The Charleston Gazette, West Virginia's largest circulation newspaper, amends it previous skepticism on the idea of full public financing of elections and tells the legislature the Clean Elections proposal being advanced by a coalition of groups deserves consideration.

From the editorial:

At first glance, it may sound like welfare for politicians, but it’s not so, says Sen. Dan Foster, D-Kanawha. His view is backed by Adam Smith, a Parkersburg native now with Public Campaign in Washington. “Citizens are already paying for the way elections are financed,” Smith says.


The current system rewards legislative candidates funded by big private donors — and winners pass tax breaks and other laws benefiting those donors. It erodes the public’s confidence in their representatives, Smith said during a meeting with Gazette staff members.


[. . .]


In the past, we have voiced concern that a large fundamentalist church could recruit a dozen members to be candidates against abortion, gays and the like — then ask 250 members to cough up $5 donations, enabling the group to run on taxpayer money. The same might be done by a labor union, KKK chapter or other organized movement.


“We haven’t seen that as a problem in other states,” Smith said. On the contrary, he said, Arizona, for example, saw donations come from a more diverse group of supporters. All the participating states have more candidates running for office and fewer unopposed races. By requiring donations to come from within a candidates’ district, it would also discourage widespread groups from dominating a ballot at taxpayer expense.