead, reform should come in the form of cutting red tape and government bureaucracy."
- Karen Hanretty, Republican strategist on the $1 trillion health care "reform" bill

What's the Connection between West Virginia and the G8?

This morning's Wall Street Journal proclaims, "G8 may drop emissions targets." So what's the connection to the Mountain State?

As the Cap and Trade Bill was read and placed on the Senate calendar yesterday, our Senators should be aware of the G8's admittance that their arbitrary goals were exaggerated and unnecessary. Like the G8 is coming to realize, it's not a bad idea to strive for less energy use and more efficient expenditures of fuels and oil. However, strapping down an entire population with politicized legislation will cripple the United States with extreme taxes and debt (especially in coal-producing states like West Virginia).

When the G8 reconsiders it's position on climate change, New Yorkers are wearing sweaters in July, snow falls in the Arabian Peninsula, and the EPA censors reports that debunk global warming. This is positive news for rational proponents against the Waxman-Markey legislation that recently passed the House 291-212. Imminent Senate action will decide the fate of this very EXPENSIVE and EXAGGERATED legislation, threating American households with thousands of dollars in increased taxes.

Senators Rockefeller and Byrd should NOT tow the party line and think about the needs of West Virginia constituents. America was right to not sign the Kyoto Protocols, and we are right to oppose Waxman-Markey. If America foots the bill for global climate control initiatives, without the cooperation of the rest of the world, what progress does this make?

WVEx Original: A Study of Michael Hendryx and Flawed Reports

Link to Article HERE

Michael Jackson Funeral Bill to Taxpayers?

Outside of West Virginia news, Fox News just conducted an interview with Los Angeles Councilman Dennis Zine. He says that many plans for the Michael Jackson funeral were made by Jackson's representation, AEG, over the holiday weekend. Since city officials are scrambling catch up and be prepared for tomorrow's event, the city has notified over 2,000 police officers to ensure that the funeral goes smoothly and remains dignified. The estimated total cost to the city of Los Angeles for crowd control: $2.5 million.

L.A. city attorneys are currently negotatiating with AEG about who will pay the bills for the Staples Center funeral. Let's hope the city does not fold on this, and the Jackson family and AEG make the right decision to pay their fair share. California tax payers should not be obligated to cover this bill, especially when the state is issuing IOU promisory notes and remains billions of dollars upside down.

Effective July 1, 2009

Effective July 1, 2009, from the final Wrap-Up: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

HB 2684 "Drug Courts" - creates the framework for instituting drug courts and a benchmark evaluation system. Is this really necessary? Are Magistrate and Circuit Courts that back-loaded and inept to handle drug cases themselves? Do we really need ANOTHER branch of bureaucracy, creating and ENTIRELY new segment of the judicial branch?

I called Legislative Services at the Capitol in Charleston on Wednesday to request the fiscal note. The friendly staff there had no record of a fiscal note, because one had never been requested. Did our Legislature make this vast commitment, even without knowing how much it costs?! I disagree with this bill. It's intentions to de-regulate government oversight are good, but the magnitude of government created cannot be good.

HB 2860 "Carbon Sequestration" - emphasizes the development and use of carbon sequestration to make cleaner coal, working with the Department of Environmental Protection and a panel of experts to support the project and improve it through the 2011 legislative session.

I agree with this bill, because it emphasizes the use and utility of clean-coal technology, while investing in the technology and people to improve its cost effectiveness and efficiency.

SB 373 "PROMISE Scholarship" - caps the PROMISE scholarship at $4,750 after 2010, to manage an expensive program, while still attempting to help West Virginia students to achieve higher education and serve the state of West Virginia. Many have competing view points about this scholarship fund, which is why I will not address the issue of the scholarship here, but discuss one provision law makers slipped into this revised bill.

"The bill also adds gender, race and ethnic diversity as a requirement for the board of governors at a higher education institution." The state of West Virginia is now requiring institutions that employ PROMISE dollars to fulfill bureaucratic demands to create diversity that may not be representative of the state. Is this a public need, since it is created with public dollars?

I agree that diversity improves the education experience for everyone, and I strongly advocate for MORE diversity of all races, gender, creeds, and nationalities - but not mandated by big government! It is the ol' "protected class" argument. Again, great intentions, but not with government decree. Since I have not studied the make-up of West Virginia schools to any great length, I am willing to revisit this argument with facts and studies that point to the contrary.

HB 2771 "WV Alcohol and Drug-Free Workplace Act" - a bill to require companies to submit to state drug-testing when contracting projects over $100,000. I support Governor Manchin's veto of this bill.

Manchin points to the confusing language of the bill and its too-far reaching implications, having consequences that reach farther than the intent of the act. What is special about the $100,000 threshold? Is this a sincere problem, a chronic need for the state to address?

S244 "Politician Salary/ Pension Double Dipping" - a bill to prevent unopposed legislators from retiring before the election and then resuming office after the election, collecting pension funds along with legislative pay. I support this bill and its mission to end government waste and corruption, while holding elected officials accountable. It does not say that legislators must forfeit all duties, but it does cap the amount of pay one can receive.

HB 2335 "G.I. Education Enhancement Program" - a bill to ensure G.I. education within West Virginia, in conjunction with a similar initiative taking place nationwide. Increased education benefits equal in-state tuition at the state's most expensive public college or university. The federal government matches any expenditure above the cost of in-state tuition for fees and expenses.

American citizens are indebted to the brave men and women who sacrifice for this country. This bill supports those men and women with an education, while supporting a similar initiative as the indoctrinated PROMISE scholarship to educate West Virginians. Further, if the state chooses to offer supplemental funds, the federal government will match the state's burden. The cost will not be large, and our soldiers deserve it.

S507 "WV Clean Coal Council" - this bill was vetoed by Governor Manchin, but only because it duplicates the enrolled committee substitute for HB2860, which establishes a working group on carbon capture and sequestration. Manchin also returned the bill because it engages the WV Clean Coal Technology Council, which became defunct in June 2005. Therefore, to eliminate government inefficiency, Manchin vetoed this bill, while ensuring its mission is carried out in the enrolled committee substitute for HB2860.

HB3197 "Litter Prevention Officers" - a bill to appoint special litter officers to patrol within municipalities, vested with powers to issue citations, summons, and sign complaints. Special officers to catch you throwing that candy bar wrapper!

Governor Manchin rightly vetoed this bill - but due to technical reasons, not because it is completely unneccessary. Municipalities would be able to train and disperse these litter prevention officers on a whim, and send them out on patrol looking for those habitual litterers! Don't get me wrong, I love the state of West Virginia and its immense beauty. However, is the cost-benefit really there, and is this a job that current officers are incapable or unwilling to do?

Recent Events Could Affect Campaign Dollars

In a recent Supreme Court ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion about campaign finance reform and restriction, “Enough is enough.” On June 25, the High Court seemingly reversed large precedent, reversing the restrictions of McCain-Feingold (2002), as wells as the McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) ruling that upheld McCain-Feingold. Implemented to regulate donations and expenditures of “soft money,” along with issue advocacy electioneering, these former standards now contend with the recent 5-4 conservative majority.

Coupled with this, the High Court also issued another heavy-handed ruling in early May 2009. In regards to West Virginia state Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin, the SCOTUS held that Benjamin must recuse himself from a very contentious case involving a party that donated over $3 million to his campaign efforts. Did the contributor have a right to donate, regardless of intent? Did Benjamin have a right to accept the funds, and could he control their allocation? Did the United States Supreme Court have a right to censor Benjamin and remand the case, mandating his recusal? In the span of one month, the issue of campaign finance emerged vigorously and caused much debate about who donates, how much, to whom, and when contribution should take place.

Several forces are at play during this debate, which generate much interest. As the executive and legislative branches slide farther to the left, and a liberal appointee waits for the nod for her spot on the bench, the Supreme Court’s conservative wing is causing some uncertainty as to future rulings by the Supreme Court. Second, campaign finance laws could change drastically for all political races, on state and federal levels. Third, the historical right to free speech in America through campaign contribution seems to be under fire from an “almost-majority” on the Supreme Court, and certainly in other branches of government. Successful reversal of said campaign finance restrictions, and implementation of campaign contribution freedoms, would certainly spill into other arenas and promote “right sizing” government through sweeping de-regulation in other areas. Our goal should be to evaluate these current events, site applicable legislation and case law, and propose efficient, effective reforms to protect the liberties of contributors and campaigners in the American election system.

For West Virginia judicial selection, the issue is even more applicable. In The Rule of Law, writers discuss possible reforms for the current elective system that remains highly partisan. Many of these writers argue that the current system, as it stands, hurts the business climate within West Virginia, because employers have little trust in the stability of the state's legal system (especially with a rogue Attorney General). Possible reforms include non-partisan elections or merit-based appointments, similar to the federal selection process. Additionally, public financing proposals are put forth as probable ingredients for a more transparent selection process. Whatever the solution, candidate dialogue must be protected and expanded through the selection processes for all offices. This will ensure that voters have to opportunity to ask questions and receive quality answers in pursuit of finding the truth about the individuals seeking office.