On July 2, The News and Observer’s Web site posted an article recapping a report on North Carolina’s publicly financed judicial elections by the Center for Governmental Studies (CGS). The newspaper’s disregard of insightful reporting about the report’s potential impact on upcoming elections is unsettling.
The report applauds the Legislature in their quest to convince the voter that the judges they elect will be untainted by unscrupulous contributors. However, the real danger posed by this report lies in its recommendations for improvement.
The Only Prescription is…More Tax Money
When the Judicial Campaign Reform Act was passed in 2002, it established two primary methods of revenue generation. The first was a “check-off” box placed on the income tax form of every North Carolinian. If a filer wanted to contribute three dollars (at no extra penalty), he or she would “opt-in” by ticking the appropriate box.
The second major source of revenue for the program is a $50 surcharge paid by attorneys. From 2002 to 2004, the surcharge was voluntary, and as a result, it only generated $59,000. As a result of the low figure, legislators enacted a law in 2005 making the surcharge mandatory.
Mixed Results = Expansion
The program is only six years old, but the CGS report indicates that it has been an overwhelming success. Since its enactment, 75 percent of candidates who have run for high judicial office have taken public money. There are key reasons for this, and one of them is not “civic diligence.”
As a result of the program’s “success,” the CGS report makes its desires clear to expand the program to cover judicial primary elections as well. For its part, the Legislature has approved of programs that expand the reach of public campaign financing.
Conclusion
Although this report is new and has not yet been discussed by the Legislature, it is important to note that these reports often serve as the intellectual basis for legislation. The press’s minimal scrutiny of the report does not do justice to its potential long-term impact. Lawmakers could use public financing as a way to dictate the terms of a campaign for public office. The report argues that taxpayers are “confused” when they refuse to “opt-in,” but it gives no empirical data to reinforce this contention. Instead it seeks to capitalize on this supposed confusion by forcing the taxpayer to “opt-out.” If the program is expanded further, it will require more money to fund it. Is it impossible to think that the Legislature will not do to the taxpayer what it did to the legal community when it came up short, and force you to contribute? This report paves the way for precisely that.
2 North Carolina Law does not allow judicial candidates to endorse other political candidates which reduces coattail fundraising. They are also forbidden from indicating stances on particular issues and cases.
3 Commissioner of Insurance, State Auditor, and Superintendent of Public Instruction