RALEIGH – The North Carolina House and Senate have each passed ethics legislation in the waning days of the 2010 legislative session. There remain some significant differences between the two bills, leaving some political observers to wonder if lawmakers can strike a deal before going home to campaign.

They can strike such a deal, yes. But will they? It depends on how they think they can play the issue once they get home.

If the Democrats who run the two chambers believe they can run on the fact that they passed some version of an ethics bill – even if it didn’t become law – then they might be inclined to let things lie. For example, Senate leaders don’t like the provision of the House bill that puts a $1,000 cap on campaign contributions from contractors doing business with the state. The Senate version merely authorizes a study of the issue.

Politically speaking, however, I think the risks of adjourning without strengthening North Carolina’s laws against political corruption far outweigh any benefits the leaders of the respective chambers might expect to derive from standing firm.

When deciding whom to vote for in November, I doubt that most North Carolinians would put the state’s embarrassing reputation for political corruption at the top of the priority list. In a state with a double-digit unemployment rate, economic issues will always get the most attention.

But there are several key legislative races where the corruption issue could prove potent. Where strong Republican candidates are running against incumbent Democratic leaders – such as Rep. Hugh Holliman in Davidson County’s 81st district – undecided voters could well be persuaded by effective mailers or ads to toss out anyone associated with the rogues gallery of former Democratic officeholders who left office in disgrace.

By leaving ethics reform on the table this year, the Democrats would have failed to:

• Make it clear that state officials are not permitted to solicit favors or bribes from special interests seeking government money or regulatory approval.

• Make it a crime, not just a violation of ethics, for state officials to obtain campaign contributions from state vendors by promising special treatment in fiscal or regulatory matters.

• Make it a felony, not just a misdemeanor, for North Carolinians to give more than $10,000 in political contributions in the name of someone else, thus subverting the state’s disclosure laws.

• Expand the state’s public database of campaign contributions to make it easier for reporters, watchdogs, opposition candidates, and the general public to detect patterns of influence-peddling.

• Increase disclosure of the salary and promote histories of state employees.

• Strengthen the enforcement of North Carolina’s open-government laws by allowing people to recover court costs when they successfully sue the state for withholding public records illegally.

Strengthening the state’s laws on public corruption is a necessary but insufficient condition for cleaning up the mess. Politicians will have to take their oaths of public service and fealty to the constitution more seriously. Voters will have to punish crooked politicians at the polls. Media organizations and government watchdogs will have to increase their investments in investigative journalism and public-interest litigation.

Still, the time to act is now, in the current legislative session – not after the election cycles of 2010 or 2012. Even if incumbents don’t agree that the issue itself demands urgent attention, at least they should consider the very real possibility that inaction will turn them into former incumbents this fall.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.