State Rep. Joni Bowie had $25,000 in her campaign after losing her bid for a ninth term in the state House last year. She spent most of it on a new Acura sports car and a new Dell computer, then invested the remaining $6,700 for her retirement.

Bowie's explanation: She was out of office, other lawmakers have done it, and it's perfectly legal.

"Everybody I know takes what's left over in their account, don't they?" said Bowie, a Guilford Republican.

Not everyone, but some do.

Former state Sen. Don Kincaid, a Lenoir Republican, split most of the remaining $9,600 in his political campaign fund among his children in 2001, records show. He said in a campaign filing that he was reimbursing them for the "time he was away." In an interview, Kincaid said he was rewarding them for their campaign volunteer work.

The state's longest-serving House speaker, Liston Ramsey, a Madison County Democrat, wrote himself a check for more than $40,000 when he closed his campaign account in 2000.

Former Rep. Lanier Cansler, an Asheville Republican, kept more than $5,000 from his campaign account in 2001. He said in an interview that it went to his personal savings account. Cansler said he incurred lots of personal expenses while campaigning six times for the House seat and felt it was common for candidates to keep leftover money.

A review by The News & Observer of campaign accounts closed in recent years shows the practice isn't isolated. At least a few dozen lawmakers have kept campaign cash after leaving office. In most instances, legislators took no more than a few thousand dollars, records show. IRS rules require the cash to be reported as personal income.

Call for action

The recent disclosure that former state Rep. Michael Decker pocketed a $4,000 campaign contribution from House Speaker Jim Black this year has some now saying that it's time to put an end to letting politicians keep the cash. They want North Carolina to join the federal government and many states in banning the practice.

Under North Carolina election law, political candidates are allowed to spend contributions as they please -- as long as they disclose it in campaign finance reports.

"This money shouldn't be able to be kept for a personal use," said Ran Coble, executive director of the N.C. Center for Public Policy Research, a nonpartisan think tank based in Raleigh. "The premise behind the contribution is that it was given for someone running for office. Using it for cars ... and other personal uses, that's not the intent."

The lack of a prohibition also allows contributors to reward a lawmaker for aiding them.

Decker, a Forsyth County Republican, received the $4,000 contribution from Black in February, and then closed his campaign account the next day. Decker had been trounced in the GOP primary in 2004, largely because his brief switch to the Democratic party in early 2003 allowed Black to remain speaker.

"To give money to Mike Decker in February -- that is no more than a personal payment," said Rep. John Blust, a Greensboro Republican.

Black's press secretary, Julie Robinson, said last week that Decker was one of many lawmakers to whom Black gave money this year to help retire campaign debts. Decker's campaign report shows no outstanding debt. She also said that Black thought Decker might run again.

Decker has declined to comment on his campaign finances. A recent analysis of Decker's campaign filings by Bob Hall of Democracy North Carolina, a campaign finance watchdog group, shows that some of Black's long-standing contributors gave $30,000 to Decker in the 10 days before or after he backed Black for speaker.

Since then, Decker has used campaign money to buy a car and a plane ticket to go pick it up. He spent thousands from his campaign account on lodging, food and gas during the session, while receiving a $104 per diem from the legislature for such expenses.

Black's ties to Decker, which include helping create a $48,000 state job for Decker, are now being investigated by federal authorities, according to a subpoena delivered to Black's legislative office in October.

States' oversight

A majority of states have enacted prohibitions on the personal use of campaign money. Some allow exceptions for things such as the reimbursement of personal loans to the campaign or to cover damage to personal items while campaigning.

Robert Stern, president of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, said public scandals have forced many of the prohibitions. He said California passed its ban in 1981 after lawmakers spent campaign money on cars and other perks.

"It is an important reform because campaign funds should be used for campaigns, not for personal slush funds," Stern said. "Donors should not be giving knowing that legislators can be enriched with such gifts."

In 1993, Congress prohibited its members from pocketing remaining campaign funds when they left office. They can donate the money to other political campaigns or to charities, or refund the money to contributors.

Many former North Carolina legislators have done just that, campaign reports show. Former Rep. Gene Arnold, a Rocky Mount Republican, wrote thousands of dollars in checks to reimburse campaign contributors before closing his campaign account in 2002.

"I had a great deal of fun writing the checks," Arnold said. "I figured it was the public's money, not my money."

State lawmakers have talked about a prohibition over the years. This year, Blust filed a bill patterned after the federal law. Black moved it to the House Committee on Election Law and Campaign Finance Reform, where it sat for the rest of the session.

One of the committee's chairmen, Rep. Tim Moore, a Kings Mountain Republican, said in an interview last week that he did not recall the bill. He said there had been little talk about the issue this year.

At first, Moore said lawmakers ought to police themselves without a change in the law. But as he talked more about it, Moore said that it made sense to adopt a prohibition. He noted that the cost of campaigning has soared in recent years -- he and his opponent last year spent roughly $350,000 combined -- leaving the potential for big personal payoffs.

"We need to make it crystal clear that there has to be a limit on the influence of money in politics," Moore said. "Right now, people think it's all corruption. But there have to be more safeguards in place, and perhaps this is one of those safeguards."

(News researchers Becky Ogburn and David Raynor contributed to this report.)