FairJudges.net
is organized as a 527-committee under the
A 527
committee has much more flexibility than a political committee in the type of
funds it can raise and level of disclosure it must provide the public. And, especially important, the amount it
spends to benefit certain candidates does not count toward matching or
"rescue" money the candidate's opponent would receive, if the
opponent is enrolled in NC's public financing program. If the same spending was
done directly by a political party or a political committee, then all those
dollars would count toward the trigger for releasing matching money to publicly
financed candidates opposed by the ad.
So this is
a devious way to circumvent a key provision of the public financing
system. Left unanswered, other party/interest-groups
will adopt this tactic, and the result will discourage candidates from opting
into the public financing program.
The
wrinkle is that IF the 527 committee is not truly independent but is actually
just a coordinated extension of a political party or a committee of the party,
then its spending should be treated as spending by a political committee; then
the spending should be fully regulated and should count toward matching public
funds to the opposition. There appears
to be evidence that one or more agents of the N.C. Democratic Party were/are
supervising the 527 and its strategy. That coordination, if established by the
State Board of Elections, could have consequences that could lead to
substantial fines against the Party, etc.
Meanwhile,
candidates who enrolled in the public financing program are mighty mad -- they
happen to be Republicans this time. Next
time, it could be the Christian Right with a 527-ad funded by two
multi-millionaires that says, "We need our courts to protect our families
and our liberties. Judge Terrific Smile. He's a judge who cares about your
family and will enforce the law against illegal aliens."
It would
have been much better, more honorable, for the Party to just sponsor ads under
its own name -- if at all! -- even if that caused an
opposition candidate to get additional public funding.
In
response to a complaint/request filed by Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina,
the State Board of Elections has launched an investigation into possible
coordination between FairJudges.net and the N.C. Democratic Party. (Democracy
CLICK
HERE to view the complaint we filed.
Here's
part of the story in the News &
Observer about Board's action Friday...
Money to
fight judge ad refused
Elections
board does call for probe
By Andrea Weigl, Staff Writer
But the
board did ask the state agency to investigate whether there was coordination
between FairJudges.net and the N.C. Democratic Party, which provided $75,000 of
the funding for FairJudges.net. Bob Hall, head of Democracy North Carolina,
asked for the inquiry, citing the key role of Scott Falmlen
as a strategist for both groups.
FairJudges.net
unfurled its television spots this week promoting those it called "fair,
unbiased judges" -- Chief Justice Sarah Parker, Associate Justices Mark
Martin and Patricia Timmons-Goodson and N.C. Court of Appeals Judge Robin
Hudson. Only Martin is a Republican, but he has received much bipartisan
support because many view his opponent as unqualified.
N.C. Court
of Appeals judges Ann Marie Calabria and Eric
Levinson, who are running against
Gary
Bartlett, executive director of the State Board of Elections, ruled that the ad
campaign did not explicitly encourage voters to cast their ballots for
particular candidates and therefore did not qualify as an expenditure that
triggered the need for additional public funds. Board members, some of whom
admitted not having seen the television ad, upheld