RALEIGH – On Wednesday, the first day of hearings before the State Board of Elections about House Speaker Jim Black’s campaign-fundraising machine explored just a single cog. But what an interesting and instructive cog it was.

Testimony from several optometrists and political operatives revealed a practice of uncertain legality: donors signing checks without filling in the recipient or date, then handing those checks over to a fundraiser (in this case, the N.C. State Optometric Society Political Action Committee) who decided where the money should go. The check amounts were generally $100 a pop – a significant number because the rule requiring full disclosure of campaign donations kicks in at amounts over $100. And while some of the money ended up in campaign accounts, other checks were apparently cashed for personal use by Reps. Howard Hunter and Michael Decker, the Republican-turned-Democrat-turned-Republican who helped deliver effective control of the North Carolina House to Black, a Democrat, even though Democrats won only 59 of 120 seats in the 2002 elections.

If anyone came across immediately from the hearings as appearing slimy, it was Decker. He didn’t comment to reporters after the hearings. After all, what could he really say? That he had always been popular among North Carolina optometrists for his lengthy record on eye-exam issues? That his sudden party switch, putting Black (an optometrist) in position to take control of the chamber, had nothing to do with the subsequent flood of checks?

There were some convenient memory lapses among those testifying. It seems obvious that this practice is designed to evade the disclosure rules, thus hiding from public view which individuals and industries were supporting particular legislative candidates. The witnesses simply didn’t want to admit that. They said it was a “common practice,” which is worrisome, or that they simply trusted their PAC operatives to do the right thing with the money. Not good defenses.

I will admit that one aspect of the story as revealed during the Wednesday hearings made me a little nervous about the fairness of the outcome. Is the practice of handing in blank $100 checks illegal? Obviously, defenders of the practice insist that it is legal. Ken Bell, an attorney for Black, told the Associated Press that current law allows PACs to collect and distribute funds the way the optometrists testified to. (Wait, what’s Bell talking about, if the speaker hasn’t been the target of an investigation all along?)

What is most troubling is this passage from the same story:

Board chairman Larry Leake said after the hearing the board has yet decide whether the practice is unlawful, but believes it doesn’t promote full disclosure. Should the board conclude the practice is illegal, it can issue penalties of up to three times the amount donated, issue a public rebuke or forward potential criminal activity to prosecutors.

Have we truly reached the point where a politically appointed, quasi-judicial panel can decide after the fact whether a campaign-finance practice is lawful, and then issue significant fines or even criminal referrals?

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.