RALEIGH - Of all the bad ideas that have surfaced this election season, greater government control over political speech is among the worst. Democratic gubernatorial candidates Richard Moore and Beverly Perdue both support plans that would create an endowment of funds to finance elections for governor.

The candidates claim that these funds would be private and not come from the taxpayers. But this is what supporters said about public financing of North Carolina judicial elections for seats on the appellate courts.

There, a voluntary system was quickly replaced with a scheme that forces taxpayers to fund judicial campaigns. Last year, $563,244 was transferred from the General Fund to the N.C. Voter-Owned Elections fund to cover a shortfall in voluntary tax-return checkoffs. Also, a $50 fee on lawyers for the fund is really a tax on all of us who might need legal services.

Just like taxpayer-funded judicial elections, the money for a gubernatorial election endowment would in fact, eventually come from the taxpayer. You can bet the rules would make it difficult for serious candidates to decline to participate. The likelihood is that taxpayers would be forced to provide "welfare for politicians" who choose to run for governor.

This is undemocratic and un-American. In a country that celebrates free speech, we must also celebrate the right not to speak. Forcing one to financially support campaigns is a violation of free speech. Forced political speech is not free speech.

Even more disturbing in Perdue's plans are what could be content restrictions on political speech. Under her proposed plan, endowment funds would go only to candidates who conduct "clean, positive campaigns." Presumably, candidates could not run "negative" campaign ads if they take the public financing method. Who defines "negative"?

While some people are turned off by negative ads, they serve an important purpose. Are the voters not served when a contrast is drawn between candidates? Does it not serve the public to know which candidates support tax cuts and which do not? Does an ad inform voters about the candidate's position on important issues, or is it "negative"?

l l l

THE IDEA THAT VOTERS WOULD HAVE TO VIEW MONTHS OF BIOGRAPHICAL TV COMMERCIALS put out by the candidates is disconcerting. Knowing that a candidate's mother loves him or her does little to help voters determine where he or she stands on important issues.

Perdue claims that her plan would help clean up elections by removing special-interest money from the process. Has she not seen the failed efforts of the McCain/Feingold act? That federal law has resulted in more shadowy groups trying to finance elections with little disclosure of who the donors really are. Has she not seen the failed efforts of North Carolina's judicial financing program, which in 2004 was thwarted by a "527"-type group called FairJudges.net?

Americans for Prosperity believes in the principles of limited government and free markets. We stand against this proposed increase in government control over campaigns and fight for the free market of ideas in campaigns.

Perdue and Moore propose to take our elections in exactly the wrong direction. North Carolina should immediately halt all forced taxpayer support of elections. The state should deregulate campaign finance, allowing people to donate as much as they want to political campaigns as long as it is disclosed within 48 hours of the donation.

We as a people should do all we can to support the free market of ideas and maximize political speech. If the proposed restrictions on political speech are such a good idea, let candidates abide by them voluntarily.

(Dallas Woodhouse is the state director of Americans for Prosperity-North Carolina (www.afpnc.org).)