Jan. 13, 2003
Wealth and Voting Rights
By J. Barlow Herget
RALEIGH - The North Carolina Constitution promises its citizens in Section 11 that "as political rights are not dependent upon or modified by property, no property qualifications shall affect the right to vote and hold office."
Now that’s a high sounding statement as constitutional language should be. It has also given a little known non-profit group a legal foot in the door to North Carolina politics where the organization wants to radically change current campaign financing.
The group is the National Voting Rights Institute (NVRI) of Boston, and none other than former N.C. Chief Justice Jim Exum has been arguing its case. On January 6th, the NC Supreme Court announced it would not hear a final appeal (Exum and NVRI were defeated at both the trial and appeal level), putting an end to the case, but not to the ongoing problems the plaintiffs believe need to be addressed.
John C. Bonifaz is the Harvard Law School graduate who is executive director of NVRI. He spoke at the December N.C. Common Cause Democracy Awards Dinner in Cary, and he argues that increasingly expensive politics has, in practice, become a pastime that only the rich can afford.
It is a timely message. North Carolina’s own Sen. John Edwards, who spent over $6 million of his own money to win election in 1998, has just launched a presidential bid for 2004. Estimates figure such a campaign to cost over $185 million, the amount President Bush spent in 2000.
The state also hosted this past year the most expensive U.S. Senate campaign in the country at $26.1 million. Republican winner Elizabeth Dole spent over $13.4 million; Democrat Erskine Bowles spent $12.7 million of which $6.15 was a personal loan.
The case presented by Bonifaz and Exum is Royal v. North Carolina. It is argued on behalf of former, future and would-be candidates for the General Assembly. The plaintiffs include Democrats, Republicans and independents and seven public interest groups.
Bonifaz compares today’s campaign financing with yesterday’s poll tax. That tax kept many poor people from voting, which was its purpose, according to poll tax opponents. Similarly, the cost of campaigns, even for the state legislature, has grown to the point where most citizens can no longer afford to effectively participate, he says.
To bolster his case, he points to the following facts:
* Less than one percent of the population contributes over 80 percent of the money in federal elections. A Charlotte Observer study in 2001 showed North Carolina elections were no different.
* Over 60 percent of contributions to winning congressional candidates came in amounts over $1,000.
* Candidates who raised the most money won 93 percent of the seats up for election in Congress in 2000.
Bonifaz further illustrates his point with a telling story about Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY, a fierce foe of campaign finance reform and public financing of campaigns. The senator was being deposed in one of Bonifaz’ lawsuits, and McConnell didn’t like it.
He was asked if he could name any schoolteacher who had ever given him a $1,000 political contribution. McConnell could not. He did not bother with such campaign details. Any fireman? No. Any janitor? No. Any waitress? No.
Could he name any corporate executive who gave him $1,000? No. Same reason. At this point, McConnell was reminded he was under oath. Annoyed, he looked at his attorney and asked if he had to answer the question. Yes, he had to answer.
McConnell remembered such an executive. Any more? Yes, and he began to list other names.
The deposition, claims Bonifaz, demonstrates citizens don’t matter much to today’s elected officials if such they cannot contribute campaign money. They cannot afford to make the large contributions that buy access to legislators and elected executives. They cannot afford to buy tickets to the fund-raising parties to meet the candidates face-to-face. They can afford to do little but vote.
In fairness to McConnell, he probably knows teachers, firemen, janitors, etc., and he may listen to their opinions and consider their counsel even if he doesn’t know any who has given him a $1,000 contribution. It also is true that since the beginning of the country’s history, people of property always have had more access to political power. And conversely, people of modest means can and do win elections in North Carolina and elsewhere.
Such citizens, Bonifaz and Exum argue, face very long odds of winning in the business of politics given the current campaign finance system. And the vast majority of citizens are similarly without voice in today’s "wealth primaries."
They believe, as Bonifaz states, "ultimately, the courts must recognize the reality of our degraded electoral system, must acknowledge that it discriminates against those who cannot ‘pay-to-play’ and must admit, at last, this system is constitutional no more."
Barlow Herget is a writer and a former member of the Raleigh City Council.
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200