• Home
• Voting & Democracy
  • Go Vote
  • N.C. Voter Guide
  • VoterRadio.com
• Research & Publications
  • Follow the Money
  • NCCVE Research
• Multimedia
  • The Voter Update Podcast
• For the Media
  • News Releases
  • Media Advisories
  • Contact NCCVE
• About Us
  • Board of Directors
  • Staff
  • Contribute to NCCVE
  • Contact Us
• Search

May 14, 2007

Make the Call for Better Elections

By Chris Heagarty

RALEIGH - We like to say “it’s only a game,” but how bent out of shape do we get when we think an umpire blew a call in a big game? Bad calls inflame passions. A controversial study about racial bias by NBA referees generated a lot of public reaction. A caution flag in a Nextel Cup event that’s thrown at a race-changing moment conjures up all sorts of conspiracy theories. The idea that the officiating of a sport might be tainted can create public outrage.

So why is it that while we reject even the hint of something unfair in sports officiating, we tolerate so much more when it comes to those who are supposed to officiate over our government? Why do we accept that hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars will be spent by some special interests to influence someone designated to referee important public decisions?

How much confidence would you have in the ability of an umpire to call a player safe if the player belonged to the team that got the umpire his job?

North Carolina voters firmly believe that campaign contributions influence government decisions. A 2005 survey by the N.C. Center for Voter Education revealed that a whopping 94 percent of voters say campaign contributions influence the decisions of elected officials, with 57 percent saying that such contributions have a great deal of influence.

So who is acting as referee over our government? Who holds them accountable for the fairness of their decision making -- voters or the big donors who pay for their campaigns?

Campaigns cost a lot of money and the cost of running for office increases each election.  Unless a candidate is independently wealthy, how does one raise the money to run a statewide campaign? Those that do run often find out that there are sources of campaign money out there, but from organizations the government is supposed to regulate.

This is especially true when you consider our elected Council of State members. A candidate for governor or U.S. senator may inspire rank-and-file voters to send some checks, based on a vision for our state or nation. But let’s be honest -- how many people are going to get inspired by a vision for the state auditor’s office or commissioner of labor?

Instead, candidates for these offices usually face the choice of limiting their own fundraising and having a hard time educating voters about their candidacy or accepting funds from the special interests regulated by these offices.

There is nothing illegal about a politician taking campaign money from groups he or she regulates. But even if an elected official can honestly say that no decision has ever been influenced by a contribution, it still creates public doubt in the fairness and integrity of the office. The decisions of elected officials, even if wise and just, will still be questioned if any beneficiaries of the decision contributed to their campaign.

State lawmakers are considering a solution used by a number of states that would create a “clean money” option for candidates. That is, it would create a public campaign fund free of any taint of special-interest influence that candidates could use if they agreed to limit their fundraising and adhered to important rules for ethical campaigning.

Under such a system, candidates would raise small contributions from lots of people, rather than special interests, in order to prove that they are qualified. All participating candidates could earn an equal amount of public funds to finance their campaigns. Participating candidates could not take money from out of state or from political action committees.

If the role of special interests is limited in campaign fundraising, they will have less influence on elections, allowing leaders to devote more time to solving the problems of regular voters. The public will have more confidence in the fairness of government decisions.

Of course, such a system would only be a voluntary option, and candidates could decide they’d rather fund their election through special-interest dollars.  But by giving candidates a choice about how to finance their campaigns, you also give voters a real choice in selecting candidates with whom they can have more confidence.  And that’s a call that should be easy to make.

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.