Most West Virginians pay taxes on every dollar they earn, while large corporations and billionaires use tax loopholes to pay as little as zero in income taxes, and in turn use the money to pump tens of millions of dollars into political campaigns, according to a new report released by West Virginia Citizen Action Group in collaboration with Americans for Tax Fairness.
The report found almost half the nearly $190 million dollars raised by the House and Senate GOP super PACs in the first 16 months of the 2022 campaign cycle came from 27 billionaires.
Gary Zuckett, executive director of the West Virginia Citizen Action Group, said Mountain State residents end up footing the bill for roads and other local government services.
"Why does this make a difference to middle- and working-class West Virginians?" Zuckett asked. "The reason it makes a difference is that every dollar that billionaires and millionaires don't pay in taxes, that tax-dodging corporations don't pay on their profits, is our tax dollars that the working class has to make up to keep our government functioning."
Billionaire political donations in 2020 were nearly double the $682 million poured into campaigns in 2016, according to data from the OpenSecrets database. Monday evening, activists rallied in Charleston outside West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin's office, calling for the passage of climate and tax-fairness legislation.
Zuckett believes lawmakers should be focusing on major campaign finance reforms ahead of the 2024 presidential election campaign, including reforming the 2009 Supreme Court decision, which paved the way for unlimited political contributions by corporations.
"We need to fix the Citizens United Ruling," Zuckett emphasized. "We need legislation that said that corporations can't spend unlimited amounts of money in politics, buying our elections."
According to the report, the nation's billionaires increased their wealth significantly during the last two years of the pandemic, from a collective $2 trillion among around 700 individuals to more than $5 trillion dollars as of last April.
get more stories like this via email
A handful of Montana bills pushing for partisan judicial elections as part of a broader movement in the state were defeated this month.
Montana law has required judicial elections to be nonpartisan for 90 years, since 1935. Proponents argued partisan elections would be more transparent. Opponents said it is one move in a larger effort to curb judicial power.
Jim Manley was a district court judge in Lake and Sanders Counties until he retired in 2022. He said it is vital judges be respected for their independence.
"Destroying that independence and respect has far-reaching negative effects," Manley contended. "I don't know if some of these politicians don't care about that. But that's the concern among judges and many other people."
He argued electing partisan judges would imply bias in courtrooms and decisions. He noted it could increase electoral spending, which has already skyrocketed in recent years. The Senate Select Committee on Judicial Oversight and Reform, created last year, brought 27 such bills to the current session. Only one has passed so far.
Interest groups have targeted judicial elections because of the hot-button issues they sometimes have to decide. Abortion and the environment are examples.
"You can't just take that authority away from the judicial branch to discipline judges or to determine what they can do," Manley stressed.
The effort to curb judicial power is unpopular. Only 20% of Montanans surveyed earlier this year said courts have too much authority.
Montana's new Supreme Court Chief Justice Cory Swanson, who has a conservative background, urged lawmakers in his 2025 State of the Judiciary address to keep elections nonpartisan and, quote, "reject legislation that will undermine the effective functioning of the judiciary." He said, "It will ultimately harm Montana citizens."
get more stories like this via email
Political maneuvers continue with the pivotal Wisconsin Supreme Court race less than a week away - the latest coming from the White House. In the weeks leading up to the April 1st election, the state has seen partisan-backed campaigns, swirling misinformation and incentives that border on bribes. On Wednesday, President Donald Trump signed an executive order to reshape state elections - with changes like proof of citizenship requirements - days before Wisconsin voters take to the polls.
Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs with Stand Up America, says it all reflects the climate stoked by the country's leaders.
"So, it's no surprise that they're trying that playbook again in Wisconsin," he explained. "And what it still comes down to is a really basic question. Do we want a MAGA court in Wisconsin? Do we want a Supreme Court bought and paid for by Elon Musk?"
Groups tied to Musk, the Tesla and SpaceX CEO who is overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency, have poured about $17 million into backing candidate Brad Schimel, while Susan Crawford's campaign reports a total $24 million in funding, with notable contributions from billionaire George Soros. Overall spending has surpassed all records for judicial races and is expected to reach $100 million.
Most state elections don't garner mass attention, but Edkins says in the battleground swing state, outcomes have national implications.
"Where Wisconsin goes, so goes the country. What's at stake in Wisconsin are ensuring that we have free and fair elections in 2026 and 2028," he added.
The high court has become the referee for some of the most hotly debated election rules, narrowly rejecting then-presidential candidate Donald Trump's lawsuit to overturn the 2020 election results. And last year the court reversed gerrymandered maps and restored ballot drop boxes.
Lucy Ripp, communication director with A Better Wisconsin Together, says voters need to cut through the chaos and remember why the election matters.
"The Wisconsin Supreme Court exists to uphold and protect our constitutional rights and freedoms in Wisconsin. And so, it's really important that we pay attention to who we are electing to the court," she said.
Cases about abortion access, the rights of voters with disabilities, noncitizen voting and the legality of drop boxes are just some the high court could see - as well as a lawsuit concerning one of Musk's companies, Tesla.
Disclosure: Stand Up America contributes to our fund for reporting on Campaign Finance Reform/Money in Pol, Civic Engagement, Civil Rights. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
After Elon Musk, a man once worth $327 billion, spent a quarter billion to elect Donald Trump, he was rewarded with unprecedented powers over the federal government.
Brandon Novick, policy coordinator with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says blatant corruption in the United States is not new. And it's legal, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's Buckley versus Valeo ruling in 1976.
"That decision was the root one that said that 'money is speech' and that people can infinitely spend in elections. In Citizen's United, basically the court said based on this, we're saying corporations, not just individuals, can infinitely spend in elections," he explained.
To avoid the appearance of quid pro quo corruption, Novick said the nation's highest court clarified that unlimited spending to influence the outcome of an election is OK, so long as the cash is spent independently and not in coordination with a candidate's official campaign.
Billionaires are not just buying power from Republicans. Novick pointed to Reid Hoffman, who spent some $17 million on the Kamala Harris campaign. When Hoffman called for the Federal Trade Commission's chair Lena Kahn to get the boot, Harris refused to commit to keeping Kahn in her post.
"This issue is bipartisan. The establishments of both parties are not working to solve it. But the current Trump administration is the greatest example of blatant billionaire control bought through bribes in campaign spending," Novik said.
Good-government groups have long argued that in American democracy, one citizen - not one dollar - should equal one vote. Novick said there are only two viable pathways to get money out of politics. The U.S. Supreme Court could overturn previous decisions, which is unlikely since many of today's Justices were involved in Citizen's United.
"The only other way to get past this is a constitutional amendment to overturn their decision and get money out of politics. Because if Congress just passes a law, they'll strike it down," he added.
get more stories like this via email