Campaign Fund Raising Getting Out of Hand; Alternative Needed

What made these candidates' victories possible? Was it fierce grassroots campaigning? Was it the endorsement of local community groups? Was it winning the battle of ideas against their opponents?

For most, it was simply money.

The only way to be a credible candidate in North Carolina is to be able to meet the enormous costs of running a successful campaign. Democracy South, a nonprofit group based in Carrboro, reports that the average cost of being elected to the N.C. Senate in 2000 was $134,500. For the House, it was $69,000.

It likely took even more money to win a seat this year. The (Raleigh) News & Observer reported Monday that overall expenditures in one campaign for the legislature -- the 40th Senate District in the Charlotte area -- might exceed $1 million.

Where do our candidates find all this funding for yard signs, glossy mailings and negative media advertising against their opponents? While some are rich enough to pay their own bills, most receive it from wealthy individuals and special interest groups. An elite 1 percent of the state's population provides 90 percent of the funding for N.C. elections.

The need to raise funds from this special elite becomes a ball and chain for politicians. Instead of having time to try to solve the problems of our state or get in touch with average voters, politicians' schedules are booked solid with fund-raisers.

Courting the support of wealthy donors is an obligation that never goes away; the next election is always less than two years away for members of the General Assembly.

A system in which the only credible candidates are the rich and those who have prostrated themselves to political patrons is a system that's broken. It's time to make every citizen's vote count just as much as a check from the AFL-CIO or the NRA.

Fortunately, a month ago, the General Assembly corrected one of the most egregious flaws in our system of financing elections. Until now, judicial candidates have been forced to fund their campaigns with contributions primarily taken from the lawyers who try cases before them. Talk about a conflict of interest. However, starting in 2004, judicial candidates who have raised a number of small donations to demonstrate a base level of community support will have the option of receiving public financing for their campaigns.

While this was a great first step, a few states have gone even further toward protecting their state governments from being co-opted by wealthy special interests. In 1996, Maine became the first state to institute a public financing system open to all candidates for state office.

Public Campaign, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit, reports that 49 percent of Maine's Senate and 30 percent of its House have been elected without taking donations from wealthy contributors or special interests. Public financing in Maine has led to more contested elections.

Some argue that public financing solves a problem that doesn't exist. They claim that campaign contributions don't buy influence. However, the thousands of groups that make contributions continue to believe that donations have some impact.

Apparently certain wealthy members of our Board of Trustees agree. They've recently created a new political action committee -- Citizens for Higher Education -- to make sure our University is represented in Raleigh the only way it apparently can be -- through campaign contributions. The group already has donated $154,000 to legislative candidates.

We shouldn't have to have our interests represented by a group of wealthy alumni making donations in our name. Let's liberate our legislators from the burden of raising funds. Let's let our representatives vote with a free conscience. Let's give North Carolina clean elections by 2004.

E-mail Jim Doggett at jdoggett@email.unc.edu.