RALEIGH – Elections and effective self-government are not synonymous.
It might seem an odd time to say this – what, with a fascinating and competitive set of elections to be decided in just a couple of weeks – but I’ll stand by the point. Obviously, elections are a key part of representative government, and a critical means of seeking to hold public officials accountable for administering an open, honest, and effective government. But so many variables and issues influence the outcome of any given election that it would be a mistake to equate elections with all of those other things.
Ethics in government, for example, is obviously a pivotal issue in the 2006 cycle. If Republicans lose control of the U.S. House, it will be largely due to voter perception – much of it squarely in line with reality – that House leaders have not set and enforced high ethical standards for their members and the various interests that seek to influence legislative outcomes. Individual members who have admitted to or being credibly charged with ethical transgressions are also at risk, or in several cases already out the door and potentially headed to either plea-bargain negotiations or the hoosegow.
Here in North Carolina, however, we may not see the ethical cloud surrounding House Speaker Jim Black extend much beyond southern Mecklenburg County darken the prospects of other Democratic candidates. (Black does have a real race in his own, moderately Democratic district against Republican challenger Hal Jordan, which few expected and is unimaginable without the explanation of scandal.) This is a Democratic year, after all, and voters in most places are thinking about a number of other issues besides who didn’t say what to whom in the House leadership about the problems up on the second floor of the Legislative Building.
That’s not to say that there aren’t other important means in our system of government for holding public officials accountable. Leadership elections, for example, still exist as a check, and I am told that Black’s chances of being re-elected speaker, should he survive Jordan’s challenge, aren’t good. Whoever is the next speaker of the N.C. House will likely attract a great deal of careful scrutiny from reporters, government watchdogs, and members of both parties (either to head off future problems or to capitalize on them).
After all, accountability doesn’t end for politicians who are not expected to face the voters again and yet continue to wield significant governmental authority. The Charlotte Observer’s Bruce Henderson provided a good example of how that is done with a Sunday story revealing that Gov. Mike Easley and his close aides sought approval for a Clean Water Management Trust Fund grant to buy a piece of mountain property from an owner whose family members and associates subsequently gave the governor’s 2004 re-election campaign nearly $60,000. Henderson’s reporting offered credible evidence that these donors, many political neophytes or loyal Republicans, had little reason to support the governor other than as an act of gratitude for steering the land sale through the approval process.
No doubt, given the significance of this story, other reporters will be asking Easley’s office for further explanation. (“Easley’s staff wouldn’t made the governor available for an interview,” wrote Henderson, more or less throwing out press-corps bait.) Perhaps a good explanation will be forthcoming. Or perhaps the story will develop legs and lead to more and tougher questions. It is not as if no one has ever raised questions before about issues involving the governor and land deals.
My point is that press coverage, ongoing competition between the branches of government, the work of independent researchers and watchdogs, law-enforcement investigations, and other means exist to expose, to challenge, and to hold accountable. Voters can do it on Election Day, too, and should. It’s all good.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.