N.C. Takes Different Path in Court Campaigns

By J. Barlow Herget
Published: Apr. 4, 2005

RALEIGH - Remember the bogeyman?

If you didn’t get in bed on time or stayed out too late as a child, you were warned that the bogeyman would get you.

Well, this is a bogeyman column about judicial campaigns.

The first scary story is about the 2004 Supreme Court race in West Virginia. Like North Carolina, West Virginia is among 38 states that have elections for judges -- either to elect them directly to office, or to retain them once they’re appointed.

The race for a West Virginia Supreme Court seat drew national notoriety because of its costs and the tone of campaign advertising.

Democratic incumbent Warren McGraw faced Republican challenger Brent Benjamin. The candidates themselves raised and spent about $2.8 million. Independent, special interest campaigns spent an even larger amount -- $5.5 million.

What marked the campaign, however, was the nastiness of the campaign advertising. One ad in particular portrayed McGraw as someone who had loosed a young sex criminal onto school children.

The ad began with the ominous line: “He sexually molested multiple West Virginia children,” according to The New York Times. If you listened further, you realized that the opening statement referred to someone else, not McGraw

Other, similar ads continued the smear. Most were sponsored by an organization sweetly called “And for the Sake of the Kids.” A wealthy coalmine owner alone paid for $1.7 million worth of the advertising.

The ads were nonsense, but, as with much negative advertising, effective. McGraw lost.

Child molester advertising scared voters in an Illinois Supreme Court race, too. The campaign between Republican Lloyd Karmeier and Democrat Gordon Maag set the record for campaign spending in 2004, according to Jesse Rutledge of Justice at Stake, a judicial watchdog group in Washington.

“The two candidates combined raised $9.3 million,” says Rutledge. “It was more than what was raised in 19 out of 34 U.S. Senate races.”

Both Illinois candidates and the business groups supporting them accused the other of being pawns of moneyed interests.

“The interest groups pumped millions into ‘issue’ ads,” explains Rutledge. “Chamber of Commerce ads said trial lawyers are getting rich at the people’s expense, and trial lawyer ads blamed insurance companies. Both said the other was bought and paid for.”

Such advertising, usually appearing in the costly court campaigns, “undermines people’s faith in finding a fair and impartial judge,” says Rutledge.

He points to these races as leading national trends in judicial campaigns. “Figures indicate that candidates raised at least $42 million, compared to $29 million in 2002,” he says.

“The amount of money going into TV advertising has gone from $10.7 million in 2000 to over $21 million in 2004,” Rutledge continues. “Eleven candidates raised more than $1 million each.” Nine states set new records for judicial campaign spending last year.

There was one state, however, that kept the bogeyman under the bed: North Carolina.

Using their new publicly financed system for the first time in 2004, judicial candidates here limited campaign spending and actually spent less than in the 2000 election.

They also kept a civil tongue in almost all of their comments and advertising.

All but one of the winning candidates participated in the new system that requires candidates to limit their spending in exchange for accepting a designated amount of public funds. N.C. Supreme Court candidates received about $201,000 from the Public Campaign Fund, and N.C. Appeals Court candidates received about $138,000.

In one Supreme Court race, the two candidates raised less than $600,000 combined. Incumbent Justice Sarah Parker reported raising $281,704 by the end of 2004; her opponent, Judge John Tyson, raised $286,418.

Appeals Court candidates raised and spent even less. Final financial reports at the state Board of Elections show:

Linda McGee, the winner, raised $208,674 and spent $207,087; opponent Bill Parker raised $175,645 and spent $175,324.

Wanda Bryant, the winner, raised $194,413 and spent $207,103; opponent Alice Stubbs raised $208,793 and spent $212,587.

Barbara Ann Jackson, the winner, raised $31,942 and spent $30,556; incumbent Alan Thornburg raised $205,250 and spent $204,421.

Says Jackson, “We had a very civil election. All of the candidates were cordial to one another. Judge Thornburg was very gracious to me throughout the campaign.”

She also believes that the limit on money also limited the type of advertising. If a candidate has money for only one television ad, he or she will spend it not on negative ads but one introducing the candidate to the voters.

But even with the support of both parties, the success of North Carolina’s new election system depends on voters’ willingness to put money in the Public Campaign Fund.

Taxpayers can check-off a box on their tax returns that will direct the state to put $3 per return into the fund. It does not affect the taxes you owe or your refund.

But if too few people say “yes” on their taxes, then candidates won’t be able to rely on there being enough money in the fund to use it. If the program is not fully funded, you can bet well-financed groups with deceptive names will try to worm their way into North Carolina. And then our judicial candidates won’t be able to answer half-truths, no-truths, and other nasty ads.

If North Carolinians don’t support their new system, they can expect to see the bogeyman in their next judicial elections.