Apr. 1, 2003
Following the Money Not Always Easy
By J. Barlow Herget
RALEIGH - When there was a murder in the vicarage, Agatha Christie would always look for the money and who would get it.
The same sleuthing applies in politics.
If you follow campaign contributions in today’s political elections, you will learn a lot about legislation, regulations and insider details of government. Campaign gifts from accounting businesses and from executives such as Texan Ken Lay led to the loose rules and lax oversight that gave us the Arthur Andersen and Enron scandals.
Closer to home, the large, unexplained cash contributions to Agriculture Commissioner Meg Scott Phipps’ 2000 campaign committee have now led to criminal indictments of two of her former employees.
"Those large sums of cash didn’t have a name to them, and it raised eyebrows," says Kim Westbrook, Director of Campaign Finance at the State Board of Elections.
Disclosure of campaign finances is a reform that works. Indeed, when the federal Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 was debated last year, one of the few issues on which opponents and proponents agreed was public disclosure of campaign finances. Let the voters see who is giving what to whom.
Following the money, however, still requires some digging and there remain loopholes in the reporting system. For example, if you wanted to learn how much money was spent to elect Republican Elizabeth Dole as North Carolina’s newest U.S. Senator, you couldn’t find that information on one report.
During campaign years, candidates must file quarterly reports. The final report for the November election for federal offices was due January 11th this year. Senator Dole reported that she had spent $13,688,920. (Democrat Erskine Bowles’ spent $13,247,867.)
What the candidates’ reports don’t include, however, are all the sums spent by political parties on behalf of their respective candidates. Political parties must report expenditures that are coordinated or directed by candidates’ campaigns.
Says Steve Weiss, communications director for the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, DC, "The problem is if a party spends money on a television or radio station or gives money to a direct mail group, the party won’t say which candidate that expenditure was for."
In short, the expenditure is reported, but it takes careful tracking to figure out which candidate received help. Money that is spent under the title of "party building" or "get out the vote" efforts doesn’t have to be listed on a candidate’s own finance report.
Then there are independent "issue advocates". These are groups such as Right to Life or the Sierra Club, and these advocates may run campaigns separate from the candidates. Issue advocacy campaigns cannot endorse or call for the defeat of specific candidates -- and many of these groups do stick to the issues.
But in other cases, most voters have little trouble discerning whom the groups favor or disfavor. Yet, advocacy spending is not figured into a candidate’s expenditures, either.
North Carolina disclosure rules face similar entanglements, but the state does require candidates to list on their reports any help received in direct or in-kind contributions from their respective political parties. If Gov. Mike Easley runs for re-election in 2004, for instance, he must disclose monies he receives from the state or national Democratic Party organizations.
North Carolina, according to Westbrook of the State Board, also prohibits corporations from giving money to state political campaigns. Period.
The State Board of Elections also is implementing a new system and software that will keep track of contributors’ total campaign spending. If Bobby Bigbucks, for instance, gives money to candidates for governor, the General Assembly, attorney general, county board of commissioners and sheriff, you will be able to get a total from the State Board of Elections indicating how much he gave in political contributions.
With the ban of soft money contributions to national political parties, election watchdogs are fearful that much of that money will now flow into sham issue advocacy non-profits. Paul Sanford, director of Federal Election Commission (FEC) Watch at the Center for Responsive Politics, says, "That’s not going to show up on a candidate’s report or attributed to a candidate."
Westbrook agrees. "More and more groups engage in that kind of activity. It’s difficult to determine how much money is spent on a candidate’s campaign by independent expenditures."
Disclosure rules served the public in shining a light on Agriculture Commissioner Phipps’ campaign finances. That light, says Westbrook, has paid dividends: "The fact that the investigation occurred has prompted more people to be mindful of disclosure rules. They’re not to be taken lightly."
Barlow Herget served two terms on the Raleigh City Council and is a contributor to "The North Carolina Century."
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200