For Immediate Release
March 26, 2003
Contact: Jesse Rutledge, N.C. Center for Voter Education,
(919) 839-1200
Center for Voter Education, Other Campaign Reform Groups Support Town of Cary’s Public Financing Plan
RALEIGH – The North Carolina Center for Voter Education, along with three other good government organizations, today filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief with Wake County Superior Court in support of the Town of Cary’s public funding election program (Click here to download the brief).
The town’s innovative municipal public funding plan was challenged by the State Board of Elections in the fall of 2002 when the Board ruled that some public funding reimbursements violated the state’s contribution limit law.
The two candidates impacted by the Board’s ruling, Julie Robison and Jack Smith, are both Councilors with the Town of Cary. They, along with the Town, appealed the State Board’s ruling, and oral arguments were heard in the case before a Superior Court judge in Wake County today.
The Center for Voter Education supports public funding as a means to counter special interest influence in the election process and to help restore the confidence of citizens in their elected officials and government. The Center submitted a joint brief with the North Carolina Good Government Fund, Common Cause North Carolina and the League of Women Voters of North Carolina.
“Public funding of political campaigns gives qualified candidates who agree to forego special interest contributions the resources they need to communicate with voters in campaign season,” said Chris Heagarty, the Center’s director. “Similar programs have worked well in other cities around the country, such as Austin, Tuscon, and Miami. We wanted to be sure these successes were part of the case for upholding Cary’s plan.”
Heagarty noted that the public opinion research by the Center consistently shows a high level of concern about the role of money in politics, as well as strong support for public campaign financing as a viable solution to the problem.
In its brief, the four groups argued the basic problem associated with the increasing cost of campaigns:
“The problems that go with expensive campaigns are well known and documented. The more expensive campaigns become, the fewer the number of citizens with the financial resources to become realistic candidates. For those who do become candidates, more and more time must be spent on fundraising, shifting the focus to soliciting dollars rather than communicating with voters.
As a consequence, the relatively few people who are able to contribute substantial sums of money gain the candidate’s attention and have greater influence. And, the more influence money has on the election, the lower the public confidence in the election process.”
It also criticized the State Board’s interpretation of Cary’s public financing plan:
“The State Board of Elections’ decision in the Cary case effectively eliminates public funding as an option for local governments faced with soaring campaign costs and growing public distrust of the electoral process. The State Board’s decision is directly contrary to the purpose of the contribution limits in the state campaign finance law. A statute which was intended to reduce the influence of large contributors in election campaigns instead has been construed by the State Board to prohibit the one form of campaign finance reform, public funding, which has proven effective in meeting that goal.”
- 30 –
* Mr. Smith is a Board member of the North Carolina Center for Voter Education. He joined the Center’s Board in May of 2002, prior to the State Board’s intervention in the case under consideration by the courts today. The Center has supported the Town of Cary’s public funding plan since it was passed by the Cary Town Council in December of 2000.
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200