Apr. 16, 2007
Leading the Way in Campaign Reform
By Chris Heagarty
RALEIGH - On the surface, it might not appear that North Carolina and New Mexico have much in common. But recent government action in the “Land of Enchantment” establishes the southwestern state alongside North Carolina as the two beacons of reform in the effort to address problems with state judicial elections.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson signed legislation last week making his state a leader in protecting the fairness and impartiality of state courts in America, according to the national watchdog organization Justice at Stake.
“Legal and political leaders in New Mexico have recognized that keeping judicial elections clean means that voters will have greater faith in their state courts,” said Bert Brandenburg, executive director of Justice at Stake.
North Carolina, the only other state with such a program, adopted judicial public financing in 2002. Brandenburg noted that through two election cycles, the North Carolina system has been heralded by voters and candidates alike for easing fundraising pressure on judicial contenders, reducing conflicts of interest, and minimizing the influence of national special-interest dollars in judicial campaigns.
Other states considering judicial public financing include Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Montana and Wisconsin. Legislation to establish a study commission on judicial public financing in Washington is also under consideration.
North Carolina’s system isn’t perfect, as last year’s elections saw a last-minute media blitz of electioneering by a 527 group attempting to influence our judicial elections. Yet, according to national studies, in 18 of the 22 states that use contestable elections to choose high-court judges, candidate fundraising has topped $1 million in at least one cycle since 2000. Many states are now seeing recurring million-dollar battles as partisans and interest groups seek to install their preferred candidates on the bench. North Carolina is not one of them.
The action by Gov. Richardson in New Mexico, alongside state legislators like bill sponsor Ben Lujan, is not just a victory for those concerned about special-interest influence of state judicial elections. This was an expansion of their existing voter-owned elections program of public campaign financing. It is another sign of the growing momentum of the movement for campaign reform nationwide.
Evidence of this can be seen here in North Carolina, where lawmakers are looking to address troubling pitfalls of money in politics that have led to a flurry of campaign scandals in the last few years.
At the national level, we have seen problems of influence peddling and attempts to buy and sell votes, most notably in the revelations about former high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In North Carolina, recent problems in the state legislature and the office of the former speaker of the House may be the most dramatic, but since 2000 a string of notable elected officials have found themselves convicted on corruption charges.
This climate has been made worse by campaigns that set new records for spending every election cycle. The pressure for elected officials and challengers to raise more and more money often leads them to turn to the only people that seem to care about many of these offices: the industries and professions that they regulate.
But North Carolina’s voter-owned election system for judges, which other states are working to emulate, provides a solution. Rather than candidates for commissioner of agriculture having to solicit contributions from vendors looking to win big government contracts, as was the case with former commissioner Meg Scott Phipps, a voter-owned election system can help eliminate conflicts of interest, both real and perceived.
How much of state Treasurer Richard Moore’s days have been spent recently answering questions about campaign contributions from donors involved in the bond and finance business? Even though he has satisfactorily answered all of them with detailed and immaculate records, the simple perception of impropriety when campaign money and government action intersect distracts from the business of the state, costing all of us.
Before New Mexico expanded their public financing program to judicial elections, they provided a matching funds program to their executive officers who regulate state businesses. Just as New Mexico learned from North Carolina’s experience, perhaps we should take a cue from Richardson’s state.
If we recognize that we want our judges to be above even the appearance of impropriety, shouldn’t we set the same standard for our state regulators?
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