Keeping Order in the Court

When I talk to folks about recent scandals in Raleigh, half say they are surprised, not understanding the problems created when so much pressure is put on legislators to raise money. The other half think it is just business as usual and have already lost confidence in the integrity of the legislature, an institution in which I proudly served.

It will take hard work to restore the image of the legislature and to rebuild public confidence in the system that chooses our elected officials. Reforms are necessary.

This unfortunate chapter in our state history underscores how very important it is that we keep our courts fair and impartial, and free from political pressure.

People seeking to influence legislators routinely give them large sums of money and we are left to either trust them or wonder if something improper has taken place. Imagine the same thing happening in a courtroom, where we might find ourselves wondering how much money one side gave to the judge’s election campaign?

A study by the N.C. Center for Voter Education found that nearly nine out of 10 state voters -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- believe that campaign contributions can too often lead to conflicts of interest for judges. Good and honest judges will read these numbers and may be insulted and offended, but they need to know that this is the public perception. Additional data reveals that voters want more information about judicial candidates.

Fast Facts: The Public Campaign Fund

The Public Campaign Fund:

pays for the state judicial voter guide, featuring all of the candidates for the N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals
offers public campaign financing to candidates for the N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals who agree to strict fund raising and spending limits

The state judicial voter guide, made possible by the Public Campaign Fund, is produced by the N.C. State Board of Elections and is mailed to homes across North Carolina in the weeks before Election Day.

In addition to being online, about 4 million copies of the judicial voter guide were mailed in the 2006 general election.

Funding was not sufficient, however, to mail the primary election version of the guide to voters, and was available only online or in limited quantities at some county board of elections offices.

The Public Campaign Fund provided campaign funds to judicial candidates for the first time in the 2004 election. That year, 12 of 16 candidates opted into the program, with four of the five winners taking part. In 2006, nine of 12 candidates on the general election ballot for appellate judicial seats attempted to qualify, eight succeeded.

In order to take part in the program, candidates must demonstrate a reasonable level of public support by raising a certain amount of qualifying funds in contributions ranging from $10 to $500, from at least 350 registered North Carolina voters.

Financing for the Public Campaign Fund comes from various sources, but the majority of funding comes from a check-off option on the state income tax form. For each person who marks “yes,” $3 is designated for the fund. Marking “yes” does not affect the amount of taxes paid or refund received.

Learn more online at www.ncjudges.org.

How can we give voters the information they need to make sure the most qualified judges win, and how can we reduce conflicts of interest -- real or perceived -- in the courts?

We can help stand up for better courts when we file our state income taxes, by saying “yes” to the Public Campaign Fund. The Public Campaign Fund allows judicial candidates to reject big money and qualify for public funds without the troubling conflicts created by large special-interest contributions.

The fund pays for the state judicial voter guide, featuring all of the candidates for our state’s highest courts. Produced by the State Board of Elections, the guide gives candidates a vehicle to tell us all, in their own words, what their qualifications are and why we should vote for them, without having to resort to TV ads or junk mail.

As long as we elect our judges, there will always be ways for people to influence these contests. Last year we saw troubling 527 electioneering activity in the form of a quarter-million dollars or so spent on a blitz of TV ads in the days before the election, aimed at benefiting candidates favored by certain big contributors and activists. Though all the candidates the 527 group endorsed were well qualified, this is a bad way to influence judicial elections.

However, the good of the Public Campaign Fund is well documented. Contributions from lawyers who might appear before these judges plummeted from 40 percent of the candidates’ total money in 2002 to just 11 percent in 2004. Similarly, the amount of campaign money from business and labor groups trying to influence these elections also dropped. That’s a good result.

Last year, nearly 4 million copies of the state judicial voter guide were mailed to homes across North Carolina, in addition to being available online. That’s another good result.

But in order for the Public Campaign Fund to continue to reduce special-interest influence in our elections and empower voters with facts on the candidates, it must receive the support of the people of North Carolina.

During this year’s tax season, many North Carolinians showed their support by saying “yes” to the Public Campaign Fund option on their state income tax form. The reward for saying “yes” is knowing you’ve done your part to help protect the integrity of our courts, and for that we at the Center for Voter Education sincerely thank you.

The Public Campaign Fund has proven to be a model of smart, sensible reform that can help ensure equal justice for all in North Carolina. Here’s wishing it continued success.

The Hon. Robert Morgan is a former U.S. senator and is the president emeritus of the N.C. Center for Voter Education.

Keeping Order in the Court

Commentary by Hon. Robert Morgan

Fast Facts: The Public Campaign Fund

Chart: Impact of the Public Campaign Fund



	Keeping Order in the Court Commentary by Hon. Robert Morgan When I talk to folks about recent scandals in Raleigh, half say they are surprised, not understanding the problems created when so much pressure is put on legislators to raise money. The other half think it is just business as usual and have already lost confidence in the integrity of the legislature, an institution in which I proudly served. It will take hard work to restore the image of the legislature and to rebuild public confidence in the system that chooses our elected officials. Reforms are necessary. This unfortunate chapter in our state history underscores how very important it is that we keep our courts fair and impartial, and free from political pressure. People seeking to influence legislators routinely give them large sums of money and we are left to either trust them or wonder if something improper has taken place. Imagine the same thing happening in a courtroom, where we might find ourselves wondering how much money one side gave to the judge’s election campaign? A study by the N.C. Center for Voter Education found that nearly nine out of 10 state voters -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- believe that campaign contributions can too often lead to conflicts of interest for judges. Good and honest judges will read these numbers and may be insulted and offended, but they need to know that this is the public perception. Additional data reveals that voters want more information about judicial candidates. Fast Facts: The Public Campaign Fund The Public Campaign Fund: pays for the state judicial voter guide, featuring all of the candidates for the N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals offers public campaign financing to candidates for the N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals who agree to strict fund raising and spending limits The state judicial voter guide, made possible by the Public Campaign Fund, is produced by the N.C. State Board of Elections and is mailed to homes across North Carolina in the weeks before Election Day. In addition to being online, about 4 million copies of the judicial voter guide were mailed in the 2006 general election. Funding was not sufficient, however, to mail the primary election version of the guide to voters, and was available only online or in limited quantities at some county board of elections offices. The Public Campaign Fund provided campaign funds to judicial candidates for the first time in the 2004 election. That year, 12 of 16 candidates opted into the program, with four of the five winners taking part. In 2006, nine of 12 candidates on the general election ballot for appellate judicial seats attempted to qualify, eight succeeded. In order to take part in the program, candidates must demonstrate a reasonable level of public support by raising a certain amount of qualifying funds in contributions ranging from $10 to $500, from at least 350 registered North Carolina voters. Financing for the Public Campaign Fund comes from various sources, but the majority of funding comes from a check-off option on the state income tax form. For each person who marks “yes,” $3 is designated for the fund. Marking “yes” does not affect the amount of taxes paid or refund received. Learn more online at www.ncjudges.org. How can we give voters the information they need to make sure the most qualified judges win, and how can we reduce conflicts of interest -- real or perceived -- in the courts? We can help stand up for better courts when we file our state income taxes, by saying “yes” to the Public Campaign Fund. The Public Campaign Fund allows judicial candidates to reject big money and qualify for public funds without the troubling conflicts created by large special-interest contributions. The fund pays for the state judicial voter guide, featuring all of the candidates for our state’s highest courts. Produced by the State Board of Elections, the guide gives candidates a vehicle to tell us all, in their own words, what their qualifications are and why we should vote for them, without having to resort to TV ads or junk mail. As long as we elect our judges, there will always be ways for people to influence these contests. Last year we saw troubling 527 electioneering activity in the form of a quarter-million dollars or so spent on a blitz of TV ads in the days before the election, aimed at benefiting candidates favored by certain big contributors and activists. Though all the candidates the 527 group endorsed were well qualified, this is a bad way to influence judicial elections. However, the good of the Public Campaign Fund is well documented. Contributions from lawyers who might appear before these judges plummeted from 40 percent of the candidates’ total money in 2002 to just 11 percent in 2004. Similarly, the amount of campaign money from business and labor groups trying to influence these elections also dropped. That’s a good result. Last year, nearly 4 million copies of the state judicial voter guide were mailed to homes across North Carolina, in addition to being available online. That’s another good result. But in order for the Public Campaign Fund to continue to reduce special-interest influence in our elections and empower voters with facts on the candidates, it must receive the support of the people of North Carolina. During this year’s tax season, many North Carolinians showed their support by saying “yes” to the Public Campaign Fund option on their state income tax form. The reward for saying “yes” is knowing you’ve done your part to help protect the integrity of our courts, and for that we at the Center for Voter Education sincerely thank you. The Public Campaign Fund has proven to be a model of smart, sensible reform that can help ensure equal justice for all in North Carolina. Here’s wishing it continued success. The Hon. Robert Morgan is a former U.S. senator and is the president emeritus of the N.C. Center for Voter Education.
	Chart: Impact of the Public Campaign Fund The Public Campaign Fund was first used in 2004 and made an immediate difference in the sources of contrubutions to the contenders for the N.C. Supreme Court. Click here to view a chart showing the impact of the Public Campaign Fund in the races for the state's highest court.
© Copyright 2007 N.C. Center for Voter Education www.ncvotered.com