A better deal

tool name

tool name

Involuntary speech

Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina boldly labels a public financing program for political candidates as honorable and voluntary ("Honorable alternatives for campaign financing," Nov. 5 Point of View article). He is wrong on both counts.

Public financing of political campaigns involves taking taxpayer dollars and making them available to candidates who choose to participate in the program. The voluntary part only applies to the candidates. Taxpayers, however, have no choice. Our tax dollars are directed to candidates we may not otherwise voluntarily support.

I fail to see anything honorable about the use of government force to compel taxpayers to financially support the promotion of ideas they find to be wrong-headed, harmful or even immoral.

Candidate gets public 'rescue' cash

Mayoral candidate Matt Czajkowski has passed a $21,000 fundraising threshold, triggering the release of another $4,000 in public "rescue" money for his chief opponent, fellow Councilman Mark Kleinschmidt.

Meanwhile, Kevin Wolff, a third candidate for mayor, has been ruled ineligible to participate in the town's first public financing campaign because he loaned himself $10,000, said Amy Strange, a compliance specialist for the state Board of Elections. Mayoral candidates may raise only $6,000 to qualify for public funds.

That leaves Kleinschmidt as the only one of four mayoral candidates using public financing.

Board sees need for accountability

The State Board of Elections believes candidates should be on the hook personally for what their campaigns do.

At the end of its hearing into the campaign finance activity of former Gov. Mike Easley, board Chairman Larry Leake said state law makes it too easy for candidates to deny responsibility for improprieties. It's also easy for a campaign to quickly run out of money and not have enough cash to pay penalties, such as the $100,000 levied Friday against Easley's campaign.

Easley's campaign doesn't have enough money to pay, an attorney for the campaign said.

N.C. public-finance law for judges praised

A national research organization says North Carolina has one of the best models of taxpayer-financed campaigns in the country.

A new report by the Center for Governmental Studies, a nonpartisan group, examines a 2002 North Carolina law that allows for publicly financed campaigns for state appellate court and Supreme Court seats. Candidates qualify for the program by raising a set number of small contributions in the primary and are then given money for the general election.

In 2008, 31 of the 41 candidates for these seats received money from the program.

Public financing is teetering

President-elect Barack Obama's rejection of public funds for his general-election campaign set a precedent that may forever change how such races are financed and signal a decline in support for campaign finance reform efforts, political experts say.

"Those who've been able to get elected without public finances don't have much incentive to reform a system to give an advantage to people who do need public financing," said Massie Ritsch, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington group that analyzes money in politics.

Political experts worry that the trend of increasingly expensive campaigns and opting out of public financing might discourage qualified candidates who can't raise large sums to run for public office and could lead to an increase in uncomfortable and, at times, unethical alliances between donors and candidates.