(released
February 2004)
More than $300,000 raised in the 2002 elections for the state's top two courts
would no longer be permitted, if candidates for these offices accept the restrictions
- and benefits - of a new "Voter-Owned" public financing program that
begins this year.
The prohibited funds came from special-interest groups and donors with a direct
stake in how courts rule. They include checks totaling $44,000 from the N.C.
Academy of Trial Lawyers and $10,000 from political committees sponsored by
physicians, who oppose the trial attorneys in medical malpractice lawsuits;
nearly $200,000 from Democratic and Republican party committees, who oppose
each other in court fights over redistricting; and $80,000 from other PACs for
such interests as banks, insurance companies, defense attorneys, and labor unions.
"A relatively small amount of this special-interest money can still find
its way into campaigns, particularly in the very early stage," said Bob
Hall, research director for Democracy North Carolina, a nonpartisan organization
that tracks money in state politics. "But under the new program, where
registered voters authorize a candidate to receive 'clean' public funds, the
amount supplied by parties with a vested interest in a court's decisions will
be dramatically reduced."
Candidates for the N.C. Supreme Court and N.C. Court of Appeals raised $1.3
million in the 2002 elections, not counting loans or donations from themselves
and their families. Democracy North Carolina's research shows that two thirds
of the $1.3 million came from attorneys, attorney-backed committees, and special-interest
donors frequently involved in court cases.*
By contrast, Hall said that two thirds or more of the funds used by a candidate
in the new public financing program would come from the Public Campaign Financing
Fund. To qualify for $137,500 or $201,000 from the Fund, depending on the office
sought, a candidate must first raise $33,000 to $69,000 from at least 350 registered
voters giving $10 to $500 each.
The Fund gets most of its money from a $3 designation or check-off on the state
income-tax form. "Agreeing to the check-off doesn't increase a person's
tax or reduce any refund," said Gary Bartlett, executive director of the
State Board of Elections. "It simply tells the Revenue Department to send
$3 to the Fund."
Bartlett has publicly worried that if not enough taxpayers mark the check-off
box for the Public Campaign Financing Fund, it will not have enough money for
all qualified candidates or, more at risk, enough for wide distribution of a
Judicial Voter Guide describing the candidates and courts.
-----------------------------------------
* This assumes that unitemized small donations follow the
same profile of identified donation. It also excludes more than $200,000 in
loans and donations from the candidates (who are all attorneys) and their families,
which who make the percent coming from attorneys even higher.
"We'd like
to mail the voter guide to every potential voter in the state," Bartlett
said. "But that can't happen unless people recognize this benefit and mark
the check-off box for the Fund."
Television ads featuring former governors Jim Hunt (D) and Jim Holshouser (R)
are promoting the check-off. Democracy North Carolina and other election reform
groups are also distributing 1,000,000 "buckslips" to tax offices,
companies and civic organizations describing the Fund's benefits and urging
taxpayers to "Put Your Mark on History."
"The basic costs of the new program should be covered if 10 percent of
taxpayers mark 'Yes' on the check-off," said Hall. "But we'll need
closer to 15 percent participation to get the voter guide mailed to households
for both the primary and general election."
The new program is voluntary for candidates as well as taxpayers. So far, four
candidates for 2004 have filed papers indicating their intent to abide by the
program's strict fund-raising and spending limits. They are Justice Sarah Parker
of the N.C. Supreme Court, judges Wanda Bryant and Linda McGee of the N.C. Court
of Appeals, and challenger Doug Berger.
Under the new law, appellate judges will no longer run with party labels, and
that could mean they'll need more money to get their message out without the
help of political parties.
According to Democracy North Carolina analysis, the cost of running for the
appellate court has trended upward. Between 1998 and 2002, spending jumped 60
percent per candidate for the Court of Appeals and 11 percent per candidate
for the state Supreme Court.
In 2000, a record $1.1 million was spent in the race for Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, with the better-funded incumbent Henry E. Frye, an African-American
Democrat, losing to the white Republican I. Beverly Lake, then an associate
justice on the court.
Hall noted that the Frye-Lake pattern has continued, with three more incumbent
African-American Democrats losing appellate court races in 2002 to lesser-funded
white Republicans.
Democracy North Carolina's analysis shows that six of the seven Republican appellate
candidates won in 2002, regardless of whether or not they out-spent their opponent.
By contrast, in 1998, all seven candidates who out-spent their opponents won,
regardless of their party affiliation.
"A candidate's party label or fund-raising ability should not determine
who wins, because neither tells us about the candidate's judicial training or
temperament," said Peg Chapin of Charlotte, co-chair of the League of Women
Voters of N.C. The League and other members of N.C. Voters for Clean Elections
lobbied to lower contribution limits and make appellate elections nonpartisan
in the same legislation that launched the public financing program and voter
guide.
"There is a strong consensus, inside and outside the legal community, that
judges should not be beholden to large campaign donors, nor should they represent
partisan interests," said Sen. Wib Gulley, the chief sponsor of the Judicial
Campaign Reform Act.
"We want judges who are independent, impartial and fair, and the new law
helps make that happen," said Rep. William Culpepper, chief sponsor in
the state House.
"The American Bar Association, National Center for State Courts, campaign
reform experts, and others have praised the new program as a national model,"
Gulley added. "The new law will work - but only if people participate in
the check-off. It's the best way to say, 'Yes, judges should have an independent
source of clean money for their campaigns and voters should have more information
about the candidates seeking to serve on our highest courts.' "
Click
here to view charts (PDF format) showing 1) Funds
raised by appellate court candidates in 2002 election that would be restricted
in 2004, and 2) Spending by candidates for
appellate court seats in NC 1998-2002.