Local Governments in N.C. Need State Approval
To Sponsor a Local Public Financing Program

North Carolina is not a "home rule" state, so local governments need specific authority ("enabling language") in state law before they can use local resources to sponsor a public financing program for their local elections. Campaign finance reformers have backed bills that would grant this authority to local governments.

For example, SB-760, also known as Local Campaign Finance Options, passed the state Senate in 2003. It gave cities with over 40,000 people and counties over 80,000 the authority to initiate a public financing program. It also clarifies that a donation to a candidate from a local public financing program is not subject to the state's normal $4,000 limit. The bill never passed the House and so it is dead, but it provides an example of a useful statute.

NO STATE BUDGET IMPACT: SB-760 did not involve money from the N.C. General Fund or have any impact on the state budget. Under the bill, local governments would have to figure out their own method to finance a program.

WHY SB-760 IS NEEDED: Spending in local elections has soared in many localities across the state, discouraging candidates and voters and threatening to create a wealth barrier for who can run for office. Concerned citizens and elected officials are looking for effective solutions, but their options are limited without SB-760.
     •  The Town of Cary developed a public financing program for town council elections and put it into practice, but the State Board of Elections and courts ruled that it did not have authority to make payments to candidates above $4,000.
     •  A taskforce appointed by Asheville's mayor concluded that it was fruitless to study public financing because it wouldn't have authority to implement a program.
     •  A subcommittee of the Chapel Hill Town Council, appointed in 2003 to study a public financing option for city elections, has not met because it is waiting to see if the General Assembly gives cities the authority to sponsor such an option.

POSITIVE MODELS: About a dozen cities and counties around the nation have adopted public financing programs as a way to hold down spending, provide candidates with an alternative to the depressing money chase, and increase participation in elections.

Tucson has the oldest program (begun in 1987), with the highest participation of candidates (over 90%). The Tucson program costs just 22 cents per resident per year. Most of the programs are in larger areas or university towns (e.g., Austin, TX; Boulder, CO; Dade County, FL; New York City; Long Beach, Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco, CA.)

BIPARTISAN STATE SUPPORT: SB-760 was introduced by a bipartisan group of Senators, 5 Republicans and 12 Democrats. It combined an interest in local control (give local governments authority to develop solutions) with an interest in making elections accessible to ordinary people. Localities are the laboratories for innovation.

Dozens of other local officials have endorsed legislation to authorize local governments to enact public financing programs, but it is unlikely that more than a small number of localities would sponsor public financing programs; SB-760 at least allowed a local government to evaluate this option.

ADDITIONAL MATERIALS:

Click here for a one-page copy of SB-760: Local Campaign Finance Options (PDF format).

Click here for a one-page summary of SB-760 (PDF format).

Click here for a sample resolution that an organization or local government could use to endorse the key provisions of SB-760 (PDF format).

Click here for a support statement designed for local elected leaders to use to show their support (PDF format).

Click here for the Talking Points provided above, in a one-page version.