There are a lot of people on the list of "folks you do not want knocking on your door." A sheriff's deputy, if he's holding papers and the handcuffs have been removed from the locked position on the belt. The Internal Revenue Service. The neighbor who has just been called out of town on work and needs you to look after his two Dobermans and four cats for a few days.

And if you are a North Carolina politician who might be touched by shenanigans or even the resemblance of same, there's Bob Hall and Democracy North Carolina, faithful watchdogs of good government, and more to the point, bad government. This independent group keeps track of things like campaign contributions and their influence on lawmaking, and a host of other issues wherein we the people might be forgotten by the honorables in favor of we the video poker operators, or we the tobacco companies or we the beer wholesalers.

One can read the group's "Political Report Card for 2005" and draw one's own conclusions. Consider the summation of special interest spending in the form of campaign contributions: Optometrists gave more than $125,000 in the 2004 election to legislative and Council of State candidates, with over $59,000 of that going to embattled House Speaker Jim Black, who is...you got it, an optometrist! Black was helpful in inserting a provision into law requiring eye exams for 5-year-olds entering public schools. Pediatricians and school officials were against it, understandably so, because they say kids already get eye tests, and the requirement will mean parents will have to pay 75 bucks or so for the exams.

The beer industry put over $500,000 into the last election -- they had more than one worry, Hall reports, but the big one was to kill any thought of raising the beer tax. They got their wish.

And then there was the embarrassing push from UNC-Chapel Hill boosters, who contributed over $300,000 to candidates through a political action committee. Just interested in good government, you know -- well, and getting full-scholarship students from out of state classified as in-state, even though they're not from North Carolina. That makes those students eligible for much lower tuition. The big winner there, of course, will be booster clubs who fund scholarships for athletes.

These are only recent examples, and just part of the report card that also notes Black's troubles regarding the company that hired his then-political director during the push for a state lottery. The N&O's reporting of that messy business has led to official investigations. In fact, the report card notes, all kinds of state and federal investigations are going on right now.

Most of the reforms Hall cites as positive developments -- slated to take effect in January 2007 -- have to do with better disclosure of lobbyists' spending on legislators. That wine-and-dine dance is almost non-stop. Through the years, as campaigns have gotten more expensive, the special interests and their lobbyists have gained more influence and the people's voice has gotten more and more muffled.

The various shall-we-say challenges facing the speaker, and recognition of the UNC PAC's money clout, have stepped up the push for more reform and for accelerating those lobbying rule changes slated for 2007. "If scandal is the mother of reform..." Hall told me, in hoping further changes will be done. No kidding. If scandal, or even the appearance of it, is the mother of reform, there might be a baby boom hereabouts.

The pols, of course, react with huffing and puffing whenever it's suggested they might need more rules to protect the public's interest. The Same Old Line goes: To suggest "reform" is to insult our integrity. It's suggesting that we can't be trusted, that we're bought and paid for.

Not exactly, ladies and gentlemen. But just exactly why isn't it a good idea to tighten the rules so that if one of your number does decide to don a for-sale sticker, he or she just won't be able to, and the potential buyers won't be tempted to make the purchase?

First, no more gifts of any kind, be they worth a dime or a few hundred dollars, from lobbyists or their special interests. Second, take a voluntary pledge not to accept any more campaign donations from those same folks. Hard to fund a campaign, you say? OK, then why not a public financing law that will furnish limited but adequate funds to candidates who take the pledge? (A number of judicial candidates ran, and won, using money from a public finance fund.)

We've had enough excuses, enough sanctimonious pronouncements about how every one of our honorables makes Abe Lincoln look like John Dillinger. Because as faint as the public's voice has become, it's liable to rise again in protest at the ballot box.

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.