RALEIGH – Perhaps I’m misreading this, but based on what I’ve seen and heard over the past week, I suspect that House Speaker Jim Black has made a plea bargain to retain the speakership through the 2006 session.
No, I don’t mean that literally. Black has not been charged with anything by federal or state authorities. What I mean is that as a political matter, the charges of influence-peddling, campaign-finance irregularities, and a lax approach to running his office have stuck. Many Democrats believe he should not be the leader of their North Carolina House majority. But many, perhaps most, of these Democrats – including the House Democratic caucus itself – are amenable to Black retaining the job through the 2006 session, just not afterward. That’s why the speaker and his allies don’t fear the outcome of Tuesday’s caucus meeting.
So why not insist on Black’s immediate departure? I’ve heard several explanations from Democrats:
Loyalty. Some Democratic members still feel intensely loyal to the speaker who led them for years and, in many cases, financed their campaigns in contested races. While they may be troubled by what they’ve heard about Black’s conduct during these sessions and campaigns, they believe the significance of the allegations has been exaggerated by Republican antagonists and their allies in the news media.
Hmm.
Fear. Some Democrats not inclined to dismiss the allegations as exaggerated are nevertheless fearful of pressing for Black to go now. They don’t see how Democrats can be competitive in House races this fall without the benefit of the speaker’s leadership and fundraising prowess. They wonder where Black’s existing campaign funds would go after an ouster. Also, they fear what could happen if they go public and Black keeps his post. As the fantasy author George R.R. Martin put it, when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.
Legislative business. There are only a few weeks remaining before the start of the 2006 legislative session. Some Democrats who might otherwise contemplate acting against Black don’t see how a new speaker and leadership team could be in place fast enough to prepare for tussles with the governor and state senator over how to spend an expected $600 million to $800 million budget surplus, whether to enact an election-year tax cut, and how to reform the legislative process enough to please critics but not too much for members who think the current process is just fine.
Politics. While some Democrats clearly believe that having Jim Black remain House Speaker through the November elections is extremely risky, handing Republicans a pertinent campaign issue and intensifying the damage should he be indicted this year, other Democrats disagree. They argue that GOP candidates are going to use Black in their campaign messages either way. The damage, whatever its extent, is already done, they say. To force Black out would be an admission of guilt and actually worsen the political hit, goes this argument.
Let me repeat that I rarely hear Democrats make these points (privately) without insisting that they still believe Black cannot be speaker past 2006. His re-election in 2007 seems unlikely (either by a Democratic majority or Democratic-led coalition). Also, I happen to think the above arguments don’t wash, and make little political sense. But I’m not in the House Democratic caucus – so I guess that, like everyone else, I’ll just have to wait and see what happens.
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.