Voter-Owned Elections Proposed for Council of State Races

The role of money in politics has been the topic of much discussion around the state capital lately. Recent ethics charges and the pressure of high-dollar campaigns have policy makers thinking hard about the never-ending quest for campaign money and the effect that the money chase has on our system of government.

Although most of the attention in the media has swirled around the state legislature, other areas of the government are equally challenged by the influx of money in elections.

Campaign reformers pay special attention to political races where the office is immensely powerful but, for whatever reason, the public has little information about the candidates and issues in the race. Many of the offices that make up the Council of State fall into this category.

The Council of State consists of 10 executive branch officials. They are elected statewide every four years. With the exception of the governor and lieutenant governor, the offices are relatively obscure and the campaigns often do not attract a great deal of grassroots or media attention. Consequently, it is difficult to raise campaign funds from anywhere but special interests with a stake in the outcome of the election.

In the case of the Council of State, those with a vested interest are often the very same people and industries that are regulated by these agencies. A recent report by Democracy North Carolina, a nonpartisan government watchdog group, found that a significant chunk of campaign contributions to Council of State candidates comes from people and organizations in the same industries regulated by these agencies.

“There is a real danger that citizens will start to view these elections as a classic pay-to-play system,” says Damon Circosta, senior research fellow at the N.C. Center for Voter Education. “When a voter sees 80 percent or 90 percent of a Council of State candidate’s money coming from organizations regulated by that office, they aren’t going to believe that the donors are giving out of civic responsibility. People understand that those being regulated want access and influence. Campaign donations are viewed as an investment, and people believe these folks are looking for a return on their investment.”

Council of State members don’t usually find themselves in the public spotlight. Very few average citizens can name the auditor or commissioner of insurance, let alone be persuaded to contribute to his campaign.

This leaves special-interest money, and the perception of influence that comes with it, as the main source of revenue for many office seekers. Perhaps it is no surprise that big carnival vendors have funneled contributions to candidates for commissioner of agriculture, who may determine who gets the State Fair contract, or that groups cited for numerous workplace safety violations direct PAC money and employee contributions to candidates for labor commissioner. But when these races don’t even show up as a blip on the public’s radar screen, then special-interest money is pretty much the only game in town.

Fortunately, there is a solution. Voter-owned elections give candidates who refuse to participate in the special-interest money chase the option to run their campaigns without money that may have strings attached. A voter-owned candidate is tasked with raising a significant amount of small-dollar contributions from citizens, and only citizens, in order to demonstrate that they have broad public support.

After raising the qualifying funds, the candidate agrees to stop raising money and to strictly limit spending. The Public Campaign Fund would then provide the candidate with enough money to run a competitive statewide campaign.

Candidates for the state judiciary have operated under this system for the last two election cycles. The judicial program has been successful in that it has reduced the percentage of contributions that come from attorneys and groups with a financial interest in court decisions and has provided candidates more time to spend on the campaign trail as opposed to raising funds.

This legislative session, state lawmakers are considering expansion of the Public Campaign Fund to include some Council of State races and possibly a pilot program for the legislature. The exact proposal for the Council of State is still being debated.

Questions about which races should be included, how much money is appropriate, and the revenue source for such a measure are still being discussed. With the public’s increasing concern about money in politics, the legislature is itching to move forward on some sort of electoral reform.

With the success of voter-owned judicial elections, and similar reforms in other states such as Maine and Arizona, voter-owned elections could become a key component of a North Carolina electoral reform package.

Chart: More N.C. voters know the 'American Idol' winner than know most members of the Council of State

This 2005 survey, commissioned by the N.C. Center for Voter Education, reveals that most members of the Council of State suffer from a lack of name recognition among Tar Heel voters. Supporters of public campaign financing of races for the Council of State say that this virtual anonymity opens the door to the very industries regulated by these officials to sway these elections by pouring money into the contests.

Click here to learn more about the study.