By anyone’s standards, things are generally going well in West Virginia. The cicada brood that has plagued the state for the past month and a half appears to have made a swift journey to cicada heaven, if such a place exists. Local basketball phenom O.J. Mayo just got picked third in the NBA draft by the Minnesota Timberwolves. Chilifest, a local festival dedicated to the worship of the most delicious of tailgating foods, is swiftly approaching.

Those with an interest in politics are also in high spirits – the candidates have been chosen for the national, state, and local positions, and campaign season will soon be in full swing. Soon enough, our doorsteps will be darkened with door-to-door supporters of certain candidates, our radios awash in politically-tinted talk shows, and our televisions filled to the brim with campaign advertisements.

These campaigns, as you might imagine, cost a pretty penny to keep in operation. Time slots on the TV and radio, postage and materials for direct mail pamphlets, travel expenses for door-to-door candidate salesmen, rallies, buttons – all that money has to come from somewhere. In the national election, the source of that money is usually fairly clear – Obama and McCain have been raising funds for their own campaigns for months now. In state and local elections, however, the trickle of cash is more difficult to keep track of.

That confusion is multiplied when you realize that pro-candidate advertisements can also be paid for and produced by special interest groups and other organizations. It’s made slightly easier to follow by a law passed in 2005, which requires that all ads broadcast on television stations and radio frequencies plainly state who paid to produce and air said advertisements. Next time you see said ads, pay attention to the otherwise innocuous statements that come near the conclusion, such as “Paid for by the National Dairy Council” or “Paid for by the National Association of Prosthetically Appendaged Bowlers”.

However, television and radio advertisements are the only campaign activities required to list where said third-party funding came from – direct mail, phone calls, door-to-door visits, and e-mails can all keep their origins secret. This has been the case since U.S. District Judge David Faber ruled in April that non-broadcast ads didn’t need to explain who had paid for these campaign activities.

It doesn’t sound like a big deal, but when these campaigns turn negative, attacking a particular candidate while explaining how his shortcomings are not reflected in his or her opposition, then these anonymous mini-campaigns can make even the coolest of tempers flare.

For instance, former West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Warren McGraw was the subject of a negative campaign funded and performed by a group named “And for the Sake of the Kids” during the 2004 election. The group, whose founder apparently never learned that sentences, not to mention organization names, should never start with a transitional clause, never clearly explained where the funding for their bad press against McGraw came from, nor did the group’s members disclose their organization’s purpose.

However, everyone loves kids, and if a pro-kid group is attacking Warren McGraw, then he must not have their best interests at heart. According to McGraw, that third-party campaign ruined his election chances, and is the main reason he supports full disclosure on where funding for all campaign projects comes from, broadcast or otherwise.

The West Virginia legislature is currently in special session, and yesterday, the issue of electioneering disclosure was hastily addressed. Ultimately, the debate fell cleanly upon party lines, with the minority Republicans opposing a bill requiring the complete disclosure of third-party campaign funding, and with Democrats supporting such a bill. When the dust had settled, proposed changes to election funding rules were approved by the West Virginia legislature, and will be sent to the Senate for consideration.

Not everyone is thrilled about these changes, however, as many local politicians feel that such an important issue was addressed far too hastily. Others feel that such a measure could be found unconstitutional, and if approved by the Senate, could easily be shot down by the Supreme Court.

However, for the most part, those who made the decision to pass the bill all sympathize with the plight of politicians like McGraw. They all were, at some point, candidates who suffered the slings and arrows of faceless third-party detractors. Why not allow future candidates the opportunity to truly face their assailant, as well as clearly inform the voters as to who is talking trash about those running for office?

Paid for by the National Unicycle Safety Council.