Jul. 10, 2006
Money Talk Clouds Benefits of Reform
By Chris Heagarty
RALEIGH – Time is winding down for the 2006 session of the N.C. General Assembly and, just like every year, the final days are filled with a flurry of activity. The “Year of Reform” hasn’t quite lived up to its promise. Even though dozens of strong ethics, lobbying, and campaign reforms were introduced by lawmakers, very few have made the long journey from bill to law.
It is hard enough convincing legislators to change laws that benefit them directly. Legislative pay is low, expense funds have not kept up with rising gas costs, and few legislators can work a real job and still have the time off they need to come to Raleigh for months at a time. Changing laws that restrict things like gifts or meals to legislators, or that require more time or attention to detail when raising campaign funds, are seldom popular with lawmakers, even if it’s designed to help restore public trust and confidence in government.
It will take some time for the dust to settle to see what has really emerged from the House and Senate and what the governor ultimately signs into law.
At the time I write this, there will have been some action on proposals such as prohibiting the use of campaign money for personal use by legislators, banning some gifts of more than $10 from lobbyists to legislators and state employees, and requiring that campaign treasurers receive training, because hopefully if they know the law they won’t break the law, and if they do then they can’t blame it on ignorance.
Other proposals are still in flux. Will the legislature curb how much money lobbyists can donate to political campaigns, and perhaps regulate their fundraising activities, so legislators are not dependent on lobbyists for their re-election? Will they get a handle on electioneering by 527 groups?
One interesting idea is a proposal for setting up a pilot program to test a “Voter-Owned Elections” system for legislative races, where candidates agree to voluntary caps on fundraising and to reduce the amount of money from special interests in their campaigns, in exchange for the financial aid to run a good race.
Two state House and two state Senate districts would be picked by a bipartisan group to test this system in 2008. In those seats, candidates who don’t want to participate in the program can run the same way they do now. Candidates who do want to participate would have to raise money in small amounts from voters in their districts, rather than from outside their community or outside of the state.
If they can show strong support by raising enough money from enough people to be viewed as a serious candidate, they can qualify for financial aid. If they get attacked by 527 groups or millionaires from outside the district, they can qualify for some additional matching funds to defend themselves.
The bill would also regulate 527 groups, and treat electioneering by these groups just like electioneering done by other political committees and candidates, and require these groups to disclose who they really are and where their money comes from – so that all these groups play by the same set of rules.
So what’s the problem?
Some legislators argue that any regulation of campaigns is a violation of free speech. Others worry that any time an election law is changed it is secretly being done to benefit one party or another. But the biggest argument is that a program like this costs money. Even though it wouldn’t cost anything until 2008, legislators balk at where the money would come from.
And that’s a fair point, because no one wants money to be diverted from important government services like education or health.
But is that a legitimate concern, or a cop out? How many millions of dollars are spent on other budget items, specifically those sought by big campaign donors?
Consider that N.C. taxpayers will spend more than $5 million this year to subsidize out-of-state students, mostly athletes, on scholarships. And this should grow to over $20 million when fully operational. A fraction of that would fully fund the reform bill.
Is it a coincidence that this bill to aid highly recruited athletes to our state colleges was passed shortly after two new political action committees were founded – funded by big boosters from UNC-Chapel Hill and NCSU – and became some of the top money-givers in the state? Or just lucky timing?
When we see budgets filled with goodies for special pet projects and for groups with big campaign spending accounts, we have to ask ourselves not can we afford to enact campaign reform, but can we afford not to?
Chris Heagarty is the executive director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a Raleigh-based nonprofit and nonpartisan organization dedicated to improving elections in North Carolina.
743 W. Johnson St.
Suite E
Raleigh, NC 27603
919.839.1200