Category Archives: Campaigns

Bill repeals public campaign matching funds

Filed today by House Elections co-chair David Lewis
House Bill 297 Matching Funds Repeal Main Page

Short Title:        Matching Funds Repeal. (Public)
Sponsors: Representative Lewis.
Referred to:  

 

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT to remove the matching funds provisions of the public campaign act and the voter‑owned election act and to make conforming and related changes.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. G.S. 163‑278.62(18) is repealed.

SECTION 2. G.S. 163‑278.66(a) is repealed.

SECTION 3. G.S. 163‑278.67 is repealed.

SECTION 4. G.S. 163‑278.64(d)(2) reads as rewritten:

“(2)      From the filing of a declaration of intent through the end of the qualifying period, a candidate may accept only qualifying contributions, contributions under ten dollars ($10.00) from North Carolina voters, and personal and family contributions permitted under subdivision (4) of this subsection. The total contributions the candidate may accept during this period shall not exceed the maximum qualifying contributions for that candidate. In addition to these contributions, the candidate may only expend during this period the remaining money raised pursuant to subdivision (1) of this subsection and possible matching funds received pursuant to G.S. 163‑278.67.subsection. Except for personal and family contributions permitted under subdivision (4) of this subsection, multiple contributions from the same contributor to the same candidate shall not exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00).”

SECTION 5. G.S. 163‑278.64(d)(3) reads as rewritten:

“(3)      After the qualifying period and through the date of the general election, the candidate shall expend only the funds the candidate receives from the Fund pursuant to G.S. 163‑278.65(b)(4) plus any funds remaining from the qualifying period and possible matching funds.period.

SECTION 6. G.S. 163‑278.64A(a) reads as rewritten:

“(a)       Participation Provisions Modified. — Candidates involved in elections described in G.S. 163‑329 may participate in the Fund subject to the provisions of G.S. 163‑278.64 as modified by this section. The Board shall adapt other provisions of this Article, including G.S. 163‑278.67, Article to those elections.”

SECTION 7. G.S. 163‑278.65(b)(2) reads as rewritten:

“(2)      Contested primaries. — No funds shall be distributed except as provided in G.S. 163‑278.67.distributed.

SECTION 8. G.S. 163‑278.96(17) is repealed.

SECTION 9. G.S. 163‑278.99A(a) is repealed.

SECTION 10. G.S. 163‑278.99B is repealed.

SECTION 11. G.S. 163‑278.98(e)(2) reads as rewritten:

“(2)      From the filing of a declaration of intent through the end of the qualifying period, a candidate may accept only qualifying contributions, contributions under ten dollars ($10.00) from North Carolina voters, in‑kind party contributions as permitted in subdivision (4) of this subsection, and personal and family contributions permitted under subdivision (4a) of this subsection. The total contributions the candidate may accept during this period shall not exceed the maximum qualifying contributions for that candidate. In addition to these contributions, the candidate may only expend during this period the remaining money raised pursuant to subdivision (1) of this subsection and possible matching funds received pursuant to G.S. 163‑278.99B.subsection. If the candidate has any remaining money that was raised as contributions before August 1 of the year before the election, the candidate may not expend that money after filing the declaration of intent, except for purposes permitted under subdivision (2), (3), (6), (7), or (8) of G.S. 163‑278.16B(a).”

SECTION 12. G.S. 163‑278.98(e)(3) reads as rewritten:

“(3)      After the qualifying period and through the date of the general election, the candidate shall cease campaign‑related fund‑raising activities and shall expend only the funds the candidate receives from the Fund pursuant to G.S. 163‑278.99(b) plus any funds remaining from the qualifying period and possible matching funds.period.

SECTION 13. G.S. 163‑278.99(b)(2) reads as rewritten:

“(2)      Contested primaries. — No funds shall be distributed except as provided in G.S. 163‑278.99B.distributed.

SECTION 14. G.S. 163‑278.13(e4) is repealed.

SECTION 15. This act is effective when it becomes law.

Big haul expected for caucus fundraiser

Paying –> playing.

Democracy NC keeps the heat on:

Caucus Fundraisers on Eve of Session,
New Records Set in 2012 Election

On the eve of tomorrow’s General Assembly session, you might think legislators are meetings with their constituents, discussing their concerns about what state government should do. Well, that’s not exactly what you get in today’s General Assembly, where many seats cost more than $250,000 to win and money is always on the mind.

Tonight, the NC Republican House Caucus will hold a gala fundraiser at the Cardinal Club with tickets from $150 to $10,000. Because of ethics rules, lobbyists are not allowed to contribute to a legislator’s campaign committees, but they can give to party organizations. The invitation to tonight’s event makes it plain: “Lobbyists registered in North Carolina are not prohibited from contributing to the NC Republican House Caucus.” The underlying message is also clear: Pay up if you want to be a serious player in the session this year.

Other caucuses are doing the same, and have long done so, from both parties. The caucus accounts within the political parties allow legislative leaders to suck in special-interest money all year long and also develop solidarity and discipline among legislators. Each caucus member is expected to donate something from their campaign, and chairs of major committees are expected to put in more, if they want to keep their positions. The millions in the caucus fund then gets spent in several hotly contested races that help the members keep or retake their majority status and power.

As the Democracy North Carolina chart shows, the caucus money system was perfected by Senate Democrats Marc Basnight and Tony Rand, but in their first effort as the incumbent majority, the GOP House and Senate caucuses have broken all records for the amounts of money pulled in and then spent on target races. An article in today’s Charlotte Observer helps explains how the system works.

The horse race

Been immersed in the horse race coverage. As we start early voting in NC and get closer to Election Day, the speculating goes up to 11. The national pundit corps is starting to troll deeper into state media for clues.
So, the venerable Rob Christensen puts up a post on Under the Dome which says the Romney folks are confident about NC and are sending staff from NC to Ohio. And Politico is all “Boom! NC is over says the N&O.” Of course, their headline, Is NC Cooked?, include the all-important question mark, but it’s out there.
I’m not going to blame Rob, because he’s doing his job, although there is no indication that he knows for an absolute fact that the Romney folks are confident. They might just have decided that they can’t risk losing Ohio and are pouring resources into it, which seems to be the case from everything else I’ve read.
Also, i just the love term “site-leading report.”
The full story, which arrived this am in the N&O is a little more nuanced. The Romney folks are citing a widening lead in the polls. You’d think someone at the N&O would have this page bookmarked. Note that McCain led in the polls all the way up until the votes were counted. Mason-Dixon has McCain up by 3 points going into November.

Ellmers, Fox, Burr and McHenry make the Dirty Air Villian list

The NRCD announced its list of legislators who “Voted Dirty” today in a new effort to highlight which members of congress are heroes or villains when it comes to air quality protection. North Carolina Senator Richard Burr and Representatives Renee Ellmers, Virginia Foxx and Patrick McHenry make the list.
The report details votes along with contributions from polluting industries as well.
Here’s the look-up page.

Mitt, Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan

One of the things that’s struck me about the difference between this presidential campaign and the last 40 or so has been the lack of war talk. If ever there was an indication that the realities of war-without-end has ground out nearly all the enthusiasm in the country for foreign military ventures, it’s that candidates are not crisscrossing the land rattling sabers and promising death to somebody, a staple of national politics in almost every country.

In peacetime this usually meant questioning a candidate’s readiness to be commander-in-chief and, in the case of men of a certain age, whether or not they actually served. This was taken to great heights in the 1992 campaign during which Bill Clinton’s opposition to the Vietnam war was a major part of the GOP’s strategy to paint him as irresponsible, unpatriotic and unready – a cleaned up hippie in a suit.

Here in North Carolina, a state that’s home to huge numbers of active and retired military folks, issues of war and peace are important and personal. People here want to hear specifics, not just lofty rhetoric about staying strong. Staying strong as defined over the past decade has put a hell of a burden on communities throughout this state, especially in the base towns of eastern NC. In these places, it’s been endless war with all the sacrifice and hardship that entails. They have a right to a little more attention. It’s a shame that the pending sequester of roughly $500 million in military spending over 10 years, a crude tool employed during last year’s even cruder political joust over the debt ceiling, is getting more attention in this election cycle than those wounded or killed on the battlefield and their loved ones back home.

Somehow the other night, in the most important speech of his life, the man who wants to be commander-in-chief failed to mention the sacrifices of the past decade or even give a nod to the tens of thousands serving today in a hostile places around the globe. He did not say “Afghanistan,” a nation this country invaded and currently occupies along with our NATO allies. And, with the erasure of George W. Bush from the history of the Republican Party almost complete, he dared not mention Iraq.

Mr. Romney is going to have to change that if he wants to reap the votes that are waiting for him in the 910 area code and elsewhere in the state. And he’s going to have to offer something tangible alongside the talk about preserving freedom around the world. There’s a price to that in human terms and when he travels to the base towns of North Carolina, he’ll have to meet some of the people who have paid dearly. He’ll have to look them in they eye and talk about where and when and why. He’ll have to talk VA and benefits and PTSD. He won’t just be able to talk tough about Syria and Iran, he’ll have to talk about the realities of Afghanistan and the consequences of Iraq. He’ll have to provide some proof that he won’t just restaff the DOD and his cabinet with the same people who sent millions overseas to fight without a clear objective and a way out.

And if there is a just God, he’ll have to talk about Vietnam. He’ll explain how it was that he stayed out of service in Vietnam at the same time he protested in favor of the war and others being drafted to fight it. When he visits Fayetteville or Havelock, he won’t be able to sell the idea that his time in France during the war was tough because of anti-Vietnam sentiment. He’ll have to talk about it because of his own history and also because it taught this country a harsh lesson about war and commitment. Many North Carolinians who fought in that war have sons and daughters and grandkids in uniform today. They deserve to know something of what the future holds and they deserve to know from any candidate for president, especially one who was able to serve at the time, what lessons he learned from ‘Nam.

Further reading:
Digby – QOTD: Gloria Borger
Mediaite – CNN Airs The Most Ridiculous Statement I’ve Ever Seen On Television

Buzzfeed – Mitt Romney, Student Protester
UK Telegraph – Mitt Romney’s life as a poor Mormon missionary in France questioned