By Bob Phillips
The anti-democracy reform crowd is at it again — spreading misinformation about campaign finance reform. Their current target is House Bill 120, a fairly innocuous proposal in the state Legislature to provide municipalities the legal authority to experiment with public financing of local elections. It’s something the town of Chapel Hill will be doing this fall.
HB 120 imposes no mandate for cities and requires no money from the state. It’s just “enabling†legislation that merely grants cities and towns permission to voluntarily try out public financing.
But the anti-reform naysayers have ratcheted up their doom-and-gloom rhetoric. Whether it’s in op-eds, emails or the outside propagandists they bring to the Legislature, their simplistic message is the same: Public financing is another threat to free markets, lower taxes and limited government.
Never mind that our state’s judicial public-financing program, arguably the envy of the nation, produces less-costly and more-positive campaigns, election after election. And never mind the success of last year’s pilot public-financing program for state auditor, insurance commissioner and state superintendent. Four of six candidates, Republicans and Democrats, participated, and campaign costs were held in check. Even more importantly, the dominance of wealthy special-interest money in these races was all but eliminated.
The anti-reform naysayers’ latest salvo is to declare public financing unconstitutional — their convenient misinterpretation of a recent U.S. Supreme Court case. Never mind that the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already upheld North Carolina’s judicial public-financing program and that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to even hear the case on appeal.
In all their bluster, the anti-reform crowd seeks to protect our broken campaign-finance system. The ever-increasing costs of campaigns funded by wealthy special interests who seek to game the system with big-money donations is A-OK with them.
They voice no concerns nor offer any solutions on how to reduce the ever-rising costs of campaigns, eliminate the ever-growing influence of special interests or address the ever-decreasing willingness of candidates to run for office.
It’s a sad fact in North Carolina that the cost of running for mayor and city council is becoming prohibitively high in many of our medium and major cities. In recent years, Wilmington, Asheville, Cary, Raleigh and Charlotte have all had their share of six-figure campaigns for local offices.
Since 2001, Raleigh has seen at least three mayoral candidates spend more than a half-million dollars on their respective campaigns.
And driving the train for these higher-costing races are the homebuilding real estate interests – the top source of big money for local elections. Developers have lots of business before local councils, so they are inclined to provide lots of money to local campaigns.
Despite the dire warnings of the anti-reform crowd, there is a growing support for allowing locals to experiment with public financing. HB 120 is co-sponsored by 31 representatives and has been endorsed by a dozen N.C. mayors.
HB 120 does not force public financing on any municipality. The legislation simply provides the authority for each city and town to decide its own destiny on election reform.
And just as was the case in Chapel Hill, there will be plenty of opportunity for local public input before any decision is made. Also, any local public financing program must meet the approval of the state board of elections.
And all programs will be administered by the state board as well.
HB 120 has recently won approval in two state House committees. It may soon reach the House floor. This will be a vote for local decision-making on an issue that impacts the health of local elections – something locals should decide, not the Raleigh-based anti-democracy reformers or the big-money special-interest developers.
Bob Phillips is the executive director of Common Cause North Carolina.
To bad for Mr. Phillips that almost nothing he says about the benefits of taxpayer-financed political campaigns is true.
These schemes do not drive so-called “special interests” out of campaigns. In Arizona, candidates routinely rely on organized interest groups to collect their qualifying contributions.
And as North Carolina found in 2006, these interest groups still run ads promoting their favored candidates. Independent expenditures in Maine have consistently risen since they began doling out taxpayer cash to politicians.
Finally, these welfare for politicians programs do not lead to any better public policies, allegedly their ultimate goal. After 10 years, few point to Arizona or Maine as blazing the path forward on innovative policies that better the lives of their citizens.
Once North Carolina sees past the rhetoric, it’s clear that taxpayer-financed political campaigns are a failure.
Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org
sparnell@campaignfreedom.org
people…..i resent the slightest thought that i might have to pay, via taxes or whatever the pols want to call it, my hard earned cash to finance elections.
first, taxes are high enough.
second, why should the public finance pols in general thereby having no sayso about where their money is going (to all pols qualified for funding without any regard for their political point of view).
third, whats wrong with making this voluntary for each taxpayer, like the federal and state contributions???
lastly, did anyone ask us paying folks what we think about our financial involvement in this brouhaha?? seems like there should be a referendum before we bend over and grab our ankles.
bad idea people. bad bad idea!!!
note: chapel hill is on the cutting edge for this baby. chapel hill, home of the big money government.