West Virginia Policy and Campaign Finance Research Podcast

Carrie Clendening
  • 5.0 (1)
  • Government

West Virginia Policy and Campaign Finance Research. This Substack publication is dedicated to tracking the flow of political money into West Virginia’s elections and policy-making process. carrieclendening.substack.com

  1. 18h ago

    Interview w/ Travis Willard on Senate District 4 Republican Primary Contest

    Mission: “Dedicated to tracking the flow of political money into West Virginia’s elections and policy-making process.” The filings I cite here (Lead WV’s federal 8871 form, 527 registration status, and its state Statement of Organization) are public record; the connection to Eric Tarr is my own inference from the pattern, not a documented fact. Lead West Virginia Attack Video 1 Lead West Virginia Attack Video 2 Lead West Virginia Filings Lead WV 8871 Filing State Campaign Finance Records Thanks for reading West Virginia Policy and Campaign Finance Research! This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit carrieclendening.substack.com

  2. 6d ago

    A Comedy of Errors: How I Accidentally Became the WikiLeaks of Political Education.

    Introduction: In Which Our Hero Discovers Politics is Just Three Kids in a Trench Coat What you’re about to read is the stupidest political journey ever documented. It’s like if Mr. Bean accidentally wandered into House of Cards and somehow ended up teaching Frank Underwood’s masterclass for free on YouTube. I didn’t set out to become the WikiLeaks of political education. I just wanted my gynecologist to not go to jail. But somewhere between being exploited by soccer moms and learning dark arts from Republican defectors, I realized the entire American political system is basically a game of Monopoly where both players are cheating, the board is on fire, and nobody told the voters there were rules in the first place. So buckle up, because this is the story of how I went from Switzerland to Che Guevara, except instead of revolution, I’m just handing out free PDFs that explain how the sausage factory works. “Carrie’s story made me realize I’ve been doing politics wrong this whole time. I should have been charging way more for my emotional labor.” - Abraham Lincoln’s Ghost Chapter 1: The Great Swiss Years (Or: How I Spent 12 Years Eating Popcorn While Rome Burned) From 2010 to 2022, I was the political equivalent of that friend who shows up to every party but refuses to play beer pong because “I’m just here to observe.” I registered as “No Party Affiliation,” which in West Virginia is like being a vegan at a BBQ festival—technically allowed, but deeply suspicious. I worked in county government, watching Democrats and Republicans fight like divorced parents at a school play. The Democrats would propose something sensible like “Maybe we should fix the roads,” and Republicans would counter with “Roads are socialism!” Then they’d compromise by doing absolutely nothing while the potholes grew large enough to swallow small vehicles. I thought I was SO CLEVER. While everyone else was picking Team Edward or Team Jacob, I was Team “I’m Above This Petty Nonsense.” I’d sit in county meetings, taking notes like Jane Goodall observing particularly dysfunctional chimpanzees. “The Republicans are flinging their fiscal responsibility at 3 o’clock,” I’d write. “The Democrats have responded by screeching about social services. Neither species appears capable of basic math.” For TWELVE YEARS, I maintained this smugly superior position. I was basically the political equivalent of someone who refuses to pick a favorite child, except both children are setting things on fire and asking for matches. “Carrie’s neutrality period reminds me of my own time in exile, except she had indoor plumbing and WiFi.” - Napoleon Bonaparte (via séance) Chapter 2: The Gynecologist Protection Act of 2022 (Or: How Republicans Made Me Pick a Team by Threatening My Lady Doctor) Then 2022 happened, and West Virginia Republicans looked at the political landscape and said, “You know what this state needs? Let’s criminalize healthcare providers! That’ll show... someone... something!” It was like watching your neighbor decide to burn down their house to kill a spider. Sure, the spider’s dead, but now the whole neighborhood smells like smoke and property values are tanking. Suddenly, my beloved neutrality felt less like wisdom and more like standing in the middle of a highway during rush hour. When one party starts treating your gynecologist like a character from Orange Is the New Black, it’s time to pick a side. So I joined the Democrats. Not because I suddenly loved donkeys or thought blue brought out my eyes. It was pure self-preservation. It’s like choosing between a restaurant that might give you food poisoning and one that’s actively adding arsenic to the soup. Neither is great, but one is definitely worse. My Democratic registration form might as well have said: “I’m not WITH you, I’m just AGAINST them criminalizing my annual pap smear.” The lady at the Board of Elections looked at my form and said, “Welcome to the Democratic Party!” I wanted to say, “I’m not joining, I’m just seeking asylum,” but I figured that was splitting hairs. “I too joined a political movement to protect medical professionals. Mine were barbers, but the principle stands.” - King Louis XIV. Chapter 3: MomsRising: The Emotional Ponzi Scheme (Or: How Soccer Moms Turned Trauma into Unpaid Labor) Fresh off my Democratic conversion, I joined MomsRising in 2024, thinking I’d help West Virginia moms fight for healthcare access. What I got instead was like signing up for a yoga class and discovering it’s actually a pyramid scheme run by people who cry professionally. The Zoom meetings were LEGENDARY. Picture this: 50 women on a video call, each sharing increasingly horrific healthcare stories like it’s some kind of twisted competition. “I had to choose between insulin and rent!” “Well, I gave birth in a parking lot because the nearest hospital closed!” “Amateurs! I performed my own root canal with pliers and YouTube tutorials!” After 45 minutes of competitive trauma bonding, the organizers would cheerfully pivot: “Great sharing, everyone! Now here’s a script to call 500 voters in Pennsylvania about their Senate race!” It was emotional whiplash. Like going to group therapy and having the therapist say, “Now that you’re all sufficiently triggered, let’s cold-call strangers!” I did the math (because apparently I hate myself). I was providing approximately $36,400 worth of professional organizing work annually. My compensation? $500. That’s not volunteering—that’s subsidizing democracy at a 98.6% discount. Black Friday sales aren’t even that good. But the REAL plot twist came when I searched them on FEC.gov (yes, I’m fun at parties). MomsRising had more PACs than a Costco has bulk packages: * A regular PAC (for appetizers) * A Super PAC (the main course) * A Hybrid PAC (dessert with a side of campaign finance violations) We weren’t volunteers. We were unpaid campaign staff who’d been gaslit into thinking we were grassroots activists. It’s like finding out your book club is actually Amazon’s unpaid marketing department. “Even I didn’t exploit labor this efficiently, and I literally built pyramids.” - Pharaoh Khufu. Chapter 4: Indiana Jones and the Temple of No Infrastructure (Or: How I Discovered Democrats Had Lost the Instruction Manual) After escaping MomsRising’s emotional labor camp, I thought, “Let me work with local Democrats to actually fight this abortion ban!” What I found was like showing up to build a house and discovering no one brought tools, materials, or remembered what a house looks like. The West Virginia Democratic infrastructure wasn’t just bad—it had achieved a state of decay typically reserved for ancient civilizations. The VAN database (that’s the voter file, for those playing at home) looked like someone had maintained it by throwing darts at a phone book while blindfolded. The 2021 redistricting was a masterpiece of incompetence. District lines literally ran through people’s houses. I met a woman whose kitchen voted in District 3, but her bedroom was in District 5. Her bathroom? Somehow in District 7. “Ma’am, where do you vote?” “Depends on which room I’m registered from. I vote by mail from the hallway—it’s the only neutral territory.” The county committee consisted of three distinct species: The Dinosaurs: Still believed phone trees were cuttingedge technology. “Back in my day, we won elections by going door-to-door!” Yeah, back in your day, there were also only three channels on TV, Harold. The West Wing Wannabes: Had watched exactly 1.5 seasons of political TV and now thought they were Josh Lyman. Spoiler alert: They were more like the extras who walk past in the background. The Eager Beavers: Young people with energy but no training. Like giving a teenager a Formula 1 car and saying “Figure it out!” while they’re already doing donuts in the parking lot. “This infrastructure makes the Maginot Line look well planned.” - General Charles de Gaulle’s LinkedIn endorsement. Chapter 5: The Empire Strikes Back (Or: How Republicans Accidentally Became My Mentors) Here’s where the story gets WEIRD. After being rejected by Democrats for the crime of knowing things, I ended up learning from... Republicans. Specifically, The Lincoln Project—Republicans who broke up with their party like it was a toxic ex who keyed their car. Their volunteer arm, The Union, had this REVOLUTIONARY approach: honesty. I know, in politics, that’s like finding a unicorn riding a dragon while juggling. “Hi, we’re a PAC. Here’s our FEC filing. Sign this NDA. We’re going to teach you how political power actually works. No, this isn’t a trick.” It was like going to a used car dealership and having the salesman say, “Actually, let me show you exactly how we’re trying to screw you over, and here’s how to avoid it.” No emotional manipulation. No asking me to share my deepest traumas before phone banking. Just: “Here’s the game, here’s how it’s played, would you like to learn?” They taught me: * Power mapping (it’s like LinkedIn stalking but with purpose). * Strategic communication (lying, but with spreadsheets). * Campaign finance (legal money laundering for democracy). * Coalition building (getting people who hate each other to hate someone else more) It was like taking the red pill, except instead of discovering we’re in the Matrix, I discovered we’re in a really poorly run community theater production of the Matrix. “I too learned from my enemies. Though in my case, it was mostly what not to do.” - Benedict Arnold’s Masterclass. Chapter 6: The Outsider Who Was Already Inside (Or: You Can’t Sit With Us Because You Know Where We Sit) Armed with: * A decade of government experience. * Redistricting knowledge that could bore a statue to tears. *

  3. Jul 18

    Buckley v. Valeo: The 1976 Decision That Built America’s Dark Money Architecture

    The Supreme Court’s 1976 per curiam opinion in Buckley v. Valeo established the constitutional framework that makes dark money and unlimited campaign spending legally possible—not Citizens United. While Citizens United (2010) became the public lightning rod for criticism, legal scholars increasingly recognize it as merely an extension of doctrines Buckley cemented 34 years earlier. As Columbia Law Professor Richard Briffault argues, Buckley “produced a campaign finance law that Congress never enacted, and set the stage for many of the pathologies that have marked the campaign finance system ever since.” The case struck down post-Watergate spending limits while creating three foundational doctrines: * Money spent on politics equals protected speech; * Independent expenditures cannot be limited because they don’t corrupt; and * Contributions and expenditures deserve different constitutional treatment. These holdings constructed the legal architecture that dark money now flows through. The Watergate Scandal Drove Comprehensive Reform That The Court Dismantled When Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, the Watergate investigations had exposed campaign finance as central to political corruption. Twenty-two individuals and seventeen corporations pleaded guilty to illegal contributions to Nixon’s Committee for the Re-election of the President (CREEP). Prior to 1974, Corporate executives flew to Washington with “brown leather suitcases” full of cash. After the dairy industry pledged $2 million to Nixon’s reelection, he approved milk price increases. Secret slush funds financed dirty tricks and break-ins. Congress responded with the most comprehensive campaign finance legislation in American history: the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) Amendments. * The law imposed contribution limits ($1,000 per individual per election), * Expenditure limits ($1,000 for independent expenditures, $20 million presidential spending cap) * Comprehensive disclosure requirements, and created the Federal Election Commission to enforce these rules. * Public financing of presidential elections was established through an income tax checkoff. Just one day after the law took effect, Senator James Buckley—joined by a bizarre coalition spanning Eugene McCarthy, the ACLU, the Libertarian Party, and the American Conservative Union—filed suit arguing the law violated the First Amendment. The Supreme Court heard arguments on November 10, 1975, and issued its ruling on January 30, 1976. The Court’s “Money Equals Speech” Doctrine Transformed Campaign Finance Into Protected Expression The government argued that campaign finance restrictions merely regulate conduct—monetary transactions—not speech. The Court emphatically rejected this position, holding that political spending is constitutionally indistinguishable from political speech itself: “A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.” The Court distinguished campaign spending from cases like O’Brien (draft card burning), stating that “the expenditure of money simply cannot be equated with such conduct as destruction of a draft card.” Because money enables political communication, restricting campaign spending directly restricts the “quantity of political speech.” The First Amendment affords “the broadest protection to such political expression” to ensure the “unfettered interchange of ideas.” This doctrinal move transformed any spending limit into a speech restriction requiring the highest constitutional justification—a framework that would prove nearly impossible for reformers to satisfy. The Contribution-Expenditure Distinction Created Constitutional Asymmetry Buckley’s most consequential and controversial holding treated contributions to candidates fundamentally differently from expenditures on political speech. This bifurcated analysis shaped all subsequent campaign finance law. Contributions received weaker protection because they involve only “marginal restriction upon the contributor’s ability to engage in free communication.” A contribution serves as “a general expression of support” but “does not communicate the underlying basis for the support.” The Court found contributions were essentially “speech by proxy”—the actual communication comes from the candidate who spends the money, not the contributor. Given this attenuated speech interest, the government’s interest in preventing corruption and its appearance provided “constitutionally sufficient justification” for contribution limits. Expenditures received strict scrutiny because they “represent substantial... restraints on the quantity and diversity of political speech.” When individuals or groups spend their own money on political communication, they are directly exercising First Amendment rights that the government cannot constrain based on vague anti-corruption concerns. This distinction meant that while Congress could limit how much someone gives to a candidate ($1,000survived), it could not limit how much that same person spends independently advocating for that candidate—creating an immediate asymmetry that wealthy individuals could exploit. Independent Expenditure Protection Became The Dark Money Foundation The Court’s most consequential holding for modern dark money was its ruling that independent expenditures receive full First Amendment protection and cannot constitutionally be limited. The $1,000 independent expenditure ceiling in FECA was struck down because it “heavily burdens core First Amendment expression” while failing to serve “any substantial governmental interest.” The reasoning was straightforward but momentous: independent expenditures pose no corruption risk because there is no direct exchange between spender and candidate. As the Court wrote: “The absence of prearrangement and coordination of an expenditure with the candidate or his agent not only undermines the value of the expenditure to the candidate, but also alleviates the danger that expenditures will be given as a quid pro quo for improper commitments from the candidate.” This holding established that as long as spending is “totally independent of the candidate and his campaign”—made without “prearrangement and coordination”—it cannot create corruption and therefore cannot be restricted. The government’s only legitimate interest in campaign finance regulation, the Court held, was preventing quid pro quo corruption: explicit exchanges of money for political favors. The Court also created the infamous “magic words” test in footnote 52, ruling that regulable express advocacy required explicit terms like “vote for,” “elect,” “support,” “cast your ballot for,” “vote against,” “defeat,” or “reject.” This created the issue advocacy loophole: groups could influence elections without disclosure or limits simply by avoiding these specific phrases. What Buckley Struck Down Versus What It Preserved Struck down as unconstitutional: * Independent expenditure limits ($1,000 ceiling) * Candidate personal expenditure limits ($50,000 for President, less for Congress) * Overall campaign spending limits ($20 million for presidential general elections) Upheld as constitutional: * Individual contribution limits ($1,000 per candidate per election) * PAC contribution limits ($5,000 per candidate) * Disclosure and recordkeeping requirements * Public financing of presidential elections (with voluntary spending limits as a condition) The Court also struck down the FEC’s original appointment structure as violating the Appointments Clause, requiring Congress to reconstitute the Commission with presidential appointees. The Line From Buckley To Citizens United Shows Doctrinal Continuity, Not Disruption Citizens United extended Buckley’s independent expenditure protection to corporations—it did not create something new. The doctrinal progression demonstrates how each major case built directly on Buckley’s framework. McConnell v. FEC (2003) upheld the McCain-Feingold law’s soft money ban and restrictions on “electioneering communications” by corporations. The 5-4 decision relied partly on Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had created an “antidistortion” rationale allowing restrictions on corporate spending to prevent wealthy corporations from dominating political discourse. This was the one significant departure from Buckley’s framework. FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) began eroding McConnell by ruling that BCRA’s restrictions on corporate electioneering communications were unconstitutional as applied to ads that were not “the functional equivalent of express advocacy.” Chief Justice Roberts’ plurality opinion explicitly invoked Buckley: “Buckley itself compelled the conclusion that such tests fall short when it narrowed the statutory language there at issue to cover only advertising that used the magic words of express advocacy.” Justice Scalia’s concurrence noted the decision had effectively overruled McConnell. Citizens United v. FEC (2010) explicitly built on Buckley’s framework. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion quoted Buckley directly: “Section 441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is thus a ban on speech. As a ‘restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign,’ that statute ‘necessarily reduces the quantity of expression.’ Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 19 (1976).” The Court overruled Austin as an aberration from Buckley’s framework

  4. Jul 17

    The Real Hope Is West Virginia Public Schools: My conversation with three county superintendents who are leading the "I Love WV Public Schools" campaign

    A central message: Public schools are where West Virginia’s future is built, especially for the 90%+ of students who attend them. Public Schools as Community Lifelines All three superintendents emphasized that schools serve far beyond the 8:00AM to 3:00PM school day: * Jackson County: Public schools are open 365 days a year for community use—track walking, Little League, pageants—all free to taxpayers. * Ohio County: During recent floods, schools became emergency shelters, food distribution centers, and care hubs late into the night. * Hardy County: In a remote rural area, schools provide health clinics, social work support, and even transportation to medical appointments—services families couldn’t access otherwise. Hidden supports many don’t see: * Free breakfast, lunch, and sometimes dinner. * Laundry services so students have clean clothes. * Help finding housing or jobs for parents. * Mental health counseling and crisis intervention. The Funding Myth and Reality * Myth: “Public schools get money for kids who aren’t enrolled.” * Reality: Funding is based on the October 1 student count. If a student leaves for a Hope Scholarship, the district loses that per-pupil funding—even if the student returns later in the year. * Impact: For roughly every 14 students who leave, a program (often electives, gifted classes, or career-tech) must be cut. * Superintendents stressed this isn’t just about budgets—it’s about community stability. When teachers are cut, they often move away, taking their tax contributions and local engagement with them. What’s at Risk When funding shrinks, the first cuts hit non-mandated but vital programs: * Electives: Arts, music, advanced courses. * Career and technical education: HVAC, welding, robotics—programs that lead directly to jobs and industry credentials. * Support staff: Social workers, Communities In Schools coordinators, nurses—roles that remove barriers so students can learn. Dr. Van Meter noted that in Hardy County, losing social workers would mean students come to school hungry, stressed, or in dirty clothes—making teaching nearly impossible. Success Stories Worth Celebrating Despite challenges, the superintendents shared powerful examples of public school excellence: * Ohio County: A history teacher’s monthly community classes draw 200–300 people of all ages, turning local history into a shared civic experience. * Hardy County: A student-led robotics team—supported by two dedicated teachers—won national awards and sent graduates to Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology on full scholarships. * Jackson County: Fairplain Elementary, a high-poverty school, went from low rankings to #1 in the state for ELA progress, with one fifth-grade math teacher achieving near 100% proficiency through relentless teamwork and community support. A Call to Action The superintendents urged listeners to: * Share positive stories about their local schools. * Contact legislators—especially ahead of the interim session—to advocate for public education. * Fact-check before sharing information online; misinformation spreads quickly and harms public trust. * Vote and stay informed: With low voter turnout, most elected officials represent a small fraction of constituents—but engaged citizens can shift the balance. As Superintendent Hosaflook put it: “The real hope in West Virginia are public schools.” Where to Learn More * Campaign website * West Virginia Association of School Administrators * RAND Report: Recommendations to Enhance Adequacy, Fairness, and Efficiency of State Funding for Education * Hope Scholarship Annual Reports * School Finance Data What You Can Do This Month The superintendents gave concrete answers, and I’m passing them along: * Share your public school story. The successes, the teachers who changed your life, the programs that saved your kid. Out loud, on social media, everywhere. * Call your legislators. Tell them how much your public schools matter to your community. * Fact-check before you share. Just because you read it on Facebook does not make it true. * Vote — and get others to vote. Only about 20–22% of registered voters showed up last cycle. That means 78% of us haven’t spoken yet. * Visit ilovewvpublicschools.com and join the campaign. Subscribe for free to receive new posts. This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit carrieclendening.substack.com

  5. Jul 16

    My Journey: From Public Service to Political Evolution

    The Foundation: A Decade of Nonpartisan Service (2010-2022) My political evolution began in an unexpected place: outside of politics entirely. For ten years, I served as the legislative liaison for the Kanawha County Commission, registered as “no party affiliation” from 2010-2022. This wasn’t a statement of apathy—it was a commitment to understanding how government actually serves people, unfiltered by partisan loyalty. During those years, I watched both parties from a unique vantage point. I saw which elected officials delivered for constituents and which ones just talked. I understood budgets, policy implementation, and the technical machinery of governance that most political volunteers never see. My political science education had already created an automatic distrust of political parties—I saw them as obstacles when trying to pass meaningful election laws. This decade of nonpartisan observation confirmed that instinct. The Infrastructure Void: Joining the Democratic Party In 2022, I made a decision that would further illuminate the crisis in American politics. When West Virginia’s Republican supermajority passed an abortion ban criminalizing doctors and others who help women obtain abortions, I switched my registration to Democrat. This wasn’t about partisan loyalty—it was simply the only available vehicle to oppose legislation I found morally abhorrent. What I found in the Kanawha County Democratic executive committee shocked me. The infrastructure was gone, extracted by national organizations since the early to mid-2000s. The VAN database—supposedly the nervous system of modern Democratic organizing—was awful, limited to county boundaries and full of outdated information. The 2021 redistricting had chopped legislative districts so badly that some lines ran through rooftops, making field organizing nearly impossible. The county committee was divided into three groups: old-school Democrats trying to run things like 1968, political wannabes who didn’t know what they didn’t know, and energized young people who wanted to help but had no idea how. None had the tools or knowledge to rebuild what had been lost. Seeking Knowledge: The Lincoln Project Experience Recognizing the infrastructure gap, I sought knowledge from an unexpected source: The Lincoln Project’s The Union. Unlike MomsRising, they were transparent from the start. Two phone interviews, an application process, and a nondisclosure agreement that clearly explained FEC regulations. I knew exactly what I was contributing to—a sophisticated political operation connected to a presidential campaign. This wasn’t exploitation—it was education. The Union demonstrated that even within existing political structures, organizations could choose transparency over deception. I learned high-level campaign strategy, modern field operations, and the technical skills needed to rebuild political infrastructure. Most importantly, I learned that cross-partisan collaboration based on competence was possible. The Walls of “Leadership”: Being Shut Out Armed with technical knowledge from my redistricting work, strategic understanding from The Union, and innovative solutions like adapting Virginia’s “power packs” for GOTV operations, I returned to the West Virginia Democratic Party ready to help rebuild. I was blocked at every turn. Despite having more practical knowledge about modern political operations than most of the “leadership,” I was labeled an outsider. Those clinging to positions in a hollowed-out structure saw my knowledge as a threat, not an asset. They would rather preside over decay than step aside for renewal. This rejection crystallized everything I’d learned. The problem wasn’t just extraction by national organizations or infrastructure abandonment—it was active gatekeeping by those who benefited from dysfunction. Every person like me who gets blocked reinforces the narrative that “nothing can be done” in places like West Virginia. Creating the Alternative That rejection freed me to think bigger. If existing leadership wouldn’t let competent people rebuild, then rebuilding had to happen outside their control. I transformed my anger into action, my disillusionment into education. I created comprehensive political education materials—the resources MomsRising should have provided, the knowledge the Democratic Party hoarded, the skills The Union taught me. When I shared these materials with another Hub Leader, she called them “gold” and said I should publish them. But charging money would replicate the very exploitation I was fighting. So I made them freely available. I wrote my resignation letter from MomsRising not just as a personal goodbye but as a documented exposé of exploitation. I created the Political Evolution Project to share everything I’d learned about building authentic political power. The Vision: 100% Access to Political Education My journey from nonpartisan public servant to exploited volunteer to blocked reformer to political educator taught me crucial lessons: * Political parties have become obstacles to democratic participation rather than vehicles for it * Organizations across the political spectrum extract value from volunteers while hoarding knowledge * Geographic extraction creates sacrifice zones where communities are drained of resources * The gatekeeping of political knowledge maintains systems of exploitation * Cross-partisan learning based on competence is more valuable than partisan loyalty My goal now is simple but revolutionary: 100% access to political education. I want every person—regardless of location, party, or resources—to understand how political power actually works. My materials don’t use partisan labels. They teach political theories and concepts that anyone can apply according to their own values. This isn’t about converting people or building another organization that might become extractive. It’s about democratizing the tools of political analysis and action. It’s about proving that another way is possible—where knowledge is shared freely, where communities build their own power, where political evolution transcends partisan constraints. My journey continues, but now it’s not just mine. Every person who learns from these materials and teaches others, every community that builds power outside traditional structures, every act of political education shared freely—all of this is part of the political evolution we desperately need. The infrastructure in West Virginia is still broken. The exploitation continues in organizations nationwide. The gatekeepers still hoard their positions. But something has changed: more people can see it now. And once you see the patterns of extraction and exploitation, you can’t unsee them. You can only choose what to do with that sight. I chose to teach others to see. What will you choose? Thanks for reading West Virginia Policy and Campaign Finance Research! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit carrieclendening.substack.com

  6. Jul 14

    October 2025 Publication: To My Fellow Parents - They're Dismantling Our Schools While We're Too Busy Surviving to Notice

    NOTE: I’ve decided to republish this piece because it sets the stage for a podcast recording that will be released on Friday, July 17, 2026. This article has not been updated since its original October 2025, publication date. I know you don’t have time for this. You’re working full-time, shuttling kids to activities, doing homework help at 9 PM, and trying to figure out what the hell a “Hope Scholarship” even is because your neighbor mentioned it at the bus stop and you nodded like you knew. I get it. I’m doing it too. I’m a single-parent with two kids in West Virginia public schools. I work full-time. I have a college degree in public policy analysis and 15+ years of government experience, which is a fancy way of saying I can read policy briefs without falling asleep and I know when politicians are lying. In the video below, State Board of Education President Paul Hardesty perfectly illustrated what policy analysts call asymmetric regulation. It’s a classic managed-decline strategy. You don’t actively destroy your target—you just rig the game so it can’t possibly compete. Impose crushing compliance costs on one player while letting competitors operate with zero constraints. The Funding Trap: Policy Malpractice 101 Let me put on my nerd glasses and explain the con at the heart of this whole scheme. West Virginia funds schools through the Public School Support Plan (PSSP)—an enrollment-based model. Simple concept: money follows students. Enrollment up? Funding up. Enrollment down? Funding down. Sounds fair, right? Here’s the trap: This only works if costs are variable. If expenses scale directly with student numbers, enrollment-based funding makes perfect sense. But most school costs are fixed, not variable. Let’s break down what school districts actually pay for: * Infrastructure: Buildings, maintenance, utilities (fixed) * Transportation: Buses, routes, drivers—especially in rural areas where you can’t just cancel a 40-mile route because three kids left (fixed) * Administration: Principals, superintendents, support staff (fixed) * Debt service: Bond payments on capital projects (fixed) Only a slice of costs—mainly teacher salaries and instructional materials—actually vary with enrollment. So when a school loses students, it loses proportional funding but cannot reduce its fixed costs proportionally. The result? A structural deficit that can only be “solved” by cutting teachers and programs or closing schools entirely. This is what we call policy malpractice. Any competent first-year policy student would flag this model as unsustainable. The legislature knows this. They’ve been told. Repeatedly. By the West Virginia Center on Budget & Policy and others. They’ve done nothing to fix it. * West Virginia Must Modernize School Funding Formula to Prioritize Community Schools and Student Needs * Tracking Public School Closures in WV * The Perfect Storm: Limited Oversight and Accountability Contribute to Growing Costs of the Hope Scholarship The ALEC Playbook: Starve the Beast When President Hardesty named ALEC—the American Legislative Exchange Council—as the architect of West Virginia’s school choice strategy, I wasn’t even slightly surprised. I’ve tracked ALEC’s model legislation for years. When he said, “If you bankrupt the school system, change can occur,” he was describing a strategy ALEC has deployed across multiple states. It’s called “starve the beast.” Here’s the playbook: Step 1: Create alternatives (charters, vouchers, ESAs) that siphon students and funding from public schools. Step 2: Maintain crushing regulations on public schools while exempting alternatives, ensuring public schools can’t compete. Step 3: Underfund the public system while pointing to “declining enrollment” as justification, manufacturing a fiscal crisis. Step 4: Point to the crisis as “proof” that public schools are “failing” and must be replaced with privatized alternatives. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. And it’s devastatingly effective. The Competitive Rigging I See Every Single Day Here’s where my policy and mom brain really start screaming at each other. As policy analyst, I can explain regulatory capture and asymmetric compliance burdens. As a mom, I live the consequences. My son’s elementary school principal spends hours every week on compliance paperwork: * Special education documentation * Teacher evaluation protocols * Attendance reporting * Nutrition program requirements * Safety drills The list is endless. Meanwhile, the charter school that opened last year? “Exempt from many regulatory constraints.” They hire and fire at will. Set their own curriculum. Establish enrollment “preferences” that—surprise, surprise—let them cherry-pick students. This is textbook competitive disadvantage imposed by regulation. And it’s deliberate. The legislature could have: * Reduced regulatory burden on public schools when they created charter alternatives * Applied equal accountability standards to all schools * Leveled the playing field They did none of that. Because fair competition was never the goal. Managed decline was always the plan. The Numbers They Hope You Won’t Notice Let me show you what the data actually reveals—because this is where policy expertise becomes most valuable. State Funding Trends (inflation-adjusted): * FY 2009 baseline: 100% * FY 2026: 83% (down 17%) Enrollment Trends: * 2009-2026: Down 14.7% See the problem? The funding decline (17%) exceeds the enrollment decline (14.7%). That means per-pupil funding is actually decreasing, not just total funding. Per-Pupil Spending (2023): * West Virginia: $14,575 * National average: $16,526 * Difference: -$1,951 per student * Regional ranking: Dead last among all neighboring states. Now here’s the question any policy analyst has to ask: Is this because West Virginia is poor? Can’t afford education investment? Nope. West Virginia has run budget surpluses in recent years. The state has money. The legislature is choosing to underfund public education while simultaneously pumping $245 million into programs designed to drain students from those schools. This is a policy choice, not fiscal necessity. MY KIDS: Why This Isn’t Academic For Me I need to tell you about my kids, because this isn’t abstract policy analysis for me. This is my family’s future. My oldest started kindergarten in Fall 2013. They’re graduating high school in Spring 2026. That means they’ve watched West Virginia public education transform from 2013 to 2026—the entire arc of their K-12 experience. They’ve spent their middle school and high school years watching programs shrink, teachers leave, class sizes grow, and opportunities disappear as funding gets diverted to subsidize private school tuition for families who already had money. My fourth-grader has ADHD and a high IQ. They’re in the gifted program, which provides exactly the kind of specialized, individualized support that makes the difference between a kid who thrives and a kid who struggles. I am terrified that program will be cut. Because here’s what happens when $52 million gets diverted from public schools: specialized programs disappear first. Gifted programs. Advanced courses. Arts. Music. The “extras” that aren’t actually extras—they’re what makes education work for kids whose brains work differently. Private schools don’t have to replicate these services. They don’t have to accept kids with IEPs. They don’t have to provide the same level of special education support. They can be selective in ways public schools legally cannot. So when families with resources leave public schools via Hope Scholarships, the students who remain—the ones who need the most support, the ones with learning differences, the ones whose families can’t afford alternatives—get fewer services with less funding. My fourth-grader, who needs that gifted program? They’re not going anywhere. We can’t afford private school even with a $4,921 subsidy. I can’t homeschool because I work full-time. We’re staying in public school. And that public school is getting gutted to fund scholarships for other people’s kids. Tell me how that’s fair. Tell me how that’s “choice.” Tell me how that helps my child. I’ll wait. The Money Behind the Machine: Koch Cash and Dark Money Pipelines Here’s where we follow the money—because understanding who’s funding this dismantling matters. Behind the deliberate strategy to bankrupt public education sit powerful organizations operating in close coordination: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) The model legislation factory. They write the bills, lawmakers copy-paste them into state law. Americans for Prosperity West Virginia (AFP-WV) The ground-level mobilization arm. They organize, lobby, and campaign for the policies ALEC designs. Both are funded extensively by Koch family foundations—Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch Charitable Foundations among others. These foundations channel millions through donor-advised funds like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund, which serve as dark-money conduits for politically aligned campaigns supporting both ALEC and AFP. The Stand Together network acts as an umbrella funneling resources to grassroots advocacy and model legislation strategies. This funding supports lobbying, organizing, and promoting school choice legislation that siphons money from public schools to privatized alternatives. AFP-WV operates as the key state-level mobilizer, campaigning for education policies aligned with ALEC’s model legislation while obscuring funding sources and coordination. This isn’t conspiracy theory. It’s documented funding flows and organizational relationships. The question isn’t whether this network exists—it’s why more people aren’t talking about it. The Constitutional Violation Nobody’s Prosecuting West Virginia Constitut

  7. Jul 14

    When Money Drowns Out People, Democracy Stops Feeling Like Ours

    The West Virginia Policy and Campaign Finance Substack publication and podcast exist to track the flow of political money into West Virginia’s elections and policy-making process. This work is not only about transparency. It is about whether ordinary people can still participate on equal terms in their own democracy. In West Virginia, people know what it feels like to be overlooked. Not always in some dramatic or headline-making way. Often it is quieter than that. It is the feeling of showing up, speaking up, voting, calling an elected official, and still wondering whether anybody with real power is actually listening. That feeling matters because democracy is supposed to mean more than being allowed to cast a ballot every few years. It is supposed to mean having a real voice in the decisions that shape everyday life. That is why Political Action Committees, or PACs, should be understood not only as a campaign finance issue, but as a human-rights issue. The United Nations recognizes political participation as a human right. Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says everyone has the right to take part in the government of their country, directly or through freely chosen representatives, and says the will of the people is the basis of government authority. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says every citizen has the right and the opportunity, without unreasonable restrictions, to take part in public affairs, to vote, and to be elected. If participation is a right, then politics should not be designed to reward the people who can afford the loudest megaphone. Those rights are not abstract; the UN handbook on elections says meaningful participation depends on equality, non-discrimination, access to information, peaceful assembly, freedom of movement, and a safe environment for making political choices. That idea may sound abstract at first. But in practice, it is not abstract at all. The Difference Between Voting and Being Heard Most people already know, deep down, that money has too much influence in politics. That does not require a law degree or a policy seminar to understand. It is visible in the constant ads, the carefully managed talking points, and the feeling that some people can get close to power much more easily than others. That is what makes PACs such a serious problem. They do not just raise money. They help shape the entire political atmosphere around a candidate, an issue, or an election. They amplify some voices far beyond the reach of ordinary citizens. And once that happens, democracy begins to feel less like self-government and more like a competition between people with resources and everyone else. Yes, ordinary people can still vote. But voting is not the full measure of democracy if wealthy people and organized interests can still buy a louder voice, better access, and more influence over the rules than everyone else. A system can preserve the ballot and still leave people feeling shut out. A system can hold elections and still make ordinary citizens feel as if the real decisions are being shaped elsewhere. That does not mean elections are meaningless. It means democracy is incomplete. Why This Hits Hard in West Virginia This issue lands hard in West Virginia because many people here already know what it feels like to be treated as an afterthought. People in small towns and rural counties know what it means to be remembered during campaign season and forgotten after Election Day. Working people know what it means to stretch a paycheck across rent, groceries, gas, medicine, and school clothes. Parents know what it means to worry about childcare, healthcare, and whether the next emergency will push the family over the edge. When you live with that kind of pressure, it becomes very easy to see when politics is responding more quickly to money than to people. And when PAC money begins to dominate the political space, it does not feel like some distant technical problem. It feels familiar. It feels like one more reminder that access to government is not equal, and that some voices carry more weight because they come with more money behind them. The Human-Rights Question The real question is not whether PACs are legal. The real question is whether a democracy that gives amplified access and influence to money is living up to the principle of equal political participation. I’m sick of watching the First Amendment get dragged out every time somebody wants to defend PAC spending. Let’s cut through the noise: this is not some sacred free-speech crusade. What PAC money does in the real world is drown out regular voices, tilt access toward the wealthy, and make democracy feel less like self-government and more like a rigged auction. That is a human-rights problem, plain and simple, and it is past time to talk about it that way. If participation in public affairs is a human right, then the public must be able to participate in a way that is meaningful. A right that exists only on paper, but is weakened in practice by unequal influence, is not fully protected. The right to vote matters. But so does the right to be heard, the right to have a fair chance to shape public debate, and the right to approach government as a citizen rather than as a donor. That is the human-rights piece so many people already understand instinctively. They may never say “political participation” out loud or use the textbook terminology. But they know what it feels like to be talked over. They know what it feels like when decisions are being made in rooms they were never invited into. They know what it feels like when their lives are shaped by people who have more access, more reach, and more protection than they do. Human rights are not only about what governments stop people from doing. They are also about whether people can stand on equal civic ground. When politics consistently rewards the people who can afford the loudest megaphone, equal civic ground starts to disappear. What Equal Participation Should Mean Equal participation should mean that a citizen matters because they are a citizen, not because they can fund a political operation. It should mean that a teacher, a miner, a nurse, a parent, a small business owner, a service worker, a retiree, or a young person just starting out has a real chance to influence the public conversation. It should mean that government is accessible to ordinary people, not only to donors, consultants, industry groups, and the well-connected. That is not some radical standard. It is the bare minimum of a democracy worthy of the name. If the will of the people is supposed to be the basis of government authority, then the people must be more than spectators while money does the talking. What a Better System Would Require If democracy is going to feel real again, it will require more than frustration. It will require rules that make the public matter again. That means stronger transparency so people can see who is funding what. It means tighter rules that prevent moneyed interests from dominating the political environment. It means public financing and reforms that give ordinary citizens a more realistic chance to compete, organize, and be heard. And it means refusing to pretend that flooding politics with money automatically strengthens freedom. Speech matters. But so does political equality. The point is not to silence anyone. The point is to stop allowing wealth to speak so much louder than citizenship, and to make the path from money to influence visible enough that West Virginians can judge it for themselves. Why Tracking This Money Matters for Human Rights The West Virginia Policy and Campaign Finance Substack publication and podcast are dedicated to tracking the flow of political money into West Virginia’s elections and policy-making process because that flow is not neutral. It shapes who gets heard, who gets access, and whose priorities move through the system. If participation is a human right, then transparency and accountability are not optional extras. They are the minimum conditions for a democracy that takes equal participation seriously. The point of this work is not to lament the presence of money in politics. It is to make that money visible, traceable, and subject to public judgment. When people can see where the money comes from, where it goes, and what it buys, they can begin to challenge the system that produces it. The right to vote matters. But the right to be heard matters too. And if participation is truly a human right, then politics should not be designed to reward the people who can afford the loudest megaphone. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Articles 1 - 27 HUMAN RIGHTS AND ELECTIONS A Handbook on International Human Rights Standards on Elections Handbook United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit carrieclendening.substack.com

  8. Jul 12

    Remembering Doug Skaff’s legacy with Sen. Rupie Phillips, former del. Doug Reynolds and Josh Stowers

    Thanks for reading West Virginia Policy and Campaign Finance Research! This post is public so feel free to share it. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit carrieclendening.substack.com

    Remembering Doug Skaff’s legacy with Sen. Rupie Phillips, former del. Doug Reynolds and Josh Stowers
See All (29)

About

West Virginia Policy and Campaign Finance Research. This Substack publication is dedicated to tracking the flow of political money into West Virginia’s elections and policy-making process. carrieclendening.substack.com

Information