Frequently Asked Questions about the Voter-Owned Elections Act

The Voter-Owned Elections Act was introduced in the North Carolina Senate and House in April 2001. Some details may
change in the legislation as it works its way through the legislature.

Why does North Carolina need the Voter-Owned Elections Act?
We're getting less democracy for more money. The skyrocketing cost of campaigns pushes candidates into a money chase, and almost all the money (90%) comes from only 1% of North Carolina's population. Voters are turned off, and many qualified candidates are excluded by a lack of funds. Candidates spend too much time raising money and not enough time interacting with voters.

What would the VOE Act do?
The Act allows voters to authorize a state candidate to get enough public funding to run an effective campaign - but the candidate must first earn the public's trust by: (1) showing strong support in the form of a large number of small contributions from local, registered voters; (2) agreeing to raise no more money beyond the qualifying contributions; and (3) accepting a spending limit equal to the qualifying contributions plus the public funding.

How much public money can candidates get?
Candidates who qualify receive a competitive amount of public money for the primary and general election. The allotment is the median amount spent by candidates reporting expenditures in contested races for that office in the last two elections. A candidate's party can also provide in-kind support of up to 10% of this amount. If a privately-funded candidate raises or spends more than the public funds available to the VOE candidate, the VOE candidate can get additional funding, up to 200% of the original limit.

Why not just pass strong disclosure rules?
Good disclosure laws help reveal how money changes hands, but they do not challenge the massive spending on campaigns by wealthy interests. They highlight, but don't solve, the problem. Only having disclosure of who's giving to campaigns without enacting campaign finance reform is like taking an x-ray of a broken arm without fixing what's broken - it is logical that once you can see the problem, you feel compelled to find a remedy.

Does the Voter-Owned program limit free speech?
No, in fact a Voter-Owned system gives a much needed adrenaline boost to our democracy and free speech by expanding the options for candidates in financing their campaigns and giving candidates without personal wealth a reasonable chance to run for public office.

Why not just provide free airtime?
Free airtime falls under federal, not state, jurisdiction. Candidates would continue to raise money from special interests rather than spend time with voters in their districts. Candidates would still try to out-raise and out-spend each other to add to their allotted time. Therefore, spending would not be lessened.

Wouldn't term limits solve the problem?
Term limits for elected offices do not address the fundamental problem of the overwhelming and corrupting influence of big money in politics. Term limits will not reduce the dependency of politicians on private contributions.

Why not just limit spending on all races?
Across-the-board limits on political spending are an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment, according to the U.S. Supreme Court Buckley v. Valeo (1976) decision. Though this ruling is controversial, it is the law for now. The Court has ruled that a state can reward candidates who accept voluntary spending limits, which is what the Voter-Owned Elections Act would do. Maine and Arizona's versions of the Voter-Owned Elections Act were upheld in the courts before implementation in the 2000 election.

Why not just lower contribution limits?
Setting contribution limits very low would make candidates spend even more time raising money. Low contribution limits also give an advantage to wealthy candidates who can fund their own campaigns. Since it is impossible to effectively limit the flow of private contributions, the best route is to provide an alternative for candidates.

Won't everybody run for office?
The show of support required to qualify for public funds will weed out frivolous candidates. A candidate must gather a large number of small donations ($10-$100) from registered voters from the county represented - from 200 donors for a state House seat to 7,000 for a candidate for Governor. North Carolina is actually in the midst of a severe shortage of candidates for public office - in the 2000 election 35% of legislative races went uncontested by a major party opponent.

Isn't this just welfare for politicians?
No. Candidates must work hard to gain hundreds of small donations and meet the public-trust test. This is more like "workfare" for politicians than "welfare." By contrast, the current dependence on private money costs North Carolina citizens over $1 billion a year in tax breaks and subsidies given to wealthy special interests (sometimes called "corporate welfare"). A Voter-Owned system will put ownership of the political process in the hands of voters.

How much would public financing cost?
In 1997, the legislative fiscal research staff said that if every state candidate opted for public financing and one-third more candidates ran, the program would cost about $15 million per year - or 0.1% (that's 1/1000th) of the state budget. The total is less than one penny a day per eligible voter in N.C. That's a real bargain for more voter participation and candidates who are more responsive to constituents.

Where would the money come from?
· Money from the old Candidates Financing Fund and voluntary state income tax refunds;
· A newly proposed NC Fair Elections Fund
· Appropriations from the General Fund created by a voluntary, income-tax check-off;
· Any specific source, such as narrowed or closed loophole, designated by the legislature.

Will this increase my taxes?
There is no need to raise taxes to finance the Voter-Owned Elections Act. Funding the election system is a part of good government just like the cost of processing election returns, motor voter, voting machines, voter-education expenses, etc. None of the four states that implemented Clean Money reform in the 2000 election used a tax increase to finance the program.

Will this take money away from other needed programs, like education?
No. In fact, many appropriations decisions now are skewed to favor those who have money to "invest" in campaigns. Unfair tax breaks result in less money being available for programs like education and health care. If we devote 0.1% of the state budget for a Voter-Owned program, we will improve how the other 99.9% is spent.

Why would candidates want to limit their spending?
Candidates who faces privately-financed opponents would be eligible to receive up to 200% of the original allotment if their opponents outspend them. More importantly, they would be able to focus on interacting with voters rather than fundraising all the time and would be able to assure voters that they are beholden to only them.

Why shouldn't donors be allowed to influence the outcome of elections?
The Voter-Owned program is VOLUNTARY, and some candidates may continue to seek donations. The current money-chase gives a tiny portion of the population tremendous influence over a system that affects everyone. Each voter, regardless of wealth, should have the same chance to determine an election's results.

What if I don't want my money going to candidates I don't support?
A Voter-Owned Elections program is not an investment in a particular candidate, but in a more democratic system. Voters decide who gets public funding. The program, like the ballot box, helps us all.

Will a Voter-Owned system really work?
Maine and Arizona became the first two states to implement this system in the 2000 election, and the system won the praise of incumbents and challengers, Republicans and Democrats. Over 170 candidates opted into this system and allowed their fates to be determined by voters, not big-money donors.

What can I do to pass meaningful reform?
Contact us to find out what you can do:

Democracy North Carolina
info@democracy-nc.org