More “Voter Owned” Elections in NC?
It seems almost depressing that in North Carolina politics, or indeed any body of elected officials or government bureaucrats, that there is a need for so-called “ethics” legislation.
(Why yes Jim, it is unethical for you to accept thousands of dollars in cash from a favor seeking lobbyist while visiting the bathroom of the Capital Grille. Did you really need an ethics law to tell you that?)
All things considered, perhaps it is better to have written standards of behavior to remove the subjectivity from any investigation.
Following a year of such investigations into former Governor Mike Easley’s campaign dealings, a Senate Judiciary Panel today unveiled a wide-ranging ethics, public records, and government reform package.
The package, containing such provisions as making it a felony to give at least $10,000 in illegal campaign contributions in a single election ($9,999 and you’ll be alright) and allowing media organizations and citizens a better chance of receiving compensation for attorneys fees in successful public records lawsuits, enjoyed bipartisan agreement on many of the contained elements, but lost GOP support due to a provision to expand voluntary public financing of elections to the offices of the attorney general, treasurer, secretary of state and commissioners of agriculture and labor.
In 2008, candidates for state auditor, insurance commissioner, and superintendent of public instruction could accept fundraising restrictions in exchange for public funds to run their campaigns. A similar program for state Court of Appeals and Supreme Court candidates began in 2004.
The John Locke Foundation immediately put out a press release labeling the plan to expand taxpayer funding of elections as “shocking”.
“It is shocking that the Senate Judiciary I committee would have the audacity to expand taxpayer financing of campaigns to all Council of State races,” said Daren Bakst, JLF Director of Legal and Regulatory Studies. “The whole point of an ethics bill is to promote ethics, not to adopt unethical policies that promote the interests of self-serving politicians at the expense of the public.”
“This is a public welfare program, plain and simple,” Bakst added. “North Carolinians are struggling to pay their bills, and now they are being forced to give their money to politicians for their personal use. In addition, North Carolinians are forced to help elect candidates they oppose.”
To help pay for the expanded public financing, lawmakers would increase several fees paid by insurance adjusters and securities dealers, and would raise the price of filings to form a corporation or limited liability company.
The intent behind the move to create so called “voter owned” elections is to remove the perception that elected officials can be corrupted by large dollar donations from individuals or PACs from industries that they may, when elected, have jurisdiction over. The idea is to remove the temptation to give special favors to big donors.
The flip side is that a defacto limitation on free speech becomes the rule of the day. Candidates able to raise more in private donations (above a certain threshold) than their counterparts accepting public financing will kick in provisions where matching funds are given to the competition, without them having to work for it, and potentially killing free speech because a candidate won’t want to spend money and in doing so help his opponent.
Should the taxpayers foot the bill for campaigns? How about all state house and senate races, not just council of state? Is it more government run amok? Would public financing cause the same level of corruption as private donations supposedly do?
What’s your take?
We need your help! If you like PunditHouse, please consider donating to us. Even $5 a month can make a difference!
Short URL: https://pundithouse.com/?p=2406
