June 29, 2008
All eyes are on election advocacy disclosure
Advertiser

Depending on your perspective, Republicans in the Legislature wasted $120,000 of taxpayer money defending the First Amendment rights of millionaires - or the Democrats wasted $120,000 trying to shield Attorney General Darrell McGraw from negative ads this fall.

Either way, it was clear that those with vested interests in seeing McGraw either re-elected or defeated in November were pulling out all the stops last week on the election advocacy disclosure bill - turning what was supposed to be a two-day special session into a week-long slog.

Certainly, Steve Cohen of Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (which gets substantial funding from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) made no bones of accusing House Judiciary Chairwoman Carrie Webster, D-Kanawha, of conflicts of interest over the bill.

Webster's husband, Greg Skinner, works for McGraw as an assistant attorney general, and Tim Bailey, a partner in the law firm where Webster works, was one of the outside counsel in the state's $12.1 million settlement with two credit card companies for improper billings.

(The settlement will underwrite a sales tax holiday on purchases of energy-efficient appliances in September.)

Cohen failed to note that Webster also worked as press secretary for the attorney general at the same time Cohen was press secretary for Gov. Gaston Caperton - presumably he didn't consider that a conflict since that predates McGraw's tenure as AG.

To be sure, there were plenty of big-name trial lawyers taking keen interest in the bill's progress. In one House Judiciary Committee meeting alone, I spotted Jim Casey, Pat Maroney and Anthony Majestro tracking the bill.

Meanwhile, one of the harshest critics of the election advocacy legislation (and of its ties to McGraw) on the Senate side, Sen. Vic Sprouse, R-Kanawha, may not be entirely conflict-free in the matter.

Sprouse is working as a political consultant for McGraw's opponent in the general election, Dan Greear, who presumably stands to benefit if CALA and others throw millions into what Cohen termed "voter education" campaigns.

Not to mention that the more Greear is seen as having a viable chance of beating McGraw, the more campaign contributions will roll in, a scenario that benefits Sprouse's consulting firm.

(Greear's financial disclosures show that he had paid Sprouse Consulting about $44,442 in consulting fees and expenses since he launched his candidacy last year.)

Regardless of who deserves the blame for extending the session at a cost of nearly $38,000 a day, I understand consultants for Democratic candidates are already planning ads attacking those Republican legislators who voted against suspending rules requiring bills to be read on three separate days.

  • nn
  • One of the arguments by opponents of the bill was that requiring disclosure would have a chilling effect on contributions to groups like West Virginians for Life and the NRA.

    Report a violation or offensive comment.
    [X] Close
    to report abuse.
    Advertisement - Your ad here
    Advertisement - Your ad here
    Advertisement - Your ad here