May 15, 2006
Do Two Political Wrongs Make a Right?
By Chris Heagarty
RALEIGH – The political enemies of state Representative Richard Morgan, who just defeated him in his Republican primary election, have called him a tyrant. Once, the capitol press lampooned him, having one of their members dress up as “Caesar Morgan” and be carried around eating grapes, and dismissing anything that displeased him to the black hole of the Rules Committee, which he chaired under Speaker Harold Brubaker.
But voters didn't oust Morgan based on a lack of sunny disposition. He was accused of selling out his party by backing Democrat Jim Black in a move that allowed the two men to serve as “co-speakers”, rather than support his fellow Republicans. The Republicans that did not support him often found themselves, and their party's agenda, on the outside looking in.
The feud got worse when Morgan used his newfound Democratic allies to help target political enemies of his own party during the redistricting process, changing their districts to make sure that they did not come back. This raised the stakes to a new level, and Morgan began drawing serious fire from the state GOP.
After a close call in 2004, Morgan was defeated in this year's primary. A majority of voters in his district thought it was time for him to go.
But will any voters care about the means to that end? Will anyone really notice or care how "the assassination of Caesar Morgan” took place?
Will they care that much of the campaign against Morgan was funded solely by one individual, a very wealthy political contributor in Raleigh who ran his own independent campaign under the name of “Republican Legislative Majority” or RLM?
Most voters probably won't blink at that. Wealthy contributors, both Democrats and Republicans, have been influencing elections for years. But the RLM was different.
Under our law, if you wanted to give money directly to a legislative candidate, you could give no more than $4,000 per election cycle. If you wanted to give money to a PAC that backs candidates friendly to a cause you support, you could also give up to $4,000. Also, it is against state law for corporations or unions to give money directly to candidates or PACs.
By setting up a brand new so-called 527 organization, and making up a name for it, this wealthy political contributor got around the law. He spent above and beyond the contribution limits, and was able to use corporate money, to influence the outcome of the election.
If private citizens want to spend money to make a political point in support of or against a candidate, they have a right to do so, so long as they do it in their own name, and they do it with their own money.
But doing it under the name of a friendly sounding group, and using corporate dollars which can be tax-deductible while regular political contributions to candidates would not be deductible, seems to exploit a loophole. It may be legal, but it doesn't seem quite fair, given the existing law that everyone else has to follow.
Consider this: each state legislator is supposed to represent a certain community in North Carolina. While voters, not out-of-town contributors, get to cast a ballot, voters do not have a great deal of information about the candidates. Campaign contributions buy a lot of advertising and mail that voters often rely on, believing that people couldn't print it if it weren't true.
If you have unlimited contributions, you can distribute an unlimited amount of potentially inaccurate or outrageous material, influencing those who actually can cast a vote.
When one man from outside a voting district can spend more money than any of the people living within the district, then who is really selecting the legislators? And if one man has more influence determining who wins and who loses than any of the voters, then, realistically, who will legislators listen to when the chips are down?
Yet, when someone with so much influence and control over an election sides with the majority of the voters in the district, it's hard for voters to judge him or her too harshly. But it raises the specter of what could happen when such a person might want something the people of that district do not want, and might threaten legislators to play ball, or face tens of thousands of dollars of attack ads.
Voters may have absolutely no love for Richard Morgan, who doesn't exactly exude a lovable personality. But can they make the distinction between defeating a candidate they don't like, and running an honorable campaign?
In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, the crowds rose up in protest about Caesar's assassination. In North Carolina, the tactics used to bring down Caesar Morgan may not draw a single public protest.
Chris Heagarty is the executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving the quality of elections in North Carolina.
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200