RALEIGH – I didn’t think the cloud hovering over House Speaker Jim Black could darken further. I was wrong. Mark Johnson of The Charlotte Observer reported Tuesday that Black and Meredith Norris – the lobbyist and former top aide to the speaker – sought to interfere with the state’s bidding process in order to punish a state contractor for expressing an opinion.
The economist in question, John Connaughton, works at UNC-Charlotte. Over the years, he’s carved out a role as a “go-to” person when governments or publicly funded agencies need an economic-impact analysis. Connaughton is no Republican hack or conservative ideologue – indeed, he and I had a friendly but spirited tax-policy disagreement just this Wednesday morning at an Institute for Emerging Issues meeting. But for the sin of telling the Observer back in April that Connaughton thought North Carolina’s marginal tax rates were uncompetitive, Black and Norris apparently put him on their enemies list and, according to a document Johnson obtained, sought to cancel a state-funded contract he was bidding on.
Let me try to explain the chain of events. In addition to her other roles, Norris worked as a paid lobbyist for an association of state-funded regional partnerships for economic development (some of which have serious ethical problems of their own). The NC Department of Commerce serves as a pass-through for money appropriated by the General Assembly for these partnerships. Keep in mind that Norris, while a paid lobbyist, also seems to have continued acting as a powerful “shadow staffer” for Black, who obviously had significant influence over the partnerships’ continued state funding.
Commerce officials reportedly wanted to commission a study of the economic impact of the automotive-supply industry. Connaughton was obviously a potential contractor for such a project, given his track record. (I should say that I am highly suspicious of the value of these kinds of studies, which are often misused to suggest that state funds “invested” in a given project or industry will generate net economic benefits even though the studies rarely consider the opportunity cost of using the dollars some other way. So I cannot be construed as a fan of the proposed study, which could only have been used for unwise policymaking.)
Once Norris and Black got wind of Connaughton’s comments on state taxes, however, they decided to retaliate. Norris told the partnership officials that the speaker wanted them to reject Connaughton’s application to do the $50,000 research project. She made it clear that Black was not objecting to Connaughton’s professional competence. The objection was to giving the contract to someone who disagreed with the speaker on a policy matter.
This was a ghastly error in judgment. In a sense, using the prospect of state funding as a prod to force compliance with Black’s political viewpoint is worse than anything he or Norris is accused of doing in the Scientific Games case, where there is as yet no evidence of a quid pro quo.
The speaker’s office then made a bad story far, far worse by trying to defend his actions. “Connaughton obviously supported a plan to cut taxes on the wealthiest taxpayers in our state by a reduction of the personal income tax rate,” Black’s press representative said, “but he also wanted funding for his research study.”
What a “defense.” So, if a conservative Republican applies for a recently created job in state government, he shouldn’t be hired? This is appalling. Black’s bad news continues to cascade.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.