In a swirl of controversy, Mark Scott’s removal from his duties as Administration Secretary of West Virginia has sparked questions regarding his role in political fundraising, government contracts, and any connections with grant recipients. At the heart of the issue lies a political action committee (PAC) he chaired, which has raised significant funds and concerns over potential “quid pro quo” practices.
A formal Election complaint was lodged with the WV Secretary of State’s Office on July 25, 2024, alleging collusion between Mark Scott and Kris Warner through a PAC.
The PAC in question, Conservative Policy Action, managed to raise $324,000, with $303,000 funneled into supporting Kris Warner’s campaign for Secretary of State. This allocation has prompted questions about the motivations behind the donations and the connections between major contributors and state grants.
Several key donors to Scott’s PAC have drawn particular attention. Among them are Aumon, BC Holdings, and SafeCo. Each of these contributors donated $50,000, with links suggesting potential conflicts of interest, as well as the Conservative Policy Action PAC donating $106,500.
Aumon Corp.: This entity donated $50,000, and lists Randall Arthur Smith as Founder and COO. He is also the CFO of Omnis Technologies, which is behind several West Virginia projects and associated with a $50 million grant awarded by the Economic Development Authority for the Pleasants Power Plant project. However, the project’s progress has been unclear, raising concerns about the grant’s ultimate purpose.
BC Holdings: Also tied to the Pleasants Power Plant, BC Holdings, which is associated with former Senate President Bill Cole. Cole’s involvement and substantial $50,000 donation have been scrutinized considering his partnership with Omnis Technologies’ various projects including the Pleasants Power Project which is in a stalled state. Cole also pushed very hard on his former Senate colleagues to vote quickly in 2023 to create the WV Public Energy Authority to allow the state to participate in the power plant transaction. Warner is also on that body.
SafeCo: This remediation company received $17 million in state funds for site clearance, highlighting a potential overlap between their financial support and state contracts. They also were a $50,000 contributor to the PAC formerly run by the now Former Cabinet Secretary for Administration Scott.
Conservative Policy Solutions: Based initially in Wisconsin and later moving to Oklahoma, this group has been linked to other entities. Why would a PAC based in Wisconsin and now Oklahoma care so much to give so heavily to the tune of $106,500 to a PAC in West Virginia where one candidate Warner is the chief benefactor? This PAC a Federal PAC that allows you to contribute without the donors being known. Is this or was this a strategy to obscure the true source of funds to benefit one candidate?
Mark Scott’s connections with Kris Warner have been a focal point of the controversy. Warner, serving as the Executive Director of the West Virginia Economic Development Authority (EDA), was involved in directing state funds to various projects. His dual role as a fundraiser for past Scott-led groups and recipient of PAC support raises concerns over conflicts of interest and potential “pay-to-play” scenarios.
Warner’s ties to previous PAC efforts, notably the GoWV/GrowWV initiatives, further complicate the situation. These groups were linked to election influence attempts backed by Murray Energy, echoing broader allegations of questions similar to those in Ohio’s First Energy scandal.
Adding another layer to the situation is Eric Lycan, a Kentucky attorney recently appointed as the treasurer for Conservative Policy Action after Mark Scott was asked to step down from his involvement with the PAC. Lycan’s involvement in past election scandals in Ohio has raised eyebrows, with connections to multiple groups allegedly embroiled in “dark money” operations.
Lycan’s ties to entities like Omnis and Conservative Policy Solutions highlight the complex web of financial dealings that critics argue could exemplify a “quid pro quo” environment.
Several Key questions remain unanswered:
Who truly benefited from the PAC’s financial activities?
Were grants awarded based on merit, or did political pledges/donations influence the process?
Why did a significant portion 92% of the PAC’s total funds focus on only Warner’s candidacy?
This situation raises serious questions about the integrity of political fundraising and grant allocations, with taxpayers demanding greater transparency and accountability. With millions in public funds at stake, understanding the motivations and connections behind these transactions is crucial as scrutiny intensifies on Mark Scott and Kris Warner, who influence both state governance and the broader political landscape.
———————————————————
Complaint Document
