As state lawmakers debated a series of ethics, campaign finance, and lobbying reform bills this summer, some lawmakers worried that the cure might be worse than the problem.
“Every time they do something on the sly — and very quickly — we should be concerned,” said Rep. Louis Pate, R-Wayne, referring to the process legislative leaders used to approve reform bills. “It’s been very bizarre to see how things have merged and separated themselves out.”
Scandals linked to N.C. House Speaker Jim Black prompted the emphasis on reform. Black faced no criminal charges as the legislative session started in May, but state and federal investigators had spent recent months looking into issues surrounding Black’s office.
Among them were the creation of a state lottery, the work of Black’s unpaid political director as a lobbyist, the creation of state-funded jobs for Black’s political allies, and campaign finance issues linked to optometrists and the video poker industry.
Black asked House colleagues to study issues surrounding ethics, lobbying, and campaign finance rules. The speaker offered his own recommendations for reform.
The House Select Committee on Ethics and Governmental Reform responded with a series of bills. Nine bills filed on May 9 targeted topics such as blank campaign checks, limits on uses of campaign funds, and training for campaign treasurers.
“I think it’s very important,” said Rep. Hugh Holliman, D-Davidson. “I think the people of North Carolina want us to put these ethics standards into play and expect us to live by them. And I think we will.”
As those bills moved through the legislative process, even the most interested observers had a hard time following the debate. “This is definitely the sort of sausage-making portion of democracy,” said Bob Phillips, director of N.C. Common Cause and one of the leading voices in the N.C. Coalition for Lobbying Reform. “It’s not Civics 101, where everything is rolled out at the same time for everyone to thoughtfully consider and debate.”
That makes it difficult for the public as well as the participants to know what’s going on. “It’s very hard to follow,” Phillips added. “It’s very confusing. Committees in each chamber are looking at some of the same things and combining bills. It’s tough. It makes it hard for us to follow, and I think it makes it tough for the members to understand it, too.”
House bills numbered from H.B. 1843 through H.B. 1851 all dealt with proposed reforms. Each bill started its journey through the legislative process in the House’s Judiciary I committee.
But the bills faced various twists and turns in the House and Senate. “It’s confusing to start with because many of the things in the bills just don’t make any sense,” said Sen. Tom Apodaca, R-Henderson. “It’s overreaction to some problems that have been had. And we all agree there are some problems. We ought to fix those problems. But this has gone way overboard. What we all fear — regardless of our party — are the unintended consequences.”
Across the political aisle, Sen. David Weinstein, D-Robeson, offered a different take. “You don’t sneak too much by people, if they read their bills.”
But Weinstein worries about the volume of proposed reforms. “We don’t need all these rules and regulations because we don’t understand them,” he said. “I think we’re being punished for the transgressions of one or two people.”
H.B. 1847 offers an example of the winding road legislation can take. The original bill was designed to improve training for campaign treasurers. The House approved the measure with a 105-9 vote May 30. Rather than address H.B. 1847 in its original form, Senate leaders stripped the treasurer training language.
Senators then used H.B. 1847 as the vehicle for a different reform bill targeting so-called 527 political groups. The new bill placed more restrictions on those groups in election campaigns. A House bill on the same topic sat untouched in committee. But the Senate’s procedural maneuver allowed House supporters to avoid a committee vote and possible amendments.
Critics noted their concerns during a House debate. They urged colleagues to reject a “concurrence” vote that would accept the Senate’s changes. “I regret that this bill came over the way it did,” said Rep. John Blust, R-Guilford. “It is prohibited by our rules, if you look at the rules carefully. By concurring today, we are letting the Senate do that in a way that doesn’t permit any member of this body to try to influence the content of that bill. So we are powerless at this point if we concur.”
House members ignored Blust’s argument and voted 87-27 to approve the new restrictions.
As lawmakers waded through reform measures, Gov. Mike Easley warned them against sleight of hand. “Don’t do anything that just tries to pull the wool over people’s eyes,” Easley said during a July 13 news conference. “They’ll pick it up, and they’ll just have less confidence in state government than they do now.”
Some lawmakers worried about the end result. “We’re trying to be deliberate and careful and do it right,” Apodaca said, “so we don’t have to end up coming back down here and redoing it.”
Mitch Kokai is associate editor of Carolina Journal.