Jul. 9, 2007
Chapel Hill Could Blaze New Trail for Campaign Reform
By Chris Heagarty
RALEIGH - Love it or hate it, Chapel Hill has always been a little bit different. A bill being considered by the N.C. Senate this week might make it even a little more different by authorizing Chapel Hill to create a public campaign financing program for its 2009 and 2011 town council elections.
This modest bill doesn't force anyone to do anything. It simply gives the town the ability to pursue a system of campaign reform, if they choose it. The council's support for the change has been pretty universal, so if the legislation passes, they'll likely implement it before the next election, unless this year's elections shake things up more than anyone is expecting.
Several other local governments around the country have some sort of public campaign financing program that either provides matching funds to candidates who obey certain fundraising and spending limits or that rewards candidates with financial aid to run a competitive campaign, if they collect a lot of small contributions and forgo chasing big contributors and special interest money.
Local governments in North Carolina have been one of the last places where any civic-minded voter, with the energy to do it, could run for office without having to be independently wealthy or backed by big political action committees. However, even here the trend is changing.
In Raleigh and Charlotte, big campaign war chests prevent challengers from even thinking about taking on the mayors or incumbent city councilors. Knowing that they would start tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars behind their opponent, potential candidates don't bother to run, giving the incumbents a free pass. While it's possible that our two largest cities have flawless public servants with universal support, it would be nice if voters at least had a choice to either validate their popularity, or send them a message.
But it's not just in our largest cities where there are problems. Around our state, the cost of municipal elections has grown steadily over the past decade, usually fueled by contributions from those who are regulated by, or are doing business with, the government. Half-a-million-dollar races are not uncommon.
Sometimes the money doesn't just flow to candidates. In the Town of Cary, a group believed to be funded by developers spent at least $83,000 in 1999 on ads aimed at a mayoral candidate, and didn't have to reveal its members' names or comply with other laws governing the behavior of political action committees because, they argued, its ads clearly criticizing one candidate “pushed opinions about issues.” Developers have routinely supplied polling and paid for commercials to support candidates of their choice.
While builders, developers and realtors have been the heavy hitters in local government elections, providing political muscle and ample campaign cash for pro-growth, pro-business candidates, there's a new player on the scene that has been giving them, literally, quite a run for their money.
Developers are finding their political turf in local government elections challenged by unions. In Raleigh's last election, voters' mailboxes were flooded with postcards of cigar-chomping fat cats surrounded by piles of money, thanking the Republican candidates for their support. Not only was it nasty and a questionable claim, it was paid for by an international union from Washington, D.C., without a single branch in North Carolina, nor any members in Raleigh.
"What in the world is an ultra-liberal, carpet-bagging, out-of-state union doing mailing into a nonpartisan local race?" asked one of the targeted Republican candidates.
Whether liberal or conservative, paid for by developers or unions, recent Supreme Court rulings suggest that our local government elections may be awash in special interest cash as “sponsored speech” replaces free speech in elections.
Chapel Hill’s experiment with public campaign financing won’t -- and can’t -- end special interests dumping large sums of money into these races. But it can provide candidates a way to “meet speech with more speech” and provide an alternative way for people who want to run for office to fund their campaigns without relying on such groups. And with more candidates and more debate, voters can have real choices on Election Day.
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