Money, talking

Big money rules the day on Jones Street, and that's not good for the credibility of Democratic legislative leaders

Here is what the owner of electrolysis businesses said of her attempts to get North Carolina lawmakers' attention on a regulatory bill pertaining to her industry: "It takes money to get legislation passed." And there was this from Dana Cope, head of an association representing state employees, about raising money for his group's political action committee: "It's become acutely aware to us in the last five years that those top 10 PACs are the ones that get whatever they like. That's the system that we have."

If world champeen political fund-raisers Marc Basnight and Jim Black aren't embarrassed and a little ashamed by those comments, they ought to be. Basnight, president pro tem of the state Senate from Manteo, has ruled the majority Democratic roost in his chamber for 13-plus years. A not-insignificant fact in his tenure is that he's doled out hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions through his party to Democrats whom he likes, and those who like him -- and will keep him in power.

The same is true for Black, now in his eighth year as House speaker. In 2004, for instance, he gave $650,000 that he raised to the Democratic Party, which passed it on to candidates who, when elected, obviously were beholden to the speaker and could be counted upon to keep him in his leadership post. And Black will hold on to his position even though he figures in multiple investigations related to campaign fund-raising and the passage of the state lottery.

Gimme, gimme

A News & Observer series on money and politics, published as the General Assembly was preparing to convene today, offers a dismaying report on the outsized influence of money on lawmaking. It's a simple cycle, really: Legislators, both powerful and not so powerful, go around with their hands out so much that it's a wonder their palms aren't chapped.

The ruling party, the Democratic Party, would have a hard time convincing North Carolinians that it's the party of the average citizen these days. Not when Basnight throws a $200,000 fund-raiser at Prestonwood Country Club in Cary. Not when Black appears as guest of honor at countless fund-raisers for his House colleagues, and when he and Basnight are courted by lobbyists and their clients in a way that makes Richard Burton's pursuit of Elizabeth Taylor look like a prom date.

And not when there are some interesting connections between the sources of money raised and the legislation passed -- or not passed. Black has gotten tens of thousands from the video poker industry, and that industry has escaped abolition in North Carolina even though that's the course advocated by the state's sheriffs. Optometrists, who also kicked in heavily to Black, were to benefit from a budget provision -- now put on hold by a judge -- that would have required eye exams of all kids entering public schools.

Allies and alumni of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, through their political action committee, meanwhile were spreading more than $300,000 in campaign contributions among a number of lawmakers. One of their goals was to obtain a ridiculous break for athletics booster clubs in the UNC system by changing the law to count all out-of-state full scholarship holders as in-state students for tuition purposes. The break was granted. Basnight, by the way, did his part to help.

Fairness challenged

No wonder lobbyists pay attention when they receive a solicitation letter from a legislator, or especially from a leader. When confronted with the question of whether money influences their lawmaking, legislators and those they follow inevitably say in chagrin, "Oh, of course not. No."

Their lips say no, but the money-raising says, "Pay to play," "Put up or shut up," "Here is my palm, where is my silver?" It is a "system" that challenges the faith of the people in the fairness of their legislature, and the competence of their government.

What's needed, ultimately, is public financing of campaigns that will dilute the influence of special-interest money. For now, some proposed reforms before legislators would be at least steps in the right direction. Those reforms include a ban on gifts from lobbyists, a ban on unlimited contributions to individual candidates from parties, an end to sneaky special budget provisions that legislate without debate, and a ban on converting unused campaign monies to personal use. These kinds of positive changes fortunately have some vocal advocates, but cynics might be forgiven if they didn't want to handicap the chances.

It would be an all too predictable outcome if any reforms were watered down or forgotten in the course of this session. Legislative leaders like to organize the dance, but once the music starts, they often don't take the floor. Let's hope this time they prove us wrong.