Campaign cash for judges
To check the $3 box, or not to check it. What are we North Carolina taxpayers to do?
I disdain public financing pleas for political candidates, but I could almost go for this one.
I sympathize with the men and women who run for seats on the N.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. They shouldn't have to grub for campaign contributions from the legal profession and other special interests. It's degrading and potentially corrupting. Besides, some of them actually manage to raise and spend a whole lot of money, and who wants multimillion-dollar judicial elections?
Yet, when I complete my state income-tax form, I will not check the little box designating $3 for the judicial campaign fund.
Yes, it helps pay for a voter's guide that is mailed to all registered voters. Last year's guide, the first one produced, was pretty good. I'm sure you read it.
And, yes, the recipients of the fund are those judicial candidates who agree to abide by spending restrictions. With the limited amount of money they got, they weren't running tacky TV ads.
Still, I say no. I have three reasons:
First, the pitch is not honest, in my opinion. You're told that giving the $3 doesn't increase your taxes or reduce your refund. Oh, no? Then where does the money come from? It's sure coming from somebody's taxes.
Second, I don't think judges should be elected. They are not politicians, or at least we should hope they're not. Let's go to some sort of appointment system and make sure we get the most qualified jurists on the bench, not candidates who appeal to the most voters for some other reason (such as gender; here in Guilford County, female judicial candidates led the ticket in every race). So I'm not going to support a plan that might merely improve a process I think should be done away with.
And third, this is just the first step toward public financing in all races. I don't want tax dollars paying for the campaigns of every candidate on the ballot. That will cost a fortune, and why should my tax dollars go to some politician to whom I would not choose to give a nickel?
What are you going to do?
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
No way I am checking that box on the state or federal return. My reason is the same as yours - it is disingenuous to say that checking the box has no impact on the amount of taxes we pay.
As I recall Bush 41 first peddled that nonsense when he proposed that we could check a box to have our tax payments go toward the federal debt. Gee, DubDad, do you think that might increase that year's deficit by the same amount, therefore negating our debt reduction dollar for dollar?
Posted on February 15, 2005 3:26 PM
Doug:
As a person with experience managing a statewide judicial campaign and, moreover, a friend of yours, I thought maybe you'd give me a call on this issue. I have to disagree with your points and your conclusion. Allow me:
(1)"First, the pitch is not honest" - How is it not honest. Checking the box only tells the state how you want $3 of your taxes spent. At the end of the year, you are not paying any more in taxes, you are just telling the State to put that $3 where you want them to. So, it is correct. It's not raising your income tax or lowering your refund. Now, if you want to argue that the State will then make up the revenue by higher sales taxes or somesuch, that;s a different question, and not what the disclaimer is denying in any event.
(2)Second, "I don't think judges should be elected." Many of those in judicial robes would quietly agree with you, I am sure, as would most of the Bar, but the people of this state time and again refuse to give up their right to elect their judges, and wishing willnot make it so. The new system, and I speak from experience, keeps judges from begging lawyers and citizens for money to an obsene degree. It also imposes cost-controls on the process, so NC does not become like Ohio, where a seat on the Supreme Court will cost you about $10 million. In North Carolina, you run on $200,000, and you raise a percentage of that prior to the primary, and receive the rest. After that, you spend. When you spend it all, you're done. It encourages grassroots campaigning, personal contact and lots of handshakes.
(3)"And third, this is just the first step toward public financing in all races." Given the obscenity that is our current electoral system, I'm not sure this is a bad idea in the long run. Better yet (and this will gore the N&R's quite lucrative bi-anbual ox) mandate free advertising for political ads. Remove the cost from the system so average people can run.
It works quite nicely in Canada, and there are conservatives up there, too. Would you rather subsidize (to an infinitesimal degree) a viewpoint you oppose or have your leaders spending their time prostituting themselves to the highest bidder?
Posted on February 15, 2005 10:20 PM
I need to note that my opinions above are my own, and are not those of any candidate I worked for.
And we did run television ads. Quite tasteful ones, I might add.
Fat lot of good it did us...
Posted on February 15, 2005 10:24 PM
John, I was afraid if I called you for advice you'd send me a bill.
Seriously, thanks for your thoughts. Sorry I missed your man's TV ads. Maybe they were too tasteful.
Are you suggesting required free ads in the newspaper? Wait a minute! Isn't there a First Amendment problem with letting government tell the press what to print?
Posted on February 16, 2005 10:28 AM
No, you can't require free ads in Newspapers. I realized that after I hit send. But we can require free time on the airwaves. Thay are, after all, our airwaves.
That will be $175.
Posted on February 16, 2005 6:29 PM