Chapel Hill emergency voter-owned elections funds suspended

The N.C. State Board of Elections suspended emergency voter-owned election funds last Thursday ­— a move some Chapel Hill candidates say might affect the competitiveness of races in this year’s local elections.

Known as “rescue funds,” these provisions are a part of Chapel Hill’s state-pilot Voter-Owned Elections Program, which began in 2009.

Candidates registered with the program agree to receive only $5 to $20 individual contributions. In turn, they receive public grants of $3,351 for town council candidates and $10,053 for mayoral candidates after passing minimum contribution totals.

If a non-participant outspends participating candidates by at least 140 percent, the outspent candidates receive extra public grants.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that Arizona’s matching funds scheme — similar to the “rescue funds” program in Chapel Hill — was unconstitutional.

The ruling said Arizona’s program, which compensated publicly financed candidates for the exact amount privately funded candidates spent, imposed financial equality — burdening political speech and violating the First Amendment.

Gary Bartlett, executive director of the N.C. Board of Elections, said election officials applied the decision to Chapel Hill.

“The United States Supreme Court ruled that rescue funds were unconstitutional,” Bartlett said.

“Therefore, the state board stated that they could not be used in Chapel Hill.”

But unlike Arizona’s matching program, publicly financed candidates in Chapel Hill are given a set amount of money if outspent.

And Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, who received $4,000 in rescue funds in 2009 after opponent Matt Czajkowski’s fundraising exceeded $21,000, said that distinction makes the difference.

“It’s a misreading of the Supreme Court decision — equating rescue funds with matching funds is a misapplication,” he said.

“Our program doesn’t provide a dollar for dollar match. It’s just a one-time, small amount of money.”

Kleinschmidt said he supported the Voter- Owned Elections Program because it levels the playing field for candidates.

Donna Bell, a town council candidate who plans to participate in the program, agreed that limiting spending makes running for office more accessible.

She said the effect of rescue fund suspension on her campaign depends on the other candidates.

“If there are folks who run very expensive campaigns, that could impact my outreach,” she said.

Fellow council candidate Czajkowski said he is a long-time opponent of rescue funds.

“In 2009 I lost by 106 votes to a candidate who was funded with rescue funds,” he said.

Czajkowski said he wasn’t at all surprised by the suspension.

“No one has pointed to a single circumstance of big spending being an issue in a Chapel Hill election,” he said.

Contact the City editor at city@dailytarheel.com.