Taxpayer-Funded Local Elections On General Assembly Agenda

Voters should expect the debate over taxpayer-funded municipal elections to heat up over the next year.

A bill allowing municipalities with more than 50,000 residents to consider the option of taxpayer-funded elections will more than likely be considered in the North Carolina Senate in the upcoming short session.

Among the most vocal supporters will be North Carolina Common Cause. Josh Glasser, the group’s director of local campaign finance reform, says Common Cause will lobby both lawmakers and the general public as the bill moves forward.

Glasser and other proponents of taxpayer-funded elections are citing Chapel Hill’s recent municipal election as evidence that public financing limits the influence of money in politics, and that a system of taxpayer-funded elections is workable.

In the November election, Mark Kleinschmidt edged Matt Czajkowski by 246 votes in the mayor’s race, while Penny Rich received tallied the largest vote total among town council candidates. Both Kleinschmidt and Rich accepted public funding through Chapel Hill’s pilot program, which was enacted by the General Assembly for the 2009 and 2011 elections.

Chapel Hill calls its system “voluntary,” because candidates do not have to accept public financing. Of 12 candidates on the ballot, only Kleinschmidt and Rich took taxpayer funding. Supporters of taxpayer-financed elections say their victories indicate the program is a success.

“Chapel Hill was a watershed moment in local public financing in our state,” Glasser said. “Now that cities have seen the Chapel Hill example, and that it’s functioned quite well, I think there’s quite a bit of interest. There’s reason to believe cities would want to at least consider going along Chapel Hill’s path.”

In Chapel Hill’s program, which could serve as a model for publicly funded elections in other cities, a special fund that’s part of the town budget finances the program.

Council candidates must raise at least 75 qualifying contributions totaling between $750 and $2,250. Mayoral candidates must raise at least 150 qualifying contributions totaling between $1,500 and $4,500. “Rescue funds” provide additional money to candidates facing opponents who spend more money than the high end of the threshold during a campaign.

Without question, money affects elections. In the 2008 presidential race, Barack Obama prevailed over John McCain after spending record-breaking amounts of money. McCain accepted the spending limits of the federal public-financing regime. Obama opted out of those restrictions.

Conversely, the November race for mayor of Greensboro throws a wrench in the argument that only money talks. In that contest, challenger Bill Knight defeated incumbent Yvonne Johnson even though Johnson — a 14-year veteran of the city council and one-term mayor — raised and spent much more money than first-time officeholder Knight.

Glasser — who’s also listed as the coordinator for Greensboro Citizens for Clean Elections, which advocates publicly funded elections — acknowledges that Greensboro’s race was unusual.

Still, he adds, the candidate with the most money prevails in the majority of elections. Glasser also worries that campaign finance laws allow nonresidents who don’t have a true stake in an election to bankroll campaigns.

Daren Bakst, an attorney and John Locke Foundation legal and regulatory policy analyst, says hopefuls for elected office who can convince individuals and groups to voluntarily underwrite their campaigns suggest there’s public support for their candidacy.

“When you raise money, that’s an indication of whether or not you have support from the public,” Bakst said. “Fundraising is part of the process.
This theory that fundraising is somehow wrong is incorrect.”

Bakst cites several other arguments against taxpayer-supported elections. For starters, he says there’s a powerful legal argument that publicly financed elections are unconstitutional.

Bakst cites the 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Davis v. Federal Elections Commission, which ruled that the government couldn’t penalize a candidate for spending beyond a threshold amount of money because those penalties hindered his free speech rights.

As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, two states — Arizona and New Jersey — have taken closer looks at plans to create matching fund provisions in local elections.

Bakst also argues that taxpayer-funded elections really do nothing to stop money from influencing elections. While candidates might be limited in how much money they can raise, political action committees can still raise large amounts of money to support a candidate.

“You can have independent groups spend a fortune for subsidized candidates,” Bakst said. “The point is you’re not reducing money through these systems.”

Bakst says the most compelling argument against taxpayer-financed elections is that it’s just plain wrong to take money from a city’s or county’s general fund — as Chapel Hill’s system does — to subsidize political candidates.

There are more essential public uses for scarce taxpayer funds — such as infrastructure, education, and police and fire protection. Bankrolling political campaigns are not a high priority for taxpayers.

And any system of public finance forces taxpayers to provide financial support for candidates they endorse and those they disagree with.

“Taking the hard-earned dollars of Chapel Hill residents and handing those dollars to politicians for personal purposes is inexcusable,” Bakst said. “They may not have voted for a certain candidate, but they were certainly supporting them financially. Even if they find their views morally repugnant, [taxpayers] have to support that candidate.”

Sam A. Hieb is a contributor to Carolina Journal.