News-Record.com

Here's today's editorial about the TV ads running this week from FairJudges.Net.

You can view the ad on the group's Web site.

The ads are rather innocuous. They support "fair" judges and name Sarah Parker, Mark Martin, Patricia Timmons-Goodson and Robin Hudson, all candidates for the N.C. Supreme Court.

They are fair judges. We endorsed all four.

So, what's the problem?

There are several. The most basic is that FairJudges.Net is a 527 organization, and this is the first time that a 527 has gotten involved in North Carolina court races. This will surely invite the participation of more in the future.

A 527 is a political organization that can spend virtually unlimited amounts of money promoting issues but not candidates. In this case, the issue is "fair judges." While the ad names four "fair judges," it doesn't technically urge anyone to vote for those candidates. But, come on, it really does.

This ad is positive, but 527s in other states have aired very negative ads aimed at unseating judges. Groups that favor the death penalty, or support gun control, or oppose abortion, or support same-sex marriage or any other single issue can raise millions and flood the airwaves with ads. In judicial races, where most voters know nothing about the candidates, this kind of influence can make a big difference.

The FairJudges.Net ad, although positive, is still unfair because it puts some candidates at a big disadvantage. Eric Levinson and Ann Marie Calabria, for example, are participating in the public financing program, which means they agreed to abide by spending limits. In their campaigns, all candidates were supposed to have equal amounts of money to spend. Suddenly, these ads are airing that benefit their opponents.

There's also the suspicion that FairJudges.Net, which claims to be bipartisan, is associated with the state Democratic Party. One of its "fair judges," Martin, is a Republican, but the other three are Democrats. Martin is a no-brainer, though, because his opponent is Rachel Lea Hunter, whom everyone views as unqualified for a seat on the Supreme Court.

Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina said yesterday that his group urges the State Board of Elections "to examine possible coordination between FairJudges.Net and the state Democratic Party, particularly the so-called independent expenditure committees of the NC Democratic Party, which have spent funds in support of the same judicial candidates named in the ad paid for by FairJudges.Net."

Hall also said: "We call upon the supporters and officers of this new group to recognize the damage they are doing to the integrity of our court system and election system by using legal loopholes to sponsor candidate advocacy, at the eleventh hour of the campaign season, without full accountability."

Chris Heagarty, executive director of the NC Center for Voter Education, issued a statement yesterday that included this:

"While this group (FairJudges.Net) makes positive statements about qualified judges, spending by 527 groups can inject an almost unlimited amount of money into judicial elections, giving the beneficiaries of this advertising an unfair advantage - even if those praised in the television spots did not seek, nor welcome, that aid.

"527 group electioneering is legal and regulated by the NC State Board of Elections, the IRS, and the FEC. There is nothing to readily suggest any illegal activity or violation of those regulations on behalf of this group. However, we feel that this type of electioneering by 527 groups, even if dedicated to positive advertising, still creates a potential conduit to maneuver around existing campaign finance limits that could be abused by less scrupulous organizations and is not a healthy development for those of us concerned with protecting the integrity and independence of our judicial system."

The Center provides information about judicial candidates at ncvoterguide.org

It's important to note that Parker, Martin, Timmons-Goodson and Hudson had nothing to do with the FairJudges.Net ads and had no contact with the organization itself.

Parker, quoted in the editorial, said she'd rather not have the organization's help. Martin and Hudson compared it to endorsements they've received from many other groups and newspapers. I didn't speak with Timmons-Goodson yesterday.

In a way, the attention this has drawn to judicial races is good. It alerts voters that these contests are on the ballot and that they're important. But the benefit is outweighed by the harm done to other candidates who counted on a level playing field and by the unwelcome introduction of 527 groups campaigning in North Carolina, which potentially will lead to problems down the road.