There's no similarity between statewide judicial races and Greensboro City Council elections
Today's letter pushing public financing of elections notes that the system works in state appellate judges races, so why wouldn't it work for Greensboro City Council.
It's actually debatable how well it works in statewide judicial contests. True, candidates for N.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are participating in the "voluntary" public financing system, but some have told me they feel like they're forced into it. The reason is the experience of Rusty Duke when he ran for chief justice against Sarah Parker two years ago. He was privately financing his campaign; she was public. As a challenger to a long-time incumbent, he felt he needed to spend more money to make up for the name-recognition gap. But whenever he raised more than the amount she was provided through the public fund, she was granted "rescue funds" to make up the difference. It was like he was raising money for her every time he raised money for himself.
Parker won the election. Indeed, she was deserving. But she also had the advantage of incumbency, which is a factor public-financing proponents rarely acknowledge when they talk about creating a level playing field by limiting candidates to equal amounts of campaign money. It affords challengers less of an opportunity to win. Public financing is a good deal for incumbents.
Comparisons between appellate judicial elections and City Council races are totally invalid. These judicial candidates run statewide. They can't conduct a grassroots, neighborhood-by-neighborhood, knock-on-doors campaign like local candidates can. Furthermore, judges aren't politicians. They're not even allowed to comment on issues that might come before the court, which is just about anything. Very few regular people care to make campaign contributions to judicial candidates, which means they tend to rely on lawyers or others with special interests. I'm not sold on public financing, but by far the strongest case for it is in statewide judicial races.
Even then the amount of public money provided -- about $250,000 per qualifying candidate -- is inadequate. Spread that over 100 counties and it doesn't go very far. You're trying to get your message out to 5 million registered voters. So what does that money give you, a nickel per voter? And to raise even that much, the state had to impose a $50 annual tax on lawyers because state taxpayers by and large aren't willing to pay for political campaigns, even for judges. Plenty of attorneys aren't willing, either, but they're threatened with revocation of their law licenses if they don't pay the 50 bucks. Who ought to be taxed to pay for City Council campaigns?
Another problem encountered in the publicly financed judicial races was the intervention by third parties in 2006. One group ran TV ads in support of certain "fair judges." The candidates who were not deemed "fair judges" -- and some of them were -- had no money to respond because they were limited to the amount of public money they were allotted. The system put them in an unfair situation.
It's too simplistic to say public financing is working in statewide judicial races, therefore it can work for Greensboro City Council. That ignores problems with the judicial campaign finance system and the vast differences between the two.
Comments (6)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Today's letter pushing public financing of elections notes that the system works in state appellate judges races, so why wouldn't it work for Greensboro City Council.* Ellen sucking up to the public establishment pig feeding pen.
No doubt this women is a believer in stealing taxpayers funds without choice.
It's actually debatable how well it works in statewide judicial contests. True, candidates for N.C. Supreme Court and Court of Appeals are participating in the "voluntary" public financing system, but some have told me they feel like they're forced into it. * Doug
It's not debateable Doug anymore! Our two-state wide campaigns prove that taxpayer funding campaigns is a joke and a fraud on North Carolina citizens. No doubt those establishment dumb down candiates, who feel they are force into political races with public financing are the same type of people who worship at the seat of government as their savior in all things.
And people wonder why this country is going to hell in a hatbasket full speed?
Posted on April 12, 2008 3:39 PM
Doug:
As you know, funding for the public-financing scheme for statewide judicial elections in North Carolina comes primarily from mandatory "contributions" from all active licensed attorneys and from an optional $3 check-off on state income tax returns.
A lawsuit was filed in the federal courts challenging this law. On 12/7/07, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law reported the following:
"Four plaintiffs, including two judges - Barbara Jackson, a sitting judge on the North Carolina Court of Appeals and Wilton R. "Rusty" Duke, a North Carolina Superior Court judge who ran unsuccessfully for the Supreme Court in 2006 - and the North Carolina Right to Life Committee Fund for Independent Political Expenditures ("IEPAC"), and North Carolina Right to Life State Political Action Committee ("SPAC") sued to strike down the law. The plaintiffs challenged the law's disclosure requirements, the source of funds for the public financing program, a rule prohibiting any contributions in the 21 days proceeding an election, as well as a provision in the law granting participants in the public financing system extra campaign funds to counter spending by a candidate not participating in the program or an organization engaged in an independent expenditure campaign against the participating candidate or on behalf of their opponent."
The U. S. District Court dismissed the case and the plaintiffs appealed that decision to the U. S. Fourth Circuit of Appeals and it is currently pending. The case is presently named: Duke, et al. v. Leake, et al.
Posted on April 12, 2008 8:45 PM
Wendell,
Thanks for the update. I can't case how the legal case might be resolved. The political questions are tough enough: is public financing truly fair when there are so many loopholes and when unwilling individuals are forced to pay for it? And, where are you going to get enough money to pay for all the campaigns proponents want? Today it's appellate court races and some council of state elections. Next, trial court elections? City councils? School boards? County commissioners? District attorney, clerk of court, state legislative offices, congressional, governor? How many millions upon millions of dollars would be required?
Posted on April 12, 2008 9:25 PM
How many millions upon millions of dollars would be required?* Doug
More than the present state can produce in more taxes for this European socialist Orwellian scam. Any Republican judical candiate should be ashame of entering into this ageedment where all judical candiates are equal, but some judical candiates are more equal than others. Democrats just treat this as another gift from the State in the name of fairness and stupidity on the voters.......
Posted on April 12, 2008 10:33 PM
so what's better- a system that rewards the candidate who can raise the most money? hey doug, why do so many greensboro city council races go uncontested, you think maybe it;s because the cost of running for office is getting beyond what an ordinary citizen can afford. i guess it's better to have wealthy special interests own our elections rather than the people-- right doug?
Posted on April 12, 2008 11:09 PM
Is that what we have, Bob? The fact is, the candidates who raise the most money don't always win. Mary Rakestraw was fifth in fundraising among the at-large candidates last year and won a seat. Dianne Bellamy Small raised and spent very little. As for uncontested races -- not last year. There were more than 30 candidates at the start. Mike Barber was effectively unchallenged, although there was another candidate on the ballot.
The statement that wealthy special interests own city elections rather than the people is cynical and unsubstantiated, unless you'd like to document which wealthy special interests own each member of the Greensboro City Council.
I'd also be interested in your opinion of Barack Obama's presidential campaign, which has raised more money than his rivals -- largely on the strength of relatively small contributions from a whole lot of "people."
What's stopping "the people" from supporting Greensboro City Council candidates of their choice with modest contributions? Why would that be a bad thing?
Posted on April 13, 2008 8:19 PM