Local Elections Go Big-Time

By J. Barlow Herget
Published: Sep. 10, 2001

RALEIGH - Recently, a pollster for one of the candidates running for a local office here called me. The caller was working for a national polling firm, one that I recognized. She was taking what is called a "benchmark" survey, testing public opinion not only about the candidates but issues they might use in the notorious 30-second advertising spots that will mark this year’s municipal and school board elections throughout North Carolina.

Such a survey costs between $12,000 and $20,000, depending on the number of people called and the length of the questions. Most professional pollsters call a minimum of 400 voters, and the typical survey lasts about 25 to 30 minutes. The cost of one such survey is more than I paid to run an entire campaign for the Raleigh City Council in 1989.

Local elections are employing more and more the practices and technology of big money elections. High profile races such as those for mayor in the state’s largest cities, for example, routinely employ television advertising.

Or take direct mail, the slick, colorful ads that arrive by post in the days before elections. In one of my own municipal campaigns in 1993, I hired Dave Gold of Austin, Tex., who is one of the true masters in the political direct mail profession. His client list included a governor and a president. He showed me that a simple letter to voters cannot compete with more sophisticated direct mail campaign literature that is designed to catch the reader’s attention even as he or she tosses it in the trash can.

These big-time election tools are further signs that North Carolina’s local election expenses are growing to unprecedented amounts just are federal and statewide campaigns. Raleigh mayoral candidates in 1999 spent a combined total of over $1 million. Candidates weren’t the only ones spending big money. In nearby Cary, population 94,536, an independent group called CARE spent $83,000 on ads in 1999. The growth in campaign expenses at the municipal and school board level raise the same red flags for democracy as those for statewide and federal office.

Likewise, to understand the growing financial interest in municipal campaigns, follow the money.

This is especially critical because few municipal offices in North Carolina pay a living salary. City Councilors in Raleigh, for instance, don’t run for office for the big salaries. They are paid an annual salary of about $12,000 including a travel allowance. Unless elected officials are personally wealthy and pay for their own campaigns, they increasingly must rely on financial donors to pay for their campaign expenses.

So, where does the money come from? Not surprisingly, it comes from people who have a financial interest in city business. For example, most of the big dollars today come from people interested in real estate development. A simple rezoning vote by City Council can instantly increase a landowner’s personal wealth. A quick approval of a land-use plan for a shopping center can be equally rewarding for a developer.

Then, there are the municipal decisions such as building new sports arenas that direct millions of tax dollars into a variety of interests, from direct recipients such as builders to indirect beneficiaries such as attorneys, bankers, hotel and restaurant owners.

A study last year by Raleigh reporters Jay Price and David Raynor showed that the biggest group of contributors to local candidates in the Triangle came from developers and builders during the county elections of 1998 and municipal elections of 1999. They gave 44 percent of the money that came from identifiable sources, meaning money that came from people giving $100 or more.

A breakdown of contributions showed the following:

* Development industry, $549,411;

* Retired people, $91,976;

* Attorneys, $75,854;

* Homemakers, $36,234;

* Health care, $29,858;

* Banking and finance, $29,100;

* Other, $403,141.

I suspect that some of those checks from homemakers and retired donors could also be attached to the development community, too.

Under our current campaign finance laws, these contributions are legal and disclosed. If the trend holds in municipal elections as it has in others, the contributions will only get larger and the disclosures more mundane. How can we break away from this trend? Cary has attempted to change this future by installing a publicly funded system for qualified candidates, to help eliminate the appearance of impropriety. It is voluntary, but those who participate must limit their spending to the amount they receive from the fund. This year will be the first time the system has been used, and four candidates have signed up for the program in its trial run.