CHARLESTON, W.Va. – This week, Delegate Carol Miller, a candidate for Congress in West Virginia's Third District publicly answered charges that she is profiting from a company that distributes prescription painkillers in southern West Virginia.

Miller's opponent, state Senator Richard Ojeda, points to a required disclosure showing Miller's millionaire auto-dealer husband owns tens of thousands of dollars to stock in drug wholesaler McKesson. That company is accused of flooding the district with millions of opioid painkillers.

In an interview that first aired on WOWK TV, Miller said she doesn't know how much McKesson stock they own.

"But of course we do have retirement, as many teachers and any state employees,” said Miller. “People with 401ks don't go through them daily to see what they do or do not have investments in."

Miller has a leadership role in the House of Delegates, as majority whip. Despite her wealth and long time in office, she compared her stock ownership to that of a regular public employee.

Until now, she had repeatedly refused to answer reporters' questions on the issue.

Ojeda accuses Republican legislative leaders, including Miller, of opposing teacher pay raises and forcing a strike that closed schools across the state last winter. Since then, state GOP leaders have claimed credit for the pay increases, a claim some legislative Democrats have called "laughable."

In the TV interview, Miller dismissed the charge – and changed the subject.

"What a silly thing to say. I'm on the Finance Committee for seven years, and we worked diligently to get them a pay raise,” said Miller. “The teachers are, we could talk for hours about what the teachers do for our children and how important they are."

Miller also called protections for pre-existing medical conditions "important." But she didn't explain how that fits with repeated Republican attempts to repeal the protections in the Affordable Care Act.




get more stories like this via email

President-elect Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress have promised to pass a new tax bill, and a new report breaks down the expected winners and losers.

Joe Hughes, senior policy analyst with the nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, says based on Trump's campaign proposals, the top one percent - those making more than $900,000 a year - will see their tax bill go down by more than $36,000, on average.

"The top 5% of households make more than $360,000 a year. They will likely see their taxes go down. For the other 95% of Americans, they will likely see their taxes go up," he said.

Hughes added that Americans earning between $55,000 and $94,000 a year would have to pay over $1,500 more in taxes. The combined increases would further shift the tax burden - to pay for bridges, schools, health care and highways from corporations and higher-income individuals to low- and middle-income families. Trump has claimed, without evidence, that increasing tariffs on foreign goods would cover revenues lost due to tax cuts.

Hughes says because companies pass the costs of tariffs along to consumers, Americans will also be hit with what is essentially a national sales tax. He added the incoming administration's proposals, if enacted, could increase the national debt by as much as $15 trillion over the next decade.

"The proposals to increase tariffs are not going to raise enough revenue to offset the tax cuts that he's proposed to give to high-income individuals and to corporations," Hughes continued.

Trump has called the election results a mandate for his policies. But Hughes noted a strong majority of Americans support a tax code that's fair, one that asks those who can afford it to contribute more. They don't think billionaires such as Elon Musk should pay less than working families.

"Most Americans, even a majority of Republicans, support higher income taxes on the wealthy and on corporations," he said. "So, there is some disconnect here between the candidate that they voted for and the policies that actually poll well with voters."


get more stories like this via email

Montana citizens and environmental advocates have sued the state for withholding documents that have, for decades, been considered public information.

The division that provides bill drafting and other support to the Montana Legislature has announced a new policy that requires a legislator's approval before releasing documents to the public.

That includes all the correspondence and communication that goes into drafting a bill, including lawmakers conferring with lobbyists and other legislators.

Upper Seven Law's Founder Rylee Sommers-Flanagan said Montana's Constitution protects residents' right to know about and participate in the legislative process.

"The right to know is meant to protect our ability to examine the documents of any public agency," said Sommers-Flanagan. "This includes all Executive Branch agencies. It includes all aspects of the Legislature. Anything that relates to their official business belongs to the people of Montana."

A Helena judge over the summer ruled that correspondence used to draft bills - so called "junque files" - are not public record, reversing a 25-year-old policy.

Sommers-Flanagan argued the move undermines transparency, which she said has been the backbone of Montana's lawmaking process, and calls into question interactions between lawmakers and lobbyists who often work together to create a bill.

"We could literally be deprived of opportunity to see bribery happening in writing," said Sommers-Flanagan. "And, of course, I doubt that our legislators are engaged in bribery - but what this does is, it protects them fully from any sort of disclosure around what they might be exchanging."

The rule was implemented when a district court ruled in favor of a state senator who argued that junque files related to a gerrymandering law should not be made public.




get more stories like this via email

The state Supreme Court has upheld a law giving Nebraskans with prior felony convictions the right to vote once they have completed their sentence.

Proponents of the measure are calling it a hard-fought victory to restore full rights to citizens who have paid their debt to society.

State lawmakers challenged a clause in the state's 1875 constitution disenfranchising people with felony convictions for life.

Steve Smith, director of communications with the group Civic Nebraska, said the ruling ends a decades-long legal battle.

"Had the court ruled the underlying statute is unconstitutional, those folks would have been out of luck," said Smith. "And so, the stakes were pretty high. In a state the size of Nebraska, that's close to 10% of the electorate. It's about 100,000 voters."

Smith said eligible people must register in person by 6 p.m. on Oct. 25 at their county's local elections office.

Smith said the ruling negates an order by the secretary of state blocking county officials from registering former felons despite a bipartisan bill that eliminated a two year waiting period for people with convictions.

He said the requirements to register have been simplified.

"It is fully completing your sentence. And so, the term is 'off-papers,'" said Smith. "And most folks who have been justice-impacted understand what off-papers mean. They've served any term of incarceration. They have completed any terms of parole, probation or supervised release, and they have not reoffended."

Smith said his organization and other are urging people who are now eligible to register and to vote, calling it both a civil right and a civic duty.

"For those of you going, 'I don't know if I want to do this,' know that the Supreme Court, the highest court in our state, has said, 'You are good to go, and you should vote with confidence,'" said Smith. "If you're on the fence about not voting, think about how hard some people tried to keep your vote away from you, and then wonder why that is."

Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.


get more stories like this via email