Right now, West Virginia is only one of a few states that doesn’t require candidates’ spouses to disclose where they work or their business investments.
That’s one of the handful of reasons the state got a big red “F” on its recent report card from The Center of Public Integrity for its campaign disclosure requirements. Seems that in addition to not requiring the spouses of candidates to disclose information, there are other grave failures as far as disclosure for candidates in the Mountain State. It seems even the candidate’s investments don’t have to be particularly detailed, and neither does his job description nor his real estate investments.
On top of that, the center faulted the state for not publicizing those who did not appropriately file campaign documents or have all available online.
It’s not the first bad grade West Virginia has received from The Center of Public Integrity, and we’re certainly not at the top of the class. Twice before, in 1996 and 2006, West Virginia ranked No. 43 out of 50 for the amount of information required from candidates for public office. This year, we dropped a spot to 44.
That’s shameful.
Right now, the West Virginia Ethics Commission is debating whether to ask the Legislature to introduce a new law requiring, at least, the disclosure of a spouse’s interests when a candidate files.
Theresa Kirk, executive director of the commission, recently told The State Journal that such a law would give the public a “more practical snapshot of the financial relationships between a public official and his or her spouse and other businesses or employers in the state.”
And that’s something that the public voters have every right to know.
There are a million situations that could arise where a spouse’s financial interests would interfere with a candidate or public official’s ability to make an impartial decision.
Does a particular stance on energy, business, labor or industry issues have to do with a political belief or the belief that certain policy will benefit the couple’s retirement account? It shouldn’t take a team of investigative reporters to figure that out. It should be right there, in black and white, and immediately be a public document that all residents have access to.
We took the issue to our voters — the ones who log on each week at www.timeswv.com to vote in our poll. Last week we asked, “Should spouses of political candidates be required to disclose their business interests?”
Absolutely no one voted for the response “It depends — Who makes more, him or her?” Not really any point in gnawing over that one.
But for 9.88 percent, this doesn’t seem like such a good idea. Those voters said “No — We have a tough enough time getting good people to run for public office.” Well, OK, but how “good” could potential public officials be if they feared releasing the business interests of their spouse? Ponder on that.
But overwhelmingly, by the largest margin in these polls we believe, 90.12 percent agreed with putting a law in place to require such disclosure. Those voters said “Yes — Transparency in public office is a must!”
Being “transparent” is never a bad thing.
This week, in honor of the season many, many of our readers look forward to each November, let’s talk deer. What are your plans for the season?
Log on. Vote. E-mail me.
Misty Poe
Managing Editor
mpoe@timeswv.com
