WV Executive

A lot of discussion, along with questions and accusations, have recently centered on Alan Mollohan, West Virginia's First District congressman. While everyone has an opinion, West Virginia Executive wanted to give the Congressman the opportunity to tell his side of the story and let the readers make up their own minds.

Congressman Mollohan is a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee where he has worked to ob-tain funds for economic and community development initiatives across northern West Virginia. The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a group based in a Washington, D.C. suburb, announced in April that it had filed a 500-page complaint against the Congressman. NLPC said the complaint was based on its investigation into Mollohan's personal finances and the earmarked funds that he has obtained for the First District. The complaint has brought several of West Virginia's non-profits under a microscope along with his personal relationships with Laura Kuhns of Vandalia Heritage Foundation and Dale McBride of FMW Composite Systems, among others.

WVE recently sat down with Mollohan to candidly address the issues.

WVE: When did you first learn of these accusations?

AM: The first I knew about them was the day that the Wall Street Journal article was published and the NLPC simultaneously issued a press release. The Wall Street Journal story appeared on Friday, April 7, 2006 and the NLPC issued its press release announcing its report that same day.

WVE: Were these findings ever discussed with you¡ªor was the report just filed?

AM: The chairman of the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee (Tom Reynolds) and the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Il) all issued press releases the same day that the NLPC did. It was also said in an article published on March 11, 2006 in the Parkersburg News by Dennis Hastert that, "The reason I'm here in West Virginia is because we've got a good candidate and we're going to play offense." Speaker Dennis Hastert, said of state Delegate Chris Wakim and the upcoming mid-term elections.

You can draw any conclusions you want to but it all definitely happened at the same time. That was the first time that I even knew of this group.

I had a telephone conversation with a reporter from the New York Times, who was working on a story at this same time. You could tell that she obviously had her agenda and she had her story line that was predetermined. She approached the whole interview with a certain attitude that is the most charitable way I can describe it. I think one of the defining moments which exposed her overall attitude to the West Virginia community in general was her question about the (new Institute for Scientific Research) building. She asked something along the lines of, "Isn't that a really nice building for West Virginia?" My reaction was, "In just one question, you have expressed a bias and a stereotype." She quickly re-characterized the question; "Isn't that a really nice building for anywhere?" My only point in mentioning this is that it was a real indication of contempt for what we are working to achieve. I also tried to explain to her that when you are appropriating money, it is far more efficient and far more responsible management of resources when the money is directed to organizations and people who know what they are doing with it.

A number of people at Vandalia said that she marveled at all the things they are doing with so little staff. I think that in the end, she also had to be impressed with the competency of the Consortium and the good works of MountainMade.

WVE: In retrospect do you think you made a mistake in stepping down from the Ethics Committee?

AM: Not at all. What members of the Ethics Committee do is review questions raised about their colleagues. If people are raising questions about you at this level, with this much effort, it gives it the color of credibility.

WVE: So it was not something you were forced to do?

AM: No, it was important for me to do it for myself. I had to get out of that position of reviewing questions of my colleagues when questions were being asked about me. It was simply a very compromising position which left me vulnerable to sniping.

It is perfectly appropriate in politics for people to ask questions about you, for people to make challenges against you. That is all good American democracy. It is fair for them to do that, but it is also fair if people listen to the answers.

WVE: The appearance is that Laura Kuhns is making money from running Vandalia Heritage Foundation, and that the money she makes goes into her family who, in turn, invest with the same congress person who sits on the Appropriations Committee and is the founder of the organization.

AM: Not only is that the appearance, it is a fact. Laura Kuhns earns a salary, it is her salary. It is not illegal, or inappropriate, to invest in real estate in America and it is not inappropriate to invest in a true partnership, meaning that each partner contributes equally from their own assets, which is absolutely the case here. This is still America and it amazes me that the press would ask a question that undermines the First Amendment right of free speech, which is exactly what supporting political people for elected office is. It is an expression of freedom of speech and if they don't understand that, then they need to go back and take some sort of journalism class.

WVE: Should the American public re-examine Congressional ethical and social guidelines?

AM: Of course ethical guidelines should be under continuous review, as should the conduct of members of Con-gress. Disclosure of personal assets and campaign finances is the key to monitoring such conduct. As we can see from the scrutiny that members of Congress are receiving this year, disclosure works.

As we want to be vigilant in uncovering unacceptable conduct, we also want to be careful to distinguish between bad conduct and good conduct that opponents are trying to make look bad. It is important for the press itself to be vigilant and not let itself be used in a concerted effort to make good conduct and good work look bad.

WVE: Can you put to rest a few stories? Do you own any property with (Fairmont Mayor) Nick Fantasia?

AM: No, I don't. I never have.

WVE: Did you ever make a half million dollar real estate deal in an hour?

AM: No, I certainly haven't.

WVE: How should 501(c)(3) organizations that disguise themselves as protectors of the citizenry, but some are really politically motivated, be handled?

AM: Organizations operating as charitable and educational nonprofits under our tax code are prohibited from engag-ing in political activities. Those who masquerade as watchdogs but are actually attack dogs, and whose mission is to carry out political agendas, need to have their status reviewed. It is charitable activities, not political ones, which are protected under our tax laws.

Having said that, it is important that our political process encourage candidates for political office to divulge and disclose, even if it makes them uncomfortable. That is why the press has such tremendous responsibility in my mind, greater responsibility than anyone else. The power of the press is embedded in our Constitution; it is protected by the First Amendment. Because the press has been given such far-reaching protection, it also has a corresponding responsibility to be thorough and fair, so as to protect against false accusations being made about conduct that is, in reality, perfectly appropriate. It is only through the press and a full airing of the facts that the public can make fair judgments on the conduct of political figures.

WVE: If you had to do any of this over, would you do anything differently?

AM: First, it is important to remember that Barbara and I have done nothing wrong here. All of our investments are above-board. It's like asking someone who has been mugged: "If you had it to do over again, would you have walked down that same street?" Well, of course you wouldn't have, but how could you have known that at the time? And it's not your fault that you were mugged. Having said that were we wise in not appreciating how people with political agendas might try to spin all this? Anytime you put yourself in such a position and you are a public figure it is an unwise thing to do and I would not do that again.

WVE: Do you think this has affected the positive momentum of the community?

AM: It has affected the community, obviously. The community has had to stop and justify itself. It has had to defend itself because I am under attack and I am so closely associated with the community through non-profits. It has affected the community but I have always found that the crucible is a very good place to be because it ends up refining the product. I think it is going to be a more mature community. I have preached for years: self-sufficiency. I did not expect it to be challenged in quite this way, but if there is going to be a legacy here it can't be one of dependency. If we went away tomorrow or in November, they would find their way.