[0:00] Polhamus: Hello, everybody. My name is William Polhamus, and today I'm with Paul Johanson and Janet McNulty. Janet is a candidate running to represent West Virginia in the United States Senate, and we will be asking her a series of important questions about her campaign and plans for addressing the issues that West Virginians face. This interview is not an advertisement or an endorsement. It's simply an opportunity for voters to hear directly from the candidate. Paul.

[0:29] Johanson: Yeah. Thank you. Welcome, Janet. It's good to be getting this all together. As Will said, we are not journalists. We are citizen interviewers. Really focused on bringing as much as we can in terms of clarity to West Virginia voters so they can get to know who they might have representing them, but also to give the candidates an opportunity to really express their whole selves, what motivated them to run for office and what matters to them personally as well as as candidates. So we hope voters will pass this information on, we hope the candidates will pass it on, and that this will start a new form of civic dialogue in which we're actually solving problems together. So thank you, Will, for getting this going. Thank you, Janet, for joining right at the beginning and for coming back to make sure we actually got you recorded this time.

[1:26] McNulty: Yeah. You're welcome.

[1:28] Polhamus: All right, so we'll start with an introduction for Janet. Could you tell us a little bit about yourself and share your core policies and goals?

[1:35] Johanson: Do you share which office? So usually we start, you identify -

[1:37] Polhamus: Oh, yeah, we sit -

[1:39] Johanson: You did okay on the recording. Gotcha.

[1:43] McNulty: Okay. Well, in case it wasn't shared, I'm running for the United States Senate here in West Virginia. I moved to West Virginia back in 2007 on a job offer that fell through soon after I got here. And unfortunately, I'm one of the millennials. I was a victim of the 2008 financial crisis, where I ended up unemployed for a long period of time and took whatever job I could get. I'll admit I didn't pay attention to politics for most of my 20s, and certainly not through most of my 30s, because I was just busy trying to make things work in my life. But when Covid happened and I saw the lockdowns and I was seeing how it was affecting people, it even affected me, because a lot of interviews I had just wiped out, you know, because they weren't hiring anymore. We were just shut down - that's when I started paying attention. The 2020 riots helped me pay attention. And I'm just sitting there thinking, like, we're a gigantic mess as a country, and if we're a gigantic mess as a country, we probably are as a state, unfortunately, because things always filter down, just like things can filter up. So that's why in 22, I ran for delegate, we had a newly created district 94I, which means that being a new district, there's absolutely no representation. So I thought that was a good way for me to get involved in the community, to start learning even more about this place that I call home. Of course, I lost to Larry Kampf, but I also realized that I tend to be more nationally focused because a little bit about me, I'm a military brat, which means my family moved around a lot when I was growing up. So I've been in various areas of the country. I've seen how people live elsewhere, even outside of the state, which does give me that unique outside perspective that a lot of people who spend their whole life in one area won't have. I'm not knocking it. It's just life's experiences. And someone told me that you should maybe look where your focus is, like, figure out where your focus is and then go for that. And since I do tend to be nationally focused because I moved around a lot, I figured I can probably better serve at the national level because I can compare how things are going in West Virginia to how things happened, maybe in other states. Like, some of the issues we face were probably faced in other states. How did they address it? Would that work here? Kind of thing. Now, obviously at the federal level, I can't tell the state legislature what to do because that would be illegal, but I can be a pain in their butt, if you know what I mean. Get my office to contact them, to call them, because I honestly don't know if Capito's office does that, if she's in contact with the state legislature a lot. I really don't know because whenever I email her, I never get a response personally. What else do you want to know?

[4:26] Johanson: No, whatever you want to. This is yours. So -

[4:32] Polhamus: Maybe some of your big - your big policies that you would -

[4:36] McNulty: Term limits, for one. I'm 42 years old. I just turned 42. And I've seen the same faces at the federal level my entire life. And in talking to my mom, she's like, well, they've pretty much been there for most of her adult life. And I'm like, well, no wonder, no wonder. It seems like we're stuck in the past. I don't know if you've noticed. And this even happens even at the state level where we just have the same people in office over and over again. So it's like we're stuck in the past. We're keeping age old conflicts alive that don't need to be kept alive. It's like we have a mid-20th century mindset in our Congress, but we're in 2026, if you know what I mean. So if you want turnover, because public service is supposed to be a service, it's not supposed to be a lifelong career where you just bleed people dry for power and money. And unfortunately, I think we have a lot of political horrors in office, which I'm not happy about. You need term limits. I'm not saying it's a cure all, but it's definitely a step in the right direction. If we start terming people out and we start getting that turnover, you get the new ideas, you get the fresh faces, but you can also get rid of people who aren't doing so well. So if someone keeps winning reelection, well, they're going to term out and then they'll be forced out and then the people will be forced to actually look at the new people running. And we might actually be forced to do some research on our candidates for a change. Instead of being like, well, I know that name, so I'm going to mark it. I've been voting for this person for 30 years, so I'm going to mark it - kind of idea. Because we get lazy as humans, let's face it, we do. We get caught up in life. We don't want to really pay attention to politics because politics can be depressing.

[6:17] Polhamus: Very much so.

[6:17] McNulty: And so, yeah. And I already have an amendment drafted for the Constitution. It's on my website that would impose term limits. I just need to be in a position to actually introduce it and push for it.

[6:32] Polhamus: I think that's the first someone talked about having an actual amendment to the Constitution, which is pretty unique.

[6:40] Johanson: So yeah, I appreciate it. Yeah. Give you an opportunity to flesh out a little bit. The next question is, where did you grow up? And we could say, we know it's not in West Virginia because you said that, but where did you grow up? And where have you been if you wanted to flesh that out?

[6:55] McNulty: Well, I was born in California, but I don't remember California because we moved when I was two years old, so. And apparently we moved to Nebraska. That's where I started kindergarten and first grade. And I was just a typical little kid kind of running off and getting into the cornfield that I was not supposed to get into and my dad getting mad at me. But I blame my brother because he was older and it was his idea. But anyhow. So yeah, we got busted, but it wasn't a bad neighborhood. I actually went back to that neighborhood about 15 years after we left. That field I used to play in as a kid is totally gone. Got developed. But anyhow, I was either 6 or 7 - I don't quite remember - when we moved from Nebraska to Reno, Nevada. And then I stayed - we were there for quite a few years. We were actually there up until when I was a freshman in high school. No, sophomore in high school. That's right. Halfway through my sophomore year, my mom got transferred to Montana. Yeah, we went from one extreme to the other, from Reno to a really small town in Montana that only had a population of 3,000 people in the northeastern corner. And it was 6 degrees below zero when I got there in the middle of January. But it was 70 degrees in Reno, Nevada. So you can imagine what kind of a shock that was because I didn't have winter clothing. It was cold. And I graduated from high school there. So from Glasgow, Montana is where I graduated from high school. From there I went back to California to start college only because I stayed with my grandparents a little bit because they needed some help. But I didn't like the college there. I really didn't like the environment there. And it was a two year college anyway, so I was going to have to leave anyhow. And so I transferred to Northern State University in South Dakota because one, my mother had gotten transferred to South Dakota. So I was able to get the in state tuition which saved me a boatload of money. And I was able to live at home for at least my first semester while I found a place to live and stuff. And that saved me a boatload of money. And I mean $5,000 a year for tuition really wasn't bad.

[8:54] Johanson: All right. Yeah. And I remember when it was a lot. I'm much older than both of you, so tuition has been going up. I remember when I went to UW Madison and it was like $500 for the semester. It was crazy. And most of the expense was living expense. No, I know, and I'm saying that generationally, I apologize. Not because it was personally my fault, but this has been a screw turned to the younger generation that has been paying a price in the form of debt that was not dealt with.

[9:26] McNulty: Yes, student loan debt is a very big issue. And I had student loans even at $5,000 a year, which honestly is super cheap compared to today. I still had to do student loans to get through. I still had to work. I was working three jobs at one point just to try and pay my way through college and minimize my debt because I was trying to pay down my loans while going to school, so I didn't have as much to pay off. Definitely did not sleep during that time. But my generation, I feel like we're the first ones that kind of get saddled with that student loan debt. It seems like - I don't know much about the generation before. I just remember when I was graduating from high school, you got the college recruiters there, and of course, I was taught to be fiscally responsible. So the first thing on my mind was, how much is tuition? And I mean, we thought it was a lot then. And their thing was - a lot of the recruiters said, well, just talk to the financial aid office. Okay, well, I did that when they weren't on a coffee break, and they just said, well, here's an application for a student loan. Well, what about federal financial aid? Unfortunately, I didn't qualify for it. So I was stuck either trying to do it on a cash basis, which would have taken me forever, or do the student loans.

[10:37] Johanson: Right.

[10:37] McNulty: So I signed on to it, not understanding what I was getting into. I was only 18 at the time. We don't teach finances in school. We didn't even teach finances when I was in school. So I had no real understanding of what taking on this debt meant. I know how it's sold as - you know, you'll get through school, you'll get your degree, you'll be guaranteed to get a good job, and in five to seven years, you'll have your loan paid off and you're going to be living the high life, you know, because you'll have a career and everything. Well, that sounds great. That's kind of what you want, right? That's the whole point of going to college. Unfortunately, the reality was much different. I graduated around the time the financial housing crisis happened. So the job that brought me here pretty much disappeared soon after I got here. So I was suddenly jobless. But I had student loan payments due that I couldn't afford to pay. I was forced to move back in with mom and dad because as it happened, my mother just happened to get transferred here, too, about the time I was graduating or right before I graduated. So that - I don't know if that was a stroke of luck or God working in my life to help me out because I didn't have anywhere to go. But that's not where I wanted to be. I was supposed to be an adult and I had to go back to living like I was in high school.

[11:47] Johanson: No, thank you. I appreciate it. And like I said, it's a - people get to know a lot more. I think this is an educational forum as well. So a lot of people will identify and a lot of older voters, their assumptions get dashed in the face of the reality that you described, which can't be denied.

[12:06] McNulty: And it's physically - the reality is millennials got effed. To be honest, we couldn't have become adults at a worse time. And the student loans don't help because that is a real hit on your credit rating. The payments themselves are so expensive, you can't afford rent, you can't afford to pay your bills. That's why I had to move back in with mom and dad. And that's not where anyone who's a graduate wants to be. But it was the reality of my situation. I did go to grad school and get a degree, a master's in IT, but again, I had to do student loans to get it. So that was like a $50,000, $55,000 loan. Then you add all the interest, you know what I mean? I'm looking at practically 60 grand or more by the time I graduate. And I was working a full time job at a restaurant while I was getting my degree. Hoping mortgage - yeah, just hoping that things work out. But I must have the worst luck in the world because I graduated with my master's when Covid hit.

[13:04] Johanson: Right?

[13:05] McNulty: So I was interviewing for internships, interviewing for possible entry level jobs. Had a couple of bites and I thought, okay, things are going pretty well. And then Covid hits. We ended up with 15 days to flatten the curve, which was two years of total bullshit. But all those entry level jobs disappeared, all the internships I'd applied for disappeared, all the little bites I was getting were suddenly gone. And it was pretty much a need not apply showed up. So now here I am, over 50 grand in debt. Almost 60 grand in debt in addition - well, actually by that time, I did get my undergrad loans paid off, luckily before I started my master's program. But still, you're looking at almost 60 grand in debt. And now I'm still working at a frigging restaurant for $10 an hour. And my hopes of getting a good job are completely gone because of a pandemic.

[13:53] Polhamus: Right.

[13:53] Johanson: And $10 an hour. Yeah. Minimum wage. Yeah. I think a few people have pointed out the minimum wage. We had - one of the candidates for Senate pointed out the value, and I think it was Kessler. The value of minimum wage adjusted for inflation would be 15 or something. 14, 15, just to keep it even. And it has not kept up.

[14:16] McNulty: So yeah, no, wages haven't kept up with inflation. And there's probably a ton of reasons for that. And I would have to do way more research to find out even why that is. I just know that that's the reality.

[14:29] Polhamus: It's complex.

[14:30] McNulty: It is. And the problem is, is I don't know if raising the minimum wage, which, though it needs to be done, is even going to solve the issue at this point because we've allowed it to get so out of hand and raising it - in my viewpoint, I don't think raising it to $15 an hour is going to really do much good because inflation's going up so fast. You're going to have to raise it to $20 or $25 an hour, right?

[14:52] Polhamus: Yeah.

[14:53] McNulty: But my fear is, is even if we do that in five years, that's not even going to be enough because that's how fast inflation's going up. And I don't even know how to begin tackling inflation, to be honest. I know it's something that has to be tackled, but as much as I research it, as much as I think about it, I have no real good solution other than the government is going to have to stop printing money, for starters, and figure out how to make the dollar backed by something that has value.

[15:20] Polhamus: Another thing -

[15:21] Johanson: Sorry.

[15:22] Polhamus: Well, I was going to say that I think you make some good points there. And to add another thing I've personally researched is that local economies bring in more money, obviously. I think it was like for every dollar, it brings in a dollar or something like that, but like putting your money towards local things. And of course that's hard because when you have a big corporation that funnels all the money towards -

[15:47] McNulty: Yeah, that's their business.

[15:48] Polhamus: It takes away -

[15:50] Johanson: Yeah, that's -

[15:50] McNulty: That's like a whole nother issue too, because I'm all for local economy. I actually try to shop locally if I can, but it's hard for the average person. The local farmers market, whenever it's here, partly because I think the food in the grocery stores are crap and I actually work in a grocery store, so. But it's hard because a lot of the local businesses we had, even in Martinsburg, were affected by Covid. Some came back, some didn't. And sometimes I'm looking for a particular product, but I can't find it locally. So then I'm stuck going to Amazon even if I don't want to, which -

[16:24] Polhamus: It shouldn't be that way. We shouldn't - we should be able to afford to buy stuff from local shops.

[16:31] Johanson: And we're - this is, this is why - this is glorious. When we do follow up with introducing the candidates, I think what you'll find is at least what I've noticed is most of you, if not all of you, have little pieces of the puzzle and some of the candidates are much older, have been around and they understand both the economics and the policy and they understand little aspects. So my hope is that as you learn from each other and teach each other and recognize that while you can get generational experience, you can't be aware of circumstances if you're operating from a mindset that's two generations out of date. So both are true. And I hope you have a chance to manage that. Oh, yeah, this is a wonderful depth. I think you've covered it, but I'll give you a chance to - I'll do - and then you switch to the one after that. Sound good?

[17:33] McNulty: Sure.

[17:34] Johanson: What influenced you to pursue politics?

[17:38] McNulty: Well, like I said, I ignored it for most of my youth, which isn't unusual, but Covid did make me - just the fact that the way we addressed it and how everything got shut down and it just seemed like the world was ending. I guess the way the media was hyping up the fear - that's what made me start paying more attention. And then I figured if I'm going to pay more attention, I need to take an active role. And I'm the kind of person where I guess I just jump wholeheartedly into things because I just jumped into running for delegate in 22, you know, as a way to try and take a more active role in politics. A way to try and take a more active role in paying attention to what's going on and taking responsibility because that's the other thing the younger generations are going to have to do as the older generations, you know, die off. Because nobody lives forever. We're going to have to step up and start being the leaders again and we're going to have to start taking responsibility. So I was trying to do that. And the only way I could think of - and like I said, when the redistricting happened in West Virginia, I got put in what is considered a brand new district, so we didn't even have a sitting member in the House of Delegates or a sitting senator, the way it worked out. So I just jumped in to learn how the system worked too. Because if you want to understand politics, you kind of have to learn how elections work, how campaigning works. Like, you do need to be aware of how the system works. And it's very eye opening. You see some good parts and you see a lot of bad parts.

[19:03] Johanson: Look forward to hearing about both.

[19:07] McNulty: So sorry.

[19:09] Polhamus: Oops. And I just want to say again, thank you - this is how we love the interviews that go in depth like this. So we really do appreciate it. The next one we got for you is, is there anything about your history which, if revealed, could harm your campaign?

[19:26] McNulty: There's nothing that I know of in my history that could harm my campaign. I'm pretty much an open book. I've got my biography up there. I've mentioned just about everything about me. I've mentioned pretty much everything about me here. I don't really care if someone digs something up. My attitude is, okay, I guess I forgot about it, but it happened. There's no point in hiding anything about your history. That doesn't mean I remember everything. I've been here for 42 years. I guess there's some things I forgot.

[19:57] Polhamus: And I noticed a lot of candidates - some candidates, I don't know, not everyone would be okay with this, but some of them were like, just message me, you know, clear the air. Like a lot of candidates are really open about that and how they want to engage with people.

[20:12] McNulty: Yeah, I mean, I'm on Facebook. My email is listed on my website. So yeah, if you have a legit question, go ahead and message me. The only messages I don't respond to are ones that are open threats or if you're just flat out trashing me. If you don't have a legit question or issue to discuss, then I'm not going to pay attention to it. Because I had someone send me a message one time - I don't even know if it was a bot profile, to be honest - but I got a message with no picture just saying, you're obviously a RINO Republican just regurgitating this and she just went off. Or I'm assuming it's a she - it could have been he - going off and all these insults and I didn't even - I did respond only to say, can you define what you mean by RINO Republican? Because I have no idea what you're talking about.

[20:55] Polhamus: I've never heard of that or anything.

[20:58] Johanson: I've definitely heard a lot of that. So when - if you want to check, Will and I got to know each other on our own Facebook page. And one of the things that I think I hacked a long time ago, I was getting sick of how Facebook was being used by people to shut down civic conversations. It was pile-ons and personal attacks and threats and it was no information and bad information and misinformation and it was just - it was a garbage heap.

[21:31] Polhamus: Yeah, I've gotten banned from several group chats for no reason.

[21:36] Johanson: Yeah, we've got bans. Telling the truth.

[21:38] McNulty: Facebook actually gave me a ban one time. They gave me a 60 day ban one time. And this actually happened during Covid because I was just questioning the government narrative because a lot of what we were being told, it either didn't add up or it didn't make sense because there's a lot of conflicting information. And I get this message when I popped up on Facebook, you have a 60 day ban. You cannot comment or message anybody on here. Like, well, okay, but how are we supposed to have conversations if I'm banned from saying anything? I didn't insult anyone. I didn't threaten anyone. I don't do that. I just ask questions if I have a question and they're like, nope, you're banned.

[22:14] Polhamus: Yeah. And you can't even appeal those things either.

[22:18] Johanson: There are ways. But yeah, so -

[22:19] McNulty: I did appeal it. I clicked on the link they provided to appeal it. But half an hour later I got, yeah, we looked through it, your 60 day ban remains. I'm like, it's been 30 minutes. You didn't look through this.

[22:32] Johanson: Yeah. Check out the page we use. Our approach was to shift the structure of the agreements to join a group so that people agreed right up front that they would behave a certain way, that they would provide sources. They would when checked when asked. And so it's changing the nature of conversation. But you had to be proactive about it to do it, otherwise the default doesn't work. So, yeah, thank you for that. Let's - is it you or me?

[23:02] Polhamus: It's you.

[23:03] Johanson: It's me. Oh, yes. Who are the people you don't want voting for you?

[23:09] McNulty: Well, that's kind of a catch 22 question.

[23:14] Johanson: Everyone laughs at it and then they go on and they have -

[23:17] Polhamus: We like that.

[23:17] Johanson: Yeah. Totally different response to the question. Yeah. So we kept it because it just left room for people to explore. It's like, that's a weird question. But then they get into it.

[23:26] Polhamus: That's why I've grown to like it a lot because it's like - we know it's a silly question in a way, but it also, it can be telling of a candidate what their response is.

[23:39] McNulty: You're going to vote for whomever you want to vote for. When it comes to elections, there are people who've already made up their mind long before the campaign starts. And that's it. There's no changing it. Then you have the people who are kind of on the fence. If you believe in me or you believe in what I'm saying, or you have faith in me to at least work hard for six years to try and do what I have said on my campaign website that I will do - because that to me is a to do list, but a promise to you - then vote for me. If you don't believe in me, why would you vote for me? I mean, why would you vote for someone you don't believe in? It's really that simple.

[24:16] Johanson: Got it. Thank you.

[24:18] Polhamus: All right. And feel free to touch on any other issues in this question, but it's - many West Virginians have faced issues for decades like addiction -

[24:28] Johanson: Oh, no, you missed - you missed last one. Next one.

[24:30] Polhamus: Oh, yeah.

[24:32] Johanson: Okay.

[24:33] Polhamus: What commitments are you willing to make regarding the sources of funding for your campaign?

[24:38] McNulty: My campaign's completely self funded, if that's what you're asking.

[24:42] Polhamus: Yeah, pretty much it's what -

[24:45] Johanson: What matters to you? There's a lot of discussion around dark money, out of state money.

[24:51] McNulty: Okay. Yeah, so I was a little confused, actually. I was talking to an ex co-worker. She found a really good job, so good for her. But she heard I was running. And one of the issues we're talking about is just money and campaigns because I hate the fact that you can spend on a Senate campaign - you can spend like a million to $2 million easy on something that you probably won't win. It's freaking ridiculous. And I've called these people political prostitutes because they're taking all this money from PACs, lobbyists. Trump took $200 million from a billionaire. Kamala Harris's presidential campaign was funded by a billionaire. You know, so this sort of money, it comes at a price. They make investments - they don’t give, if you know what I mean. You want to tackle that, you need to make it where a politician’s campaign has to be 100% self‑funded. That means you use your own money to fund your campaign or you’re just not running. No PACs, no super PACs, no lobbyists, no donations from individuals. You 100% fund your campaign because if you don’t have skin in the game, you’re a worthless piece of-

[25:27] Johanson:
Pretty clear.

[25:28] Polhamus:
All right, well that was also a little bit different perspective from what everyone else… well, it’s similar, but you also said there you believe that it should only be self‑funded.

[25:41] Polhamus:
Right.

[25:42] Johanson:
So-

[25:42] Polhamus:
Which, yeah, that’s- I like that.

[25:45] McNulty:
I think that’s- I mean it shifts.

[25:46] Polhamus:
It really would shift it, because then when you’re planning out a campaign, it’s a totally different game.

[25:55] McNulty:
Well, I mean again, federally, but even at the state level, this is a problem. Look at how much money is spent and look what value we actually get from it. Okay, we have a war in Iran right now and the Secretary of War is asking for $200 billion so we can just do an illegal war with another country. Well, politicians are all wholeheartedly on it. Capito hasn’t said anything about it. She seems to support it. Where do they poll? Where do you think? The politicians get in the habit of spending a lot of money that we don’t have. Look how they run their campaigns. Their campaigns are not funded by them - it’s funded by other people. They use other people’s money to run for office that they may or may not win, and if they lose, it’s like, “Yeah, thanks for the campaign. Bye.” If they do win, guess who they’re beholden to? Are they going to be beholden to the person that gave them 25 bucks? No - you’re just an idiot to them who gave them $25 of your hard‑earned money. They’re going to be beholden to the one that gave them the $200, $2,000, $5,000, maybe $25,000. I mean, the higher you go in office, the more money you get from people. And like I said, if a wealthy person donates you money, they look upon that as an investment, not a donation.

But at the same time, when you have politicians using other people’s money for their campaign, that means they’re not going to be budget‑conscious. That means they’re not going to really look at how much things cost. How can you expect them to be budget‑conscious when they’re talking about the federal budget or even the state budget? Well, they’re not - because they’re not even on a budget when they’re running their campaign.

[27:22] Johanson:
Understood. Do you see a problem with getting- if it’s only self‑funded, with essentially only people that are millionaires and billionaires being able to run a campaign?

[27:34] McNulty:
Well, see, I actually thought about that. Put a cap on how much you can spend.

[27:37] Johanson:
Thank you. All right, there you go. Thank you. I’m glad I asked.

[27:40] Polhamus:
And I really appreciate how you have dived into like educational too. It’s not just about your campaign and you, but you know, trying to educate the viewers here. So Paul, if you want to go ahead with the next one-

[27:53] Johanson:
Yeah, ask the next question. And also like throwing in other things - there’s things in other countries where you have caps on campaigns, amount of time you can campaign, where they put limits on it. And the limits sometimes have the effect - or do have the effect - of changing how campaigns are run. So they’re not run for years at a time, or how you get their funding, where you get it. Can it come from overseas? They have all sorts of limits. So I appreciate what you’re talking about.

[28:23] McNulty:
Yeah, there should be limits. There should be no overseas funding of campaigns. Okay? Honestly, come on America - we gotta be for America for a change. But I just think that if a politician isn’t funding their campaign and you don’t have a stake in it, if you lose - like, are you really going to be respectful of the taxpayers’ money when you are deciding a budget? No. The answer to that is no. We already know that. Just look at our current Congress, look at our current state legislature honestly for the past several decades.

And yes, I do realize then if there’s no cap on spending, that does keep people like me who are working and aren’t exactly considered wealthy from running. So you put a cap on it. Why do you need to spend a million dollars on a freaking campaign? Honestly, people get kind of campaigned out anyway. It’s very exhausting. And so you have to put a cap on it. And someone I talked to said that maybe the cap should be like 10% of the salary of the office sought. If that makes sense.

[29:26] Johanson:
It does. And you actually bring up another thing which I know Will and I have both looked at - the amount of money… this is a corruption issue. Insider trading, the ability to essentially get information that you can use to benefit yourself or your family. So trust continues to go down because the number- and I don’t know if Capito, but I remember seeing something on Carol Miller getting PPP funds and then trying to hide that she got PPP funds and voting against revealing it. I was like, what?

[29:54] McNulty:
It’s so ridiculous. And there’s no shortage of people who get to Congress and, you know, they’re broke and then they’re millionaires because they have access to the bills that are going to affect the stock market. So they know what stocks to buy. I mean, Nancy Pelosi took this to an art. There’s been many articles of how she took this to an art. And she’s not the only one - it’s almost everybody.

[30:24] Johanson:
Yeah, it really shows when you look at… there are some people who didn’t, and they kind of stand out in their own way. I think there’s a couple websites that identify how much different congressmen and senators have made and for how long and what they invested in. And it’s- and right now, it’s still transparent, thank goodness.

[30:43] McNulty:
Yeah. And my goal is to keep such things transparent because people have a right to know where you as a politician are getting your money from and where it is you’re investing it. You know, now obviously there are some privacy issues, but at the same time, we need to know - like, are you just using us to get rich?

[31:05] Johanson:
Right.

[31:05] McNulty:
Kind of thing. So it’s just- and the other thing I want to do, like, a lot of the mailers I get… I know this happened when Mooney was running for office, and I’ve gotten a few from Riley Moore, but not a whole lot.

[31:16] Johanson:
Right.

[31:16] McNulty:
You get these mailers from their office and they’re using congressional funds, but the mailers are obvious campaign pieces. You’re not telling me what you’re doing. I already know you’re not doing anything anyway because you’re worthless. Sorry, Riley Moore fans, but it’s obvious campaign mail, okay? When it reads like a puff piece, it’s a campaign mail. And they’re using taxpayer money to fund it. So I want to get rid of that. You cannot use taxpayer money to send mailers to your constituents. You want to send mailers to your constituents? Use your own freaking money. By the way, you don’t even need to use paper - we have the Internet.

[31:48] Johanson:
I appreciate- I really appreciate you saying that. I actually kept- I think I got a stack that was like two inches thick and it was mostly for Riley, but in the last campaign… and I started scanning through it. So many of them were the same. Like the same message. And it’s just big, glossy, heavy cardboard.

[32:11] McNulty:
It’s all-

[32:14] Johanson:
Yeah. And the stuff that came from congressional- I kept looking, I took pictures. I was like, “Wait a minute, I’m paying for this. I’m paying for my own junk mail.”

[32:24] McNulty:
In ’24, when Alex Mooney ran for the U.S. Senate, I think like once, two or three times a week, I got a mailer from his congressional office and it was all a campaign puff piece. And I’m not saying that this was trash just because I ran against him in ’24 - it was just trash because I looked at it and they put it in really small print. It says “Paid for by the Office of Congress” or something like that. And it’s always in really tiny print - you need like a magnifying glass to read it. But I’m looking at this like, “You worthless, trashy, cheap‑ass son of a- you are using taxpayer money to send campaign mail.” That is a trashy thing to do. That’s not what taxpayer money is for.

[32:56] Johanson:
And the funny thing there - and I did some research to find a few others - there are Congress people who actually do the opposite. They really legitimately use that. And you get a piece of- it’s a letter, and it describes what they did, when they did it.

[33:11] McNulty:
And that’s what it was designed for. The whole point of it - of course, this came into effect in the pre‑Internet days. So it was designed so that members of Congress or the Senate could let you know what they were doing. Unfortunately, people are people and they always find a way to be scumbags, it seems. And they use it as a campaign piece. Because again, I didn’t hear from Mooney at all when he was in office - until it’s election time. I don’t hear from Riley Moore at all until it’s election time. Don’t hear from Capito or Justice until it’s election time. Because Justice only got in there- but you know. And then when you do get something, it’s paid for by their office and it’s an obvious puff piece, it’s an obvious campaign piece. They don’t actually tell me what they’re doing because- I don’t- it’s just a campaign piece.

But now with the Internet we don’t even need that anymore because most people are online. Very few people use print media - maybe some do, but a lot is online. So we need to start updating a little bit and thinking: do we really need these funds where they send out paper mailers? If so, there needs to be really strict measures in place to make sure it’s not a campaign mailer, but they are actually telling you what they’re doing. Yeah, but with online, they have Facebook, they have Twitter - they have these profiles where they can tell you what they’re doing too. So we don’t necessarily need these congressional funds anymore. So that needs to be looked into.

[34:31] Johanson:
Agreed. The best one I think I saw so far was Raskin’s. My wife used to live in Rockville, and I got some of his - and they were the letter format, bullet‑down what you’re doing, even what he needed help with. And so it was pretty detailed. So yeah, it’s worth researching the ones that have been there and seeing what they’ve done. Really great question. I don’t think anyone’s gone into this as much depth on it in the past, so I know I’m enjoying it. I suspect Will is too.

[34:58] Polhamus:
I am, very much so.

[35:00] Johanson:
What do we got?

[35:03] Polhamus:
We got the one about the issues in West Virginia.

[35:07] Johanson:
I’m doing you the questions you’ve done, and you’re doing the ones I’ve done.

[35:10] Polhamus:
Yeah.

[35:11] Johanson:
Many West Virginians have faced issues for decades - and you can include as many things that come to mind, like addiction and high health care costs, electricity costs, etc. So whatever you want to bring. What will you do differently to ensure your plans actually turn into results?

[35:32] McNulty:
Well, the first thing I’d have to do is actually really deeply research all these issues, which I’ve tried to research some, but to be honest, I haven’t had a lot of time to do a lot. So I really need help with that. I know addiction’s a big one. It’s a huge one here in Martinsburg. The problem with addiction is it’s kind of a personal issue too, in that nobody makes you do the drugs, you know what I mean? And I’ve dealt with some people that are addicted to drugs, and until they want to get clean, it doesn’t matter how many rehabilitation centers you have or what you try to do - if a person doesn’t want to get clean, there’s nothing you can do.

So there is that personal issue. On the other side, the best we can do on a government level is, again, make sure we have rehabilitation centers. They should be free. I don’t see why we should have to charge you. They should be available for anyone who wants to get off the drugs. Make sure they’re well‑funded, make sure they’re actually regulated and that there’s oversight. Do not let private equity firms own these things - that usually ends up being a nightmare. But that’s really, from a government standpoint, the best we can do at the federal level. Try to ensure that the border is closed and not allowing drugs into the country. If you don’t have the product here, people can’t really get addicted to it, now can they? So try to do that.

Other than that, I really don’t know how to solve that issue because it’s such a complicated issue. We have drugs flowing in over the border, you have people who choose to do it, and then you need the resources available for people who want to get off the drugs - but you also need the oversight to make sure they’re properly run.

[36:04] Johanson:
Yeah. Sorry-

[36:07] Polhamus:
Oh, I was gonna say to add on to that point - me and you have talked about the slow pause, and like you mentioned, it’s the environment that they’re in. We can heavily influence their environment to try to guide them to better… I guess that would be the only thing, the biggest thing that are like our duties that we can add to.

[36:27] Polhamus:
So-

[36:28] McNulty:
Yeah, well, the other thing I’ll look into is what causes people to turn to drugs in the first place. Because it’s not like someone wakes up one day and says, “I want to be addicted to heroin.” You know, nobody wakes up wanting that. But something compelled them to do it. And it’s a very addictive drug, so you get hooked really quick. So we gotta try and figure out what’s causing that. Because if you don’t treat the root cause, you can treat the symptoms all you want, but if you don’t find out why people are doing it, it’s not going to solve the problem.

And someone- yeah, someone suggested that a depressed economy could be part of the reason why people are… you know, you’re not working, you’re not earning anything, maybe you feel worthless. I don’t know. There’s like a lot of things that go through a person’s head. And so you turn to something that you think will make you feel better for a time, but you get addicted to it, and then it takes over your life.

[37:17] Johanson:
No, definitely. I know at least three of the candidates addressed it - one very much from a policy angle of the past, of what policies work. And you covered some of them in terms of the oversight - without the oversight and the private equity. He really came down hard on that. Without being able to follow them, you can’t know if it’s a black box you’re pouring money into.

I know Zach - so Zach Shrewsbury put something out. He went into the Marines for eight years, came back, and what he described was literally what you were touching on at the end. The economics were shifting very fast at the time he left the state. And so when he came back, he was getting- bad. And when he got back, it was so bad that the addiction crisis, mainly opioids, was really skyrocketing all over the place. Jobs were disappearing, opportunities- people were trapped where they were and they didn’t- they just kind of ran out of options.

So yeah, I think you’ll find a lot in some of the other interviews to kind of get ideas. And I encourage all of the candidates: steal from each other. Steal your best ideas from each other and run with them. It’s a great policy because-

[38:31] McNulty:
I’m just gonna start posting this meme - I don’t know if you’ve seen this meme online of a raccoon stealing a hubcap, running away with the word “steal this.” I guess I’ll just start doing that on people’s podcasts. “I’m stealing this.”

[38:40] Johanson:
Absolutely. I think as a voter, I would love the idea that candidates are stealing the best ideas from one another - almost like they’re competing to have the best set of policies. Wouldn’t that be a great voter-

[38:54] Polhamus:
Only if- I mean, that’s what we’re hopefully working towards.

[38:58] McNulty:
I just know when it comes to addiction, if people feel worthless, then they will act like they’re worthless. You know what I mean? So if you don’t feel productive, you’re going to turn to a way to drown your sorrows. And it’s different for every person. For some people, it’s just watching hours of Netflix for no freaking reason, or drowning your sorrows in alcohol or drugs. Like, it’s different for every person because anything can be an addiction if you think about it - even just scrolling on Facebook for 12 hours because you don’t want to face reality. It can become an addiction. Actually, that’s an addictive behavior.

[39:31] Johanson:
I think cat videos are actually the gateway drug for most people.

[39:35] McNulty:
I think they are. I’m a guilty one for watching cat videos, to be honest. I have two cats.

[39:40] Johanson:
Oh no, you’re on that- you’re on the treadmill already. Oh, you’re lost.

[39:45] McNulty:
I’m already a lost cause on that one. But it’s just- people need to feel productive. So they need to have reliable employment, or if we could just somehow make it easier for people to have self‑employment, because not everybody wants to work for someone. Some people want to own their own business. So how can we help them do that? And I don’t like using the term “handout” because people don’t like handouts. You know what I mean? We want to be self‑sufficient, but sometimes you need a hand‑up.

[40:11] Johanson:
Right.

[40:11] McNulty:
And I’m not sure how we can accomplish that within the state. Obviously the state legislature has to come up with policies for that. I’m not sure what I can do at the federal level other than try and stay in contact with people at the state level - “What are you doing to really help West Virginians?” Because there is a barrier between federal and state that a lot of people forget about. We have the 10th Amendment for a reason, and I am big on following the Constitution. But I do realize that in the federal position I can be a literal pain in the ass to people at the state level to try and get them to do things - like maybe listen to West Virginians. Or I would have staff members that can do that for me. But you know what I mean - like something.

But what can we do to help people have a better economic opportunity? And I think we’re failing miserably as a state, unfortunately.

[40:57] Polhamus:
Yeah. Thank you again for the in‑depth answers. And maybe to add to this - the term “handout.” I noticed that a lot of people… that’s a very stigmatized thing for people. And I think me and Paul try to make things good for everybody to understand or try to phrase it in ways for everyone to understand. But I think instead of saying “handouts,” if we recognize that if we’re investing the money and being represented correctly, things would be a lot different - versus now our money’s just going towards paying their salaries. It would be way different if the money was actually being used towards-

[41:33] McNulty:
Well, and a lot of times I’ve noticed that the federal, state - they’ll fund something, you know what I mean? But we don’t really know where the money goes. Like, there’s no itemization of how the money is spent. There’s no follow‑up on how it’s spent. It’s like funding education - that’s great, let’s fund education. But how much of the money is actually going to classrooms? How much of it’s going to teachers, and how much of it’s getting tied up in administration, administrative costs? We don’t know that. We have no idea how much of it’s going to unions and lobbyists and how much is actually going to helping the kids. We have no idea. It’s just “We’re going to fund it this much money,” and we’re not going to talk about it until the next election cycle. That’s what’s going on with the funding.

So there has to be itemization. We have to know where the money is going. And if it’s- say it’s going to a certain area and we don’t seem to be getting the results we want, we have to re‑look at how we’re going to reinvest this money in the same industry, but in a way where it will give us the results we want. Like, sometimes you have to change strategy. And it just- it means constantly researching and re‑evaluating.

[42:39] Johanson:
Right. And forming teams, because there’s so much to know. I do believe that when you listen to some of the other views, you’re going to get ideas like crazy for the stuff you’re talking about. So I look forward to- honestly, hopefully we’ll meet each other soon. See- is it my question or yours next?

[42:56] Polhamus:
It’s mine now. So - when experts present different recommendations, what process do you use to reach a well‑reasoned conclusion?

[43:05] McNulty:
I read the recommendations, I look at their research - hopefully they list their sources so I can also look at those sources. And then I will also look at: does this fall in line with the Constitution? Because that is my first and number one oath that I’m going to be swearing if I’m elected. And try to- well, try to come up with a plan. You know, you read it, you look at what they say, you look at the facts, you look at the reality, and then you also make sure that you are still abiding by your oath, abiding by the law, and protecting the rights of individuals while trying to do what you can to help people.

[43:37] Johanson:
Wow, that’s great. Adding to what you just said was the- and I think you’ve touched on it on multiple fronts - the “follow the money” approach. When you itemize and you look at it and you see results, you’re following like: who bought who, who benefited from the program.

[43:55] McNulty:
Exactly.

[43:55] Johanson:
It’s not who you say benefited - can you address that? And that requires doing essentially what you’re saying: financial analysis or financial- is that-

(cat enters)

[44:13] McNulty:
He- if he’s not the center of attention, he will make himself the center of attention.

[44:17] Johanson:
I’ve had one of those cats too. The other one is- thank you for mentioning the Constitution again and again. Part of what we’re doing here is educational research. A lot of people- the scariest statistic I remember is that 50-

[44:34] Polhamus:
You can have him in the video, it’s okay.

[44:35] McNulty:
Keyboard. He loves walking across the keyboard. And then it makes my computer do weird things.

[44:42] Polhamus:
Okay, fair. Yeah, sorry Paul-

[44:44] Johanson:
Anyway- no, no, that was- the Constitution. And when I read that a lot of people couldn’t name the three branches of government - and it was like 50%. I was like, that’s horrifying. That is an utter failure of our basic education.

And the Facebook page that Will and I are on - what we said is the mission statement is we use the Preamble to define it. Because I’ve- a really great teacher about five years ago wrote a book on what the Preamble is, and it’s basically a mission statement. The Constitution is the how‑to document, and the Preamble is the mission statement. And when you approach it that way, it’s like, oh- sometimes you can take the how‑to, but if it’s leading you out of sync with the mission and you’ve forgotten what the mission was-

[45:33] McNulty:
And that’s why- that’s why they left it open for us to be able to amend it as we go. Because, you know, I really do respect the founders, despite all their faults. And if you’re expecting them to be perfect, you’re an idiot - because human beings are not perfect. We all got our problems and we all got our issues. But they did something at a time that had never been done before. And they set up a system of self‑government that preserves the rights of individuals while still letting people live their life as they see fit, but still instituting law and order, you know what I mean? Because we can’t just have anarchy.

But they also left the door open so that future generations, as things change or as we realize “Hey, this isn’t working, maybe we should do this,” they can amend it. That’s the whole point. And yeah, I’ve heard the mission‑statement theory and it actually makes sense. It tells us why they’re doing it. “We the People, to form a more perfect union”- that is the mission statement. The Constitution - what, five or seven pages long - literally sets the stage for an entire government. And I’m like, why can’t Congress come up with a five‑page piece of legislation instead of a 200‑ or 300‑page behemoth that doesn’t deal with the issue at hand? You know, like- that’s what we’re getting a lot of.

[46:49] Johanson:
There was a law a little while ago - remember when we had all these cell phone contracts that were like 50 pages long? And there finally was legislation that said “Describe this in easily understandable language and do it in less than a page.” And they had no problem - they could do it.

[47:04] McNulty:
You can do it. They can do it. They just don’t want to.

[47:09] Johanson:
They don’t want to, right?

[47:10] McNulty:
When you try- like, I actually- you know, when Obamacare passed, I actually read that entire bill. All 2,300 pages of it.

[47:17] Polhamus:
Wow.

[47:18] McNulty:
Yeah. It took me a few weeks because that was a behemoth. It’s all legalese. So it took a while to get through because it's all in legal language. So I'm sitting there with a dictionary trying to look up these words and all this, and what does this mean? And then I realized that a very small portion of the bill actually addressed health care. Most of it addressed everything but health care. So I'm like, well, this is an automatic no vote then. If that were me, it would have been an automatic no vote because it's not actually addressing the issue at hand. It just had a bunch of pork in it. Give me something that addresses the issue at hand.

[47:58] Johanson:
Right? Yeah. And that'll require going after what I think they found is their entrenched interests with massive amounts of money who don't want any- they don't want any change in the system.

[48:08] McNulty:
Of course not. They're getting rich off of it. That's why they're not wanting any change in the system. That's why they get rid of people that question- you know, I mean, love her or hate her, Marjorie Taylor Greene did question the system a lot. You know, I didn't always agree with a lot of what she said, but she did question it. And as a result, she got pushed out. You know, if you don't take money from certain lobbyists and certain industries like AIPAC, they will do everything they can to get rid of you in a primary. They're already doing that to Thomas Massie. Love him or hate him, don't matter. He won't take money from them. He's challenged Trump on this war in Iran and now they're putting up some well‑funded Zionist who's funded by billionaires that funded Democrats to primary him. This is how D.C. works. And that's just D.C. - we haven't even gotten to the state level.

[48:44] Polhamus:
I'll say real quick - your camera, something got adjusted. Can't- yeah.

[48:47] Johanson:
Is that kitty? I think it was like- I thought maybe-

[48:50] Polhamus:
Maybe it was the thing that closes your camera, but it shows a little like black- yeah. If you want to adjust that, I just want your full-

[48:59] Johanson:
Do you see what I mean?

[49:01] McNulty:
Yeah.

[49:02] Polhamus:
Sometimes there's a thing that like- switch that-

[49:05] McNulty:
I got this new computer. Hold on, let me-

[49:08] Polhamus:
Well, usually you can switch it like left and right to-

[49:11] McNulty:
Yeah, I don't have- it looks like that.

[49:13] Polhamus:
Well, it's usually on the camera.

[49:15] McNulty:
Or is it-

[49:15] Johanson:
It's not getting worse. Oh, there we go.

[49:18] McNulty:
Okay. Sorry. Yeah. I've only had this computer for like a month because my cat broke my other computer.

[49:25] Polhamus:
You gotta get a mount or something.

[49:27] Johanson:
Get a mouse.

[49:28] Johanson:
Oh, a mouse mount.

[49:30] Polhamus:
I mean a mouse.

[49:31] Johanson:
Yeah.

[49:32] McNulty:
Well, I like-

[49:32] Johanson:
But if you call it “get a mouse,” it's much funnier.

[49:36] McNulty:
I like laptops. I can take the laptop anywhere with me in the house.
That's why I like it. And I put it on the table and maybe I didn't get it on securely. Whatever. He jumped up on it, walked all over it. Next thing I know, I heard a loud thump. My computer's on the floor and it won't turn on, won't charge, won't do anything. I was like, it's a good thing you're cute and I love you because -

[50:11] Polhamus: Perfect laptop to ruin.

[50:13] Polhamus: Thank you for that.

[50:14] McNulty: It was not an old laptop and I had to go buy a new one, unfortunately.

[50:18] Johanson: Okay, well, let me see. Next is - what's one necessary policy to address West Virginia's long standing issues that might be unpopular but you believe is essential? And you may have covered this. If you want to just reiterate or if you got something new, go for it.

[50:39] McNulty: Can you - because we have a lot of issues. Can you name one?

[50:43] Johanson: No. I mean it was really up to you, whatever you felt like naming.

[50:47] Polhamus: So to put a little more perspective - sometimes I'm trying to actually think of one like in West Virginia that other people have mentioned.

[50:56] Johanson: We've mentioned green energy -

[50:57] Polhamus: We've mentioned, yes, like things like that.

[51:00] Johanson: Water, dealing with water issues. We've touched on addiction, education, something that you might have to do which would be unpopular but you'd still believe is important. I think you've covered it in some of the other areas.

[51:13] Polhamus: Does that make sense?

[51:15] McNulty: Yeah.

[51:16] Johanson: Okay.

[51:17] McNulty: I mean, I know energy is a big one. A lot of people are big proponents of green energy. You got a lot of people that are proponents of coal and oil. I mean, I think we need to start looking into going beyond green, coal and oil and look into nuclear energy. I know that's a big one. A lot of people don't like it, but it is carbon free and technology has greatly improved over time. Okay. We're not dealing with 1980s Chernobyl technology. We are dealing with modern technology. But someone mentioned to me small modular nuclear reactors and I've been trying to do some research into that. The biggest issue with those is mostly the waste. How do you recycle it? But if we can figure that out so that it's not environmentally damaging, we could end up powering the entire state with cheap energy just by going nuclear and going that route. And with artificial intelligence - as much as people may not like it - it might actually help us solve our energy problems by helping us do the research we need to do in a fraction of the time so that we can have nuclear energy. I mean, wouldn't it be nice if we could have just a small little reactor in our house that powered our entire neighborhood for free.

[52:20] Polhamus: Yes.

[52:23] Polhamus: That's why - that's why I think we should educate people on things like nuclear too. Like it's - there's a lot more information out there -

[52:31] Johanson: - about it than people think.

[52:32] McNulty: And you know, like cold fusion is something people laugh at and I know decades ago that was just a laughable concept. But again technology has improved and I think with artificial intelligence that can comb through all this research in a fraction of the time a human mind can, we might actually be able to crack the code, maybe, or come up with something like it or similar that can solve our energy problems. So we're not dependent upon coal and oil. And green energy hasn't really delivered on the promise, only because when you look at how the wind turbines and the solar panels are manufactured, you're still relying on coal and oil and it kind of negates whatever effort you're trying to do. Like you're still polluting the environment to create something that's not going to pollute the environment. You know what I mean?

[53:15] Johanson: It's -

[53:16] McNulty: It just -

[53:17] Johanson: Yeah.

[53:17] Johanson: There's mining backgrounds and it - and it requires a lot of analysis to do. What you're saying is to actually - what is the price? Cradle to grave or cradle to cradle as they say in the green movement. More. But I really - I get what you're saying around when and you're one of the few people that has brought up fusion versus fission. Most nuclear plants are fission based and I have an engineering background - as much as - that's a thousand times more energy than the most potent chemical form. The sun is powered by fusion energy and it's been burning for four and a half billion years. So it's got a hell of a model on hand because it's basically heating the entire solar system non stop for -

[54:02] McNulty: Yeah.

[54:03] Johanson: So there's something that if we can crack it you have as much as you can call something near infinite compared to where we are. If we could do it that would be amazing.

[54:11] McNulty: I mean I know it's sci fi right at the moment but a lot of things that used to be sci fi are science reality now. So if we can crack - yeah.

[54:22] McNulty: I used to watch the -

[54:24] Johanson: Welcome to Star Trek.

[54:26] McNulty: Yeah my dad was a - he loved movies and he had - he used to love watching the old Star Trek series. The original series from the 60s that predated me. So we watched reruns on TV and I remember them with their little communicators like Scotty beam me up, you know.

[54:39] Johanson: Yeah.

[54:39] McNulty: And I'm like, well that's our cell phones now.

[54:42] Johanson: It's a flip - it's an old - it's a flip phone.

[54:42] McNulty: It's a flip phone. We don't even have those anymore. Now we got smartphones that are making us dumber. But anyhow, it's - but if we can crack the code to fusion and find a way to get that cheap energy without again destroying ourselves or destroying the environment, that would be worth it because people need three or four major basic things. We need food, we need clean water, and we need electricity. You don't have those, we're done in a modern society. Well, if you can at least lower the power bill cost, that's money saved. If we're not importing oil, who cares if the Strait of Hormuz is shut -

[55:21] Johanson: Yep.

[55:22] McNulty: I'll -

[55:22] Johanson: I'll add we need good neighbors too. And I think that's our project.

[55:25] McNulty: That would help too. But unfortunately you don't always get to pick your neighbors.

[55:30] Johanson: Yeah.

[55:30] Johanson: All right. We're doing our best.

[55:32] Polhamus: Awesome. I really like the direction of this interview. I like how - that's kind of our goal, is we want to make things like human. We don't want to sit here and argue with people. We just want to have conversation. And I think we've modeled that pretty well in this interview.

[55:48] Johanson: Again.

[55:49] Polhamus: So let me see what the next - okay, this one is about your expertise. What can you tell us about what expertise or experience best prepares you for this role and where you expect to rely on advisors? It seems like you're very informed on a lot of things too. I will point that out.

[56:07] McNulty: So I try to be informed if I can. I try to do research where I can. If I don't know something, I'll just let you know I don't know right at the moment and then I'll take the time to go do the research so I don't try to BS my way through something. I actually have a history degree and one of the things my professors always made me do was a lot of research. We had to write papers like these 20, 30 page papers, which I'll admit I was a procrastinator in college, so I was doing it all in one night. But it required a hefty amount of research because they liked you to propose an argument and then back up that argument about how this event led to this. That means researching and I got to do it the old way with the card catalog. I had one of those libraries on my campus. But yeah, that was fun. Anyhow, so research is a skill I can bring into that because a lot of politicians, no matter what level of government, they don't research a darn thing. They either rely on what other people tell them or they just rely on basically bullshitting their way through it, to be honest. And so I have that skill I'd bring, and I'm a big one on research. I have spent my whole life working in customer service, like most people my age. And I had someone tell me that politics is the biggest amount of customer service you'll ever do because you are there to - well, I don't want to say provide for your constituents, but to represent them, to represent their issues, their concerns, while also making sure you are in line with the Constitution and the law. So you're doing that delicate balance. Well, that's customer service in a nutshell. If you've ever worked retail and you have to deal with a complaint and someone throws something at you, you are basically dealing with a very delicate situation and you're trying to keep your temper in check while trying to address the issue this customer has while dodging French fries.

[57:59] Johanson: I get it, and I appreciate you bringing up the academic - reminding me the academic quote. You can either dazzle them with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit. Just there's the quote that came back to me. So I appreciate the reminder.

[58:18] McNulty: The point is, I deal with people from all backgrounds just because of where I work. And it's not going to be any different in the U.S. Senate. You're going to be dealing with people from all sorts of backgrounds, and you're going to have to know how to talk to them, how to listen to them, and just don't be an arrogant a-hole. Just actually listen to them. And people are going to treat you like garbage. That just goes with the territory. And as a newbie, I know I will be treated like garbage, because that's just how people are. And you have to be able to handle it. You have to have the mindset and the tenacity and the stubbornness to handle it. And well, I do that already in customer service. All it is is just another form, just in a different area and with different people.

[58:59] Johanson: Point out to them - to tactfully point out to them when they're treating you like garbage. And maybe they would like to consider some alternatives.

[59:06] McNulty: Yes. And I have to do that with customers where I work. And sometimes you have to just take a hard line with them. I have told customers, like, you are not going to use that tone with me, period. Because I don't have to take that. I mean, be nice to the customer service rep. Okay? Sometimes they're having a bad day.

[59:22] Polhamus: Yeah.

[59:22] McNulty: Of course, just because someone's a jerk to you doesn't mean you have to be a jerk either. But there are times where you have to take that hard line. I know. The person threw french fries at me. I threw it back at them.

[59:36] Johanson: You would. We wouldn't have encouraged - so we have a - we own a coffee shop and a restaurant. And we're really clear on the line is your job is to give - make sure that they have a good day. Your job is not to allow them to use you to have a good day.

[59:51] McNulty: That is true. I probably should not have thrown the french fries back, but I was like in college, so it happens, you know, and it was an older guy. It was an older guy and he was just being a total jerk. And I was just 19 at the time, either 19 or 20, somewhere around there. And I was like, yeah, I'm not taking that. So I picked up those fries and just threw it right back at him. But man, the manager of course saw me do it. And so I got talked to and I was like, go ahead and fire me. I'll just find another job, whatever. Which I should not have said because there really was no other job to get at the time.

[1:00:25] Johanson: Right, right.

[1:00:26] McNulty: I was a belligerent 20 year old with an attitude.

[1:00:29] Johanson: There you go. All right. Sometimes necessary. Let me see. I got three more questions. I got - oh, how will you engage with constituents who did not vote for you or who strongly disagree with your positions? And I think you've covered it, but give you another chance.

[1:00:46] McNulty: Well, pretty much. You deal with the people who throw things at you but don't throw it back.

[1:00:51] Polhamus: It's different. It's different now. You can't do that as an official.

[1:00:58] McNulty: No, you can't. Well, again, I was dumb in my 20s, but anyhow. No, it's just how you always deal with people. People are not going to agree with you all the time. That's just how it is. And you know what? It's okay. My only thing is we talk in a polite, civilized manner. We will not threaten each other. No violence. Come on. We are above that. You tell me in a civilized manner what your concerns are, I will do my best to address it. If I am unfamiliar with the issue, I will tell you that I don't know, I haven't thought about it, in which case I will have to go research because that's what I do. We just talk. That's all we do. I don't care if you agree with me. I don't care if you hate my guts. All I ask is that we act like civilized human beings. That's all I'm asking. So send me an email, whatever. I will try to get back to you as quickly as I can. It might take a few days, but I will try to get back to you.

[1:01:51] Johanson: Appreciate it. Yeah.

[1:01:52] Polhamus: And that's what me and Paul are trying really hard to do - is this is to spread these interviews and show that it's possible to just be a normal human being. Like everything. We've had such a diverse amount of opinions and probably people that we would disagree with on everything, but we still invited them and tried to respect their time and we're trying to set an example. So I do appreciate that. And the next one, I guess this kind of ties into that. But what is your plan for transparency and accountability?

[1:02:25] McNulty: Well, pretty much the laws we have in place that do transparency and accountability - keep that in place. You know, I read somewhere that the state legislature tried to get rid of some kind of transparency when it came to getting donations. I'll have to reread that article to make sure, but it's just something I saw. It was a headline I saw online. But pretty much you keep it in place. So like the financial disclosure statements, obviously. Keep the FEC, keep in line with that, make sure that I'm reporting everything according to the law and according to their rules and regulations. Yeah, I mean, I'm an open book. So I would pretty much just be posting whatever it is I'm doing. It would just all be online. It would all be there for you to look at. Again, you have a question - like if you don't see me tackling a particular issue, it could be it's just not on my radar right away. Or maybe it's just not being publicized, but just shoot me an email and say, hey, this is something of concern to me. What are you doing about it? And I will do my best to get back to you as quickly as I can. That's the kind of transparency we need where you're just in contact with your constituents, with people.

[1:03:26] Johanson: Right.

[1:03:27] McNulty: It's -

[1:03:28] Johanson: And I think we pointed out - because Will and I were so moved towards shocked and then eventually irritated that the incumbents did not respond - the one difference between you and the incumbents is they have a staff, a paid staff. I mean, every Congress person, every senator - I don't know what the budget is, but it's fairly substantial for the office. You've got interns, you've got staff, you've got people that have to respond and do mailings. All sorts of the funding is there for you to not have to respond to - it would be 2.7 million people personally, which I could see would be a real burden.

[1:04:07] McNulty: Yeah. I mean, for them - now, I get it. Granted, I'm sure they get like hundreds of emails a day. That's granted. But their staff should be able to get through it, and that should be your staff's number one priority, is to get through it. If I'm able to answer emails - I may not get back to you for a few days, but if I am able to answer on my own, and I'm literally a campaign of one - they can answer. I think the only one who's ever been in office in West Virginia that actually got back to me was Senator Joe Manchin or former Senator Joe Manchin. Because anytime I contacted his office about an issue, even if I lost my temper and kind of just called them names, like, someone always got back to me and they were always polite and they always tried to address the issue. I know one time I got an email, I said, you didn't address it. I'd like a phone call. Guess what? A week later, I was talking to someone in his office, and we talked for like an hour and a half. So he's probably the only one who's ever been in office here in this state that has actually made an effort to get in contact with people. If I contacted Mooney's office when he was in office, nothing. Capito's office only got back to me once in the 15 years I've tried contacting her. And that was when I said I was a former delegate or a former candidate to the House of Delegates. All of a sudden I got a phone call, and the lady on the phone - I don't know if she was just having a bad day or she didn't feel good - but she definitely had the I don't want to be doing this tone in her voice. So that was a very short conversation because I wasn't going to deal with someone like that. Yeah, yeah. And I called her out on it.

[1:05:35] Polhamus: But yeah, we got people accountable, you know, so this next one - Paul's going to ask it, but this is a new one that we added since the last time and we never had a chance to really ask you.

[1:05:47] Johanson: So here's - what is your position on ranked choice voting or what do you know and believe about ranked choice voting and would you support it in West Virginia or wherever you could.

[1:06:00] McNulty: From what I understand of ranked choice voting it's been kind of a disaster where it's tried. The person that most people wouldn't ever vote for in an election ends up winning the election through ranked choice voting. That means you got someone who would probably get the smallest amount of votes ends up becoming the representative. From my understanding of it, it doesn't make a lot of sense. Ranked choice voting is just really weird.

[1:06:21] Johanson: I prefer - well let me see if I can give - because we went through - I'm trying to figure that out. Somebody else said that and I couldn't figure out how that happened. My understanding of ranked choice voting is voters select number one, number two, number three etc. and they rank them and only the bottom candidate is removed. Like if they get the least amount - the one that's at the bottom gets removed from the vote and their second, third and fourth and so forth votes get apportioned to the others.

[1:06:55] McNulty: I've heard that - yeah, that's how -

[1:06:57] McNulty: - other reports where it ends up being the opposite. So it doesn't really make -

[1:07:02] Johanson: I have an engineering background and I can't figure out how that can be possible. I mean that doesn't make sense because you never remove the top -

[1:07:09] McNulty: Ranked choice voting just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It really doesn't. And I have read and tried to listen to people explain it to me and I'm still confused by it and how it works. I'm not gonna lie. But it's just - from what I've read, I've read so many conflicting reports. Some say that the person who would get the least amount of votes ends up winning in ranked choice. Some say maybe the one who would get the most amount does, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me and it doesn't seem very straightforward. It's just confusing. I mean - like I said, I've been trying to figure it out and how it works but it's confusing to me. So yeah, I don't really understand it and I think a lot of people don't understand it. I don't think it's a good idea. I do like the straightforward where you just do the amount of votes. Whoever gets the most, they win. That's very straightforward and obviously it depends upon people showing up to vote. But that would be true with ranked choice as well - is people showing up to vote.

[1:07:44] Johanson: So I'll give the two sides that I've heard about it. The advantage - there are two advantages that are claimed about it. One, that every vote counts. Even if you don't get your first, you might get your second. If you don't get your second, you might get your third. The other advantage is mainly that rather than people picking their least bad choice, they know they've got an option so they show up. Because if I don't get my guy - who probably they think is going to lose anyway, so they don't show up - they go, well maybe my second guy or my third person will. And so they're more likely to show up because they look at more candidates. So that was the other advantage I heard. I had never heard that a person with less votes could make it because you have to get over 51% in order -

[1:08:57] McNulty: I'm probably not explaining it very well. I'm trying to remember what I've read. It's just, you know, and like I said, I read this a while ago and I'm trying to remember it. So I'm probably not explaining it very well. The person who wrote it was trying to explain it - is in a regular election where a majority rules, the person would lose, you know what I mean? But in ranked choice voting, that person could possibly win. I think that's how they say it. Like I said, I'm not explaining it well and I really do apologize for that.

[1:09:29] Johanson: It's true. If the majority was - like if it divided three ways, you could have someone with 35, someone with 30, 30% or 32 and a half and 32 and a half. And in theory I guess the person with 35 - I don't know, I guess I still can't make it work that - the person with - that you could win with a third.

[1:09:51] McNulty: But see, ranked choice isn't the typical majority rules vote. You know what I mean? Like right now in West Virginia, whoever gets the most votes pretty much wins the election. That's how it is because it's -

[1:10:02] Johanson: A two party system, right?

[1:10:03] McNulty: Doing it that way, you're picking your first, second, third, fourth, however many is on the ballot.

[1:10:08] Johanson: Right.

[1:10:08] McNulty: And so I think the way the person's explaining it is - what if the person who gets like number three and somehow manages to become number two because they got enough. And again, I'm not completely sure how they count this in ranked choice. What if that person in a typical majority rules wasn't going to get the majority, but through ranked choice they're able to win because ranked choice is counted differently. That's kind of how that person was going.

[1:10:35] McNulty: It's -

[1:10:37] Johanson: Yeah, I'd be interested to see.

[1:10:40] McNulty: And again, I'm trying to remember this article that I read months ago and -

[1:10:44] Johanson: Yeah, if you - if you remember it and you find it, please send it to me. It's a personal interest of mine because I think it defeated the two party system, which a lot of people are upset with because in a lot of states they're now legitimately - they're so stacked that the majority party locks themselves in and then they arrange the candidates so that you can't get in. So even though the state is something like, well, 40%, 30%, 30%, the number of Republicans in the legislature is like 90% and there's almost no independents. So yeah, I mean that's an issue.

[1:11:25] McNulty: The party system being locked in is an issue. But I don't know if ranked choice voting is really the way to go to get rid of it. Again, a lot of it does - one - depends on people showing up to vote. And I don't know if ranked choice voting has caused more people to show up because there are a lot of people who just are so disenfranchised, they just don't care. And the numbers still show that voter turnout is not as great as it could be. But you have to show up to vote. If you don't like the establishment, you don't vote for the establishment. And that's where term limits - and honestly I promoted term limits on the state level too back in 22. So that's where that helps because you start getting rid of the people that are entrenched. You know, you don't have to wait for them to die, but you start getting rid of them that are entrenched. We can again - caps on funding, try to get rid of the money, the outside money, make campaigns publicly funded. You are more likely to get rid of that money. One of the reasons why the establishment is able to stay in power is because they're well funded by things like PACs and lobbyists and all that because of all the goodies they'll give them. And this is true for Democrats and Republicans. They both have an issue with establishment. If you start tackling the funding, you start tackling the length of time people can be in office, you'll actually get rid of the establishment. It's not going to happen overnight. We didn't get to where we are overnight. So it is going to take probably a generation or two to chip away at what we have allowed to become a problem. I don't think ranked choice voting is going to really solve it. I think it's people taking an active interest and then just getting rid of the money and getting rid of this entrenched system. When you get new people in and if we get a lot of new people in, you start taking away the power of the establishment. I mean, you really do. That's why they do whatever they can to stop new people from coming in, except for the ones they approve of. And on a voting perspective, as a voter, you have to really research your candidates, but you have to also understand the way politicians speak. So that way you know if you are being schmoozed and being fed what you want to hear or if you're hearing someone who intends to do exactly what they say they're going to do. Like a lot of it depends upon the voter. You have to be very aware. Don't just fall for the talking points and platitudes. So if we all did these things and we all work together and if more people showed up to vote too, instead of completely checking out, we would get rid of the establishment. You don't really have to change how it is.

[1:13:49] Polhamus: I don't really like that too.

[1:13:51] McNulty: I'm not gonna lie. It's - I've had people try to explain it to me and I'm still very confused by it, which is why I'm not for it, because I don't like a system I don't understand.

[1:13:58] Johanson: You don't understand? Absolutely. No.

[1:14:00] Polhamus: I'll say this too. A lot of the candidates also agreed that it's something they would like to see tried minimum, because they also have confusions about it. And I think, you know, it is - I guess the Electoral College is what we have as right -

[1:14:17] McNulty: Well, now I love the Electoral College on the national setting because the reason for it is to ensure that the states are equally represented in addition to, of course, the people being represented. So I am all for keeping the Electoral College because if everything was done by popular vote in the country, California and New York would pretty much run the elections. Why even vote if you're in West Virginia? Like, we don't have that many people, crying out loud. So it's not just us, it's other small populated states. So I like the Electoral College. I actually had an idea - like I don't know if you could work it on a state level, but what if we did like a state version of the Electoral College where every county gets, you know, an electoral vote in addition to the popular vote. So that way the small counties are represented as well. Because when everything's done by popular vote, only the populated areas really get to have a say because they have the numbers. You know, the big cities have the numbers. But if you live in a rural community, you kind of feel disenfranchised because you don't have that population, if you know what I mean.

[1:15:11] Johanson: Yeah, I don't know how it operates in the state, but that's -

[1:15:14] McNulty: Well, I don't know how you would operate it. Probably something similar to what they do on the federal level. That again would take research that would take a lot of people, probably smarter than me, to try and figure it out. But it's just an idea to try and make sure that the rural communities have equal representation to the more populated areas, so we don't have people feeling like they're just never listened to.

[1:15:34] Johanson: All right, well, thank you.

[1:15:36] Johanson: Yeah.

[1:15:36] Polhamus: That's all the questions we have for you.

[1:15:38] Johanson: Yeah. And look forward to continuing it further. If you have any questions or follow up, Will and I are available.

Recently Uploaded Interviews