North Carolinians, especially those in the state government work force who look forward to a secure retirement, are glad to salute State Treasurer Richard Moore for his stewardship of the state employees pension fund, now worth $74 billion and ranked as one of the nation's strongest. The fund has scored decent returns within conservative investment guidelines.

Now, the problem: Moore has accepted campaign contributions from the very firms his office hires to manage assets in the fund. And because he insists that there is no semblance of favoritism shown to those firms, either in their selection or in the fees they are paid, he defends his acceptance of the campaign money.

This situation raises the tricky issue of appearances. Even assuming there's nothing untoward about Moore's relationship with the investment firms, why should an official in his position allow the issue to be raised by the appearance of a conflict of interest? It's easy to imagine the leaders of one of those firms that was angling for the state's business simply feeling as if they couldn't afford not to contribute to Moore. That sort of tacit pressure would taint the transaction.

Moore notes, correctly, that other statewide elected officials accept contributions from people associated with companies or industries doing business with the state, or over which they have regulatory authority. Why should the rules for him be any tighter, he wonders?

On that score, he has a point. It's time to look seriously at a public campaign finance system that would allow all statewide candidates to avoid these entanglements. Moore could make a powerful case to that effect, and claim the high ground on an issue that North Carolinians these days are more than a bit sensitive about.