TALKING POINTS / LETTER TO EDITOR FOR
PUBLIC CAMPAIGN FUND CHECK-OFF
Here are some key points you can adapt into a letter-to-editor
or an email to your family, friends, co-workers, etc. Most newspapers
will not accept letters over 250 words.
• Under a special program in North Carolina, the Public Campaign
Fund gives judges an alternative source of funds – but the candidates
must earn the right to use the Fund by accepting strict fundraising
and spending limits.
• North Carolina is the first state in the nation
to put in place such a program for the election of judicial candidates.
The Public Campaign Fund also pays for a Voter Guide
with vital information about the judicial candidates, the courts, and
voter registration.
• In 2004, 12 of 16 N.C. Supreme Court and Court
of Appeals candidates received help from the Public Campaign Fund. Four
of the five winners enrolled in this program – and relied far
less on special-interest money. Five 2006 candidates have
already expressed their intent to apply for public funds.
• Four million Voter Guides were sent out and
paid for by the Public Campaign Fund in the 2004 election.
• With public financing in place, N.C. bucked
a national trend of nasty judicial election campaigns tainted by special
interest money.
• Saying “Yes” for the Public Campaign
Fund will not increase your tax or reduce your refund. It just tells
the Department of Revenue to transfer $3 into the Fund to support fair
courts and fair elections.
• Look hard for the question about the Public
Campaign Fund. If you use an accountant or tax service, you may not
even be asked about the Fund. Be sure that they mark the question about
the Fund “Yes.” Make the effort, make a difference. Remember
the Public Campaign Fund.
• Search hard and find the question about the Public Campaign
Fund. Why?
Judges should be fair and impartial and never be beholden to special
interests.
• But judges need funds from somewhere to run election campaigns.
The question is who provides the money? Special interests, those who
want favor with judges, or you and me, the public?
