Red Clay Citizen

Court Overturns Millionaire's Amendment

In its second huge decision of the day and one that will probably get overlooked given the 2nd Amendment ruling, the US Supreme Court overturned a provision of McCain-Feingold known as the "Millionaire's Amendment" which allowed certain candidates to solicit contributions over the current limits if their opponent self-finances their campaign.

[The millionaire's amendment] imposes "an unprecedented penalty on any candidate who robustly exercises" his or her First Amendment right to self-finance a campaign.

This ruling is a further affirmation of the ideal that money is protected political speech. Taken to a logical extension, shouldn't the same rules then apply to state laws regarding rescue funds in publicly financed elections?

If a candidate for a publicly financed office decides to spend his or her own money in the race, why then, should the other candidate be allowed rescue funds?  The scheme of rescue funds seems to run contradictory to this decision.

New Maps of Election Results

Click below for new analysis and maps of the 2008 primary results. Maps show results by county with demographic details, like the percentage of unaffiliated voters registered in the county:

http://www.nccivitas.org/analysis/election-analysis

Kudos to the State Board of Elections

It's pretty rare that you can say that government is doing something right, but the NC State Board of Elections did a fantastic job launching their new election results tracker.

If you haven't played around with it check it out here.

The live updates were timely, and the ability to quickly and easily see which counties had reported made figuring out how the races were going much easier.  I absolutely loved the interactive maps where you could click on a county and see quickly and easily the specific results for that county.

There were some minor glitches, but overall a fabulous new addition to the site.  I hate to say it but, my tax dollars well spent.

Did you Vote Today?

If not, you'd better do so. Despite the fact that your vote probably won't break any ties, representative democracy is the only game in town. VOTE!
-Max Borders

Time for Voter ID in NC

The Supreme Court did the right thing today:

In its decisive 6-3 decision, the justices upheld a lower court ruling in the combined cases of William Crawford, et al. v. Marion County Election Board, et al. and Indiana Democratic Party et al. v. Todd Rokita, et al. The plaintiffs in the case challenged a 2005 Indiana law requiring voters to present government-issued photo identification before being allowed to vote.

Now it's time for NC to follow suit. No more voter fraud.
-Max Borders

Voter Registration Update

Here are the most recent data on changes - by county - in voter registrations.

These maps have an interesting counternarrative to that portrayed in the media.
-Max Borders

"Voter" Owned Elections: Still a Bad Idea

Our lefty friends over at NC Voters for Clean Elections had a press conference today touting the fact that several Council of State candidates will be taking advantage of the new law allowing them to use taxpayer dollars to finance their campaign. I know, I know, it comes as a shock to you to learn that politicians would rather coerce more tax dollars rather than solicit voluntary contributions to finance their campaigns.

In short, this program uses your tax dollars to finance the campaigns of politicians you otherwise wouldn't give a dime to. First, let's get rid of the ridiculous moniker of "voter-owned" elections. When I own something, it's because I chose to spend my money on it. Second, if these folks are so inept at balancing their own campaign finances, how are we to trust them to oversee multi-million dollar government agencies? At least State Auditor Les Merritt showed a bit of remorse for participating in this liberty-destroying sham:

"I want to say I'm sorry to anyone out there that I'm using their tax dollars and they don't want me to really win this race,"

I've written before on why this is such a bad idea, and how none of the intended benefits of this funding mechanism are realized, but the infringement on our liberty is very real and undeniable.

Lobbyists influencing politicians in merely a symptom of a government reaching far beyond its proper parameters. It is simply naive to think that a bit of tinkering with campaign finance laws will eliminate a practice as old as government itself: shady dealings between those who wield great power and those who seek to profit from it.

It's quite ironic that the same champions of "voter-owned" elections are very same people that advocate for a larger, more powerful government - the very source of rising special interest group influence.

Moore, Perdue: Debate at the CLC

Apparently, Lt. Governor Bev Perdue doesn't like the accusation that she's running from debates with State Treasurer Richard Moore. So now she has agreed to do two more.

Let it be known, however, that the Civitas Institute invited both of the Democrat candidates to debate alongside four other candidates (Graham, McCrory, Orr, Smith) at this year's Conservative Leadership Conference in Greensboro (April 18th is the debate dinner).

The offer is still open.

We also invited libertarian Michael Munger, who had another obligation that night, apparently. (So now his strategy to whine like a french soccer player has been doubly foiled.)
-Max Borders

North Carolina: Rise of the Independents

This is very interesting (you've got to check out these maps):

Between April 2000 and March 2008, the overall number of registered voters in North Carolina increased from 4.93 million to 5.66 million, an increase just shy of 15 percent. This net increase is the result of new registration and the purging of no longer valid registrations from the voter rolls.

Net Democratic registration increased by approximately 40,800 voters, an increase of less than 2 percent, and this increase was spread unevenly across the state. The number of registered Democrats decreased in 72 counties. In only two counties - Mecklenburg and Wake, the largest counties - did Democratic registration outpace overall voter registration, with increases of 24.4 and 23 percent respectively.

Net Republican registration increased by approximately 259,300 voters, an increase of 15.5 percent; this increase was also spread unevenly across the state. The number of registered Republicans decreased in 12 counties. Republican registration outpaced overall voter registration in 46 counties, with increases ranging from 15 percent to 105 percent.

Net other registration (Unaffiliated and Libertarian in 2000, only Unaffiliated in 2008) increased by approximately 432,700 voters, an increase of 56.7 percent. The number of Unaffiliated/Other voters increased in all 100 counties, and in fact outpaced overall voter registration in all 100 counties. Net Unaffiliated/Other registration increased at least four times as much as overall voter registration in half the state's counties.

This says nothing about who will actually turn out to vote. But it does suggest that North Carolina is getting, well, purpler.
-Max Borders

Primary Concerns

A closer look at some the votes during the Thomas Wright expulsion special session raised a few eyebrows.  The amendment that would have censured Wright instead of expelling him had some interesting supporters.  The Twelve members voted in favor of the amendment were mostly members of the Legislative Black Caucus though two were not. 

Greensboro Democrat Maggie Jeffus was one of "ayes."  Understandably, she had a tough time with the vote since she has shared a desk with Wright for a number of years and considers him a friend. 

Rep. Drew Saunders is another case altogether.  He's currently being challenged in the Democrat primary by Nick Mackey. Mackey has gained a following since being shot down for the job of Sheriff of Mecklenburg County by the NC Democrat Party. 

Mackey is a candidate to watch.  Despite his professional troubles in the past, he has come away from the Sheriff's debacle motivated and well known in a district that is 38% African American against a white incumbent.

Was Drew Saunders trying to head off an attack from Mackey's supporters by supporting the lesser sanction against another African American legislator?  Stay tuned.

Publicly Financed Campaigns Aren't Free

Dallas Woodhouse has a good piece on the latest affront to speech.
-Max Borders

Remind me why I should vote?

Bryan Caplan dispells some myths about voting ...
Warning: This ain't no after school special. People all puffed with civic duty should not read this article.
(Rock the vote.)
-Max Borders

Caucuses Demystified

My good friend Chris Hull has a piece on the Iowa caucuses -- that strange bit of political pageantry that gives us so much corn and ethanol! Check it out. Buy his book too, if you're interested.
(Note: Chris happens to think it's rational to vote. Curious that.)
-Max Borders

GAO Report: Public Financing of Campaigns a Failure

As I've written before, public campaign financing is a sham - it destroys liberty and produces none of the promised results.

In short, it takes taxpayer dollars to fund candidates running for office. Taxpayers no longer have a choice over which candidates receive their financial support. Chapel Hill residents will be subjected to this system in their local elections going forward, and taxpayers across the state will be forced to finance the campaigns of the three Council of State races (state auditor, superintendent of public instruction, commissioner of insurance).

A recently released GAO study, summarized in this USA Today article, confirms what I tried to warn taxpayers about many months ago.

"The GAO concluded that taxpayer-funded elections had no discernible positive effect on electoral competition, voter choice, interest group influence or voter participation."

Furthermore, the influence of lobbyists that this legislation was supposed to eliminate actually intensified.

"Tax funding of campaigns is supposed to reduce special-interest influence. But since Maine's program began, the number of lobbyists in the state has increased dramatically. And in Arizona, Gov. Janet Napolitano relied heavily on labor unions to do the work needed for her to receive the government subsidy."

The real cause of the problem is government largess. No amount of campaign finance tinkering will fix that. When there is so much power concentrated in the hands of so few, it is inevitable that groups will form to influence the power-brokers. For some reason, public campaign financing advocates think that more government control over elections (via your tax dollars) will fix a problem created by too much government control.

Citizens of North Carolina, be warned. Such negative reviews will not dissuade the public campaign financing crowd. In fact, contrary to the GAO report, they consider the experiences in Maine and Arizona as "successes" (based largely on the number of candidates that fed from the public trough). Next on their agenda is to phase in this failed system for all state-level elections in North Carolina, including the race for Governor.

Are "The People" Dumb?

At Civitas' poll luncheon yesterday, several people asked why North Carolina voters say they disagree with the direction our state is headed in, yet continue to vote the same old politicians into office. Citing Walter Williams' column, "Stupid, Ignorant or Biased?" one attendee wondered whether voters are just plain stupid. Or, as former FDR adviser (and alleged Soviet agent) Harry Hopkins once quipped, "Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect, because the people are too damn dumb to know the difference."

So are the people really that dumb? Another way of asking this question is, "What are the limits of reason?" Or, even more to the point for an organization like Civitas, "What are the limits of public policy?" If the people really are so dumb that they are moved more by desire and passion, or force and fraud (as Hobbes puts it), than by prudent discourse, then the endeavor of influencing public opinion via public policy is doomed - or, at the very least, misguided. In short, if the people are that "dumb," then they are not moved by public policy - but only by rhetoric, or as we call it nowadays, ideology, or even, propaganda.

Of course, if this is the case, then the question becomes whether all "the people" are the same? More precisely, is there a distinction - based on reason - between the many and the few? And, if that is the case, then is public policy really just the province of the few? To simplify things quite a bit, in the modern technocratic state (as envisioned by FDR, Hopkins and others) the few are those experts who have obtained the knowledge necessary to rule on behalf of the people. If this is the case, then public policy - in its purest form (see the work, for instance, of the CFR or of Rand) - exists to influence this group of people. Another alternative, suggested by Plato and clarified for modern readers by Leo Strauss, is that the few aren't very interested in public policy at all. In any case, neither theory seems to permit that public policy is much good at influencing "public opinion."

Hoyle 50/50 on Returning

Longtime Senate stalwart and Finance Committee Chairman David Hoyle is 50/50 on seeking another term in the NC Senate reports NCFREE in an interview with its President John Davis.

The seat leans Republican, and his departure could put another seat in play in the GOP's attempt to take over the chamber.

Supreme Court Orders Redistricting

This just in courtesy WRAL:

"The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that the General Assembly must redraw its legislative districts after the 2008 election because the boundaries of some current districts are unconstitutional."

Will the General Assembly ever learn to stop playing politics with redistricting ... ?

Public Finance of Elections: Fitzsimon Again

Without deigning to mention me by name, Chris Fitzsimon (his own paycheck coming courtesy of "big political dollars") questions my (classical) liberal opposition to public campaign financing:

A recent letter to the editor by a staff member [Max Borders] of a conservative group [Civitas institute] complained that public financing “sacrifices free expression” and “merely trades one evil for another” after admitting that “no one likes the influence of special interest on government.” If no one likes it, then why do we tolerate it?

Here is your answer, Chris: I don't "tolerate" it.  But in the same way I don't believe that the best way to cure a disease is to treat the symptoms, I don't believe that poisoning free expression is the best remedy for the problems of public choice and special interest influence. To blur the analogy: excessive government power in our lives and economic affairs is the disease. Less government power is the cure. Now you know. - Max Borders

Public Campaign Financing: Two for Tuesday

My recent op-ed in the N&O regarding welfare for politicians...err public campaign financing inspired two letters to the editor in today's paper.

First up is Chris Heagarty, Executive Director of the NC Center for Voter Education, who tries to counter my "distortions" with some misleading statements of his own. His first beef is with my claim that under this system subsidized candidates would "forgo nearly all private fundraising," a claim he calls "not true."

But check this out from Heagarty's own website:

After a candidate achieves a predetermined threshold of support, he or she agrees to stop fund raising and finances the campaign entirely through public funds, instead of special interest cash.(emphasis added)

His letter attempts to claim that in order to qualify, the subsidized candidates would first need to "raise a reasonable amount of private money (up to $200,000 if they have a primary, $100,000 if they do not)."  So he tries to establish a fact with an admittedly opinion-based phrase such as "reasonable amount of money." Furthermore, he intentionally tries to mislead by stating the maximum amount of qualifying funds allowed. What he leaves out is that all a candidate really needs is roughly $26,000 in private donations to qualify - a number that seems to stretch even his definition of "reasonable."

Other points he tries to make is that I misquote him, even though my quote is directly from his article. He also tries to belittle my claim that many are unhappy with this system in Arizona, disputing any notion that it could be viewed as a "failure." I guess we must question his definition of a successful program. After all, he is the one that labeled the 2006 judicial elections as the "year of the 527" while also claiming it as a success (from his website):

Currently there are bills before the state legislature to build on the success of North Carolina's voter-owned judicial elections.(emphasis added)

Not to be outdone, Sol Rabinowitz piles on with this letter. The one thing both letters do have in common is that they simply can not help themselves in taking personal swipes at me and my organization. Rabinowitz asks:

Is Balfour, who quotes Thomas Jefferson in closing, really interested in democracy or in maintaining the status quo for the big money interests that have had undue influence on elections for too long?

To answer your question, I am interested in democracy - that's why I chose this profession. No matter how hard I try, I cannot fathom how a system that would trample on our freedom of speech can be squared with any notion of democracy.

Furthermore, Heagarty closes with this petty comment:

It underscores the obvious lack of credibility of an organization funded by big political money.

His comment raises the question, who are you funded by Chris? Why don't your public tax records reveal where your organization gets its funding? Could it be that you are funded by "big political money?"

Scofield Tries on the Tinfoil Hat

Oh man, I must really be getting under the skin of the folks at Policy Watch. First, Fitzsimon devotes most of this article to my one-man "ferocious campaign" opposing taxpayer subsidized campaigns (see my reply in a previous post), now Scofield puts on the tinfoil hat and imagines conspiracy accusations galore in response to my "Conservative Perspective" on the same topic.

I've already written quite a bit on this, but Scofield's article is too juicy to pass up.

First, he uses language like "market fundamentalist groups" and "the authors claim" in reference to my conservative perspective piece. Why the use of plural nouns? I'm just one guy!

He then accuses me of claiming that "public financing is a nefarious plot by progressive nonprofits." After I cleaned off my computer from the water I spat out due to laughter, I realized that I'm not even really sure what the word 'nefarious' means.

Additionally, he lists my supposed "allegations" - each one funnier than the last. For example, allegation #1 is that I claim public financing is a "scheme to give more power to the unions and 527s." In the article I merely mention how public campaign financing's qualifying funds mechanism could empower such groups. This point is not exactly far fetched given the fact that this is what happened in Arizona's gubernatorial race (as referenced by the Arizona Republic). Nowhere in my piece is the word "scheme" ever used.

Even better is when he attempts to refute my claim that certain nonprofits who support taxpayer subsidized elections try to themselves influence legislation - saying I am "simply wrong." To prove me wrong, he actually affirms my statement! He says "the NC Justice Center...lobbies on behalf..." and also "the State Employees Association does, of course, lobby..." I can't make this stuff up, folks.

The funniest part must be when he demands that "Civitas (meaning me) ought to be embarrassed and apologize for even implying something improper." Read the article again - no such implications were made. But, I guess I should apologize for pointing out the hypocrisy of groups who themselves try to influence legislators complaining about groups who... try to influence legislators. My bad.

Lastly, one topic is conspicuous by its absence from Scofield's piece. He never addresses my primary objection to taxpayer subsidized elections - the fact that it co-opts tax dollars to support candidates people completely disagree with. Why address my main point when you can conjure up images of corporate and big money interests joining me in a smoke-filled room as we plan how to accuse our opponents with "bold misstatements"?

For li'l old me to garner so much attention from these guys is actually quite flattering. Plus, I get to laugh myself silly at their desperate attempt to paint anything I write as trying to expose some imaginary "secret plots."

Fitzsimon and NC Policy Watch: "Government Owns your Thoughts"

Chris Fitzsimon once again thinks taxpayers should be forced to fund a plan simply because he and his elitist buddies think it is a good idea. He believes that if only the public campaign financing genie could sprinkle her magic dust upon the election process, all government corruption will be ended.

Let's take off the Marx-colored glasses for a moment and dissect his "argument."

"The cliché is that money is the mother’s milk of politics. In fact it’s the toxin that is poisoning the public perception of our elections and our government and undoubtedly affecting the decisions made by people elected to represent us all, not just the ones who write the checks."

And why do certain groups feel the need to write these checks? Because of the great concentration of power into the hands of a few. Let me spell it out...every time the government creates a new welfare or entitlement program, a new group forms to protect it; every time the government creates oppressive regulation on an industry, a new group forms to try and benefit from it, while more groups form to end it; when subsidies and tax credits are created, groups form to protect them while more groups yet form to ask "what about us?"  Get the picture? How often have you ever heard Fitzsimon complaining that government had too much power - or took too much of our money in the form of taxes? So naturally, his solution to a problem created by big government is....more government.

He goes on to claim that this program eliminates strings attached to money. On this point, he is being naive at best. Try this from an Arizona Republic (Arizona has had public campaign financing since 2000) article from 2003: “It’s no secret that labor unions mined their member list to come up with the 4,000 $5 contributions Janet Napolitano needed to be eligible for clean elections money.”

Under Fitzsimon's system, special interest groups can now hand-pick their candidates and solicit the small donations from their membership list. You don't think that leaders of certain special interest groups could then simply promise a politician that they will deliver the qualifying funds in exchange for influence? - nah, could never happen here. 

That's not all. The experiment with public campaign financing here in North Carolina for appellate judicial races has been such a debacle, even leading advocates for the program have had to admit it's failure. Chris Heagarty, executive director for the NC Center for Voter Education called the 2006 judicial elections the "year of the 527" and declared that the public campaign financing system was guilty of:

"unleashing a torrent of special-interest money into our judicial elections."

Fitzsimon goes on to cite a Civitas poll which found that 84% of likely voters OPPOSE the use of their tax dollars subsidizing the campaigns of council of state candidates. He inexplicably brushes this off, and declares unanimous public support by citing a poll by the NC Center for Voter Education. A quick look at their questions reveals some astounding bias. When you need a paragraph to frame each question, that is known in a court of law as "leading the witness." Why he ignores the opinions of the Civitas poll is unexplained. Apparently, opinions are only valid if they agree with him.

Furthermore, public opinion can be most accurately judged by the participation in the voluntary judicial election fund. Dep't of Revenue data says that 93% of taxpayers refused to participate in the program.

While trying to avoid the issue of political expression, he tries to justify the fact that your tax dollars will go to support candidates with whom you disagree with this comparison:

"Taxpayers support plenty of things they don’t agree with on the state and federal level, from the war to tax breaks for corporations, but they can’t pick and choose which government program is funded." 

Hmmm, I guess apples and oranges are exactly alike. What Fitzsimon doesn't get is the fact that individuals in this country have the inherent right to own their own thoughts. By directing our tax dollars to support ideas we may or may not agree with, instead of allowing us the freedom to support the candidates of our choice, we have perhaps our most precious right taken away from us. According to collectivists such as Fitzsimon, it is okay for the government to own our thoughts.

There is so much more I could cover on this topic - I have written extensively on it here and here. One more thing I can't pass up. He states:

"The free market fundamentalists are mounting a ferocious campaign to stop it"

I'm curious why he uses the plural, because it seems I am the only one in the state publicly speaking out against this topic. I guess in Fitzsimon's world, one guy writing a couple of articles equates to a "ferocious campaign." Mom will be so proud! Compare this to entire organizations devoted to this measure - such as NC Common Cause, NC Center for Voter Education, and Democracy NC - that spend a large share of their time promoting this issue. I counted at least four folks from these groups down in the committee meeting yesterday, slapping backs and trying to influence legislators' decisions. Strange coming from the ones claiming they want to end the influence of special interest groups. 

"One person, one vote"?

In light of the so-called "Voter-Owned Elections Act" being approved by the House over the weekend, the taxpayers of North Carolina might want a little heads up on just who is behind the nationwide movement helping to bring taxpayer subsidized campaigns to our state. One such organization is the Tides Foundation, a group that receives funding from socialist billionaire George Soros, and Theresa Heinz-Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry. Furthermore, sitting on its Board is Wade Rathke, a former activist of the socialist group Students for a Democratic Society. Rathke is also the founder of the far-left group ACORN, an organization that has made nationwide headlines for its involvement in voter fraud. John Fund has an excellent piece in the Journal documenting some of ACORN's recent actions. Among the highlights include:

But the most interesting news came out of Seattle, where on Thursday local prosecutors indicted seven workers for Acorn, a union-backed activist group that last year registered more than 540,000 low-income and minority voters nationwide and deployed more than 4,000 get-out-the-vote workers. The Acorn defendants stand accused of submitting phony forms in what Secretary of State Sam Reed says is the "worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history" of the state.

Fund continues, regarding a fraudulent voter drive by ACORN in Kansas City:

Of the 1,805 names submitted by Acorn, only nine have been confirmed as valid, and another 34 are still being investigated. The rest--over 97%--were fake.

The list of voter fraud violations ACORN has been investigated or indicted for is quite lengthy. I bring this up mainly to point out the hypocrisy of those in the "one person, one vote" crowd in support of taxpayer financed election campaigns. I guess when they say "one person," that person can be imaginary, dead, a convicted felon, or perhaps a TV character.

Maybe once "voter-owned" elections are forced upon us for all statewide campaigns, we can expect these folks to use ACORN-type tactics to scrounge up the qualifying contributions for their hand-picked candidates in order to demonstrate "public support". So now your tax dollars not only may be used to fund candidates with whom you disagree, but also candidates who qualified for public subsidies via the contributions of a few fat-cats using hundreds of fake names.

Illiberal Campaigns: Balfour on a Roll

Balfour's clearly on a roll -- quoted here, too, on taxpayer-funded campaigns:

Hoping that doesn't happen is Brian Balfour, a policy analyst for the John Williams Pope Civitas Institute. Balfour said public financing of political campaigns threatens free expression. He said taxpayer money could be used to fund a campaign for a politician the taxpayer does not support.

Balfour also said that, contrary to its design, the act would not curb the influence of special interest groups on the political process.

"The problem is if you take a look at it, special interests can become more involved" with publicly financed campaigns, he said.

According to Balfour, special interest groups can simply mine their membership rolls to provide the 750 contributions a candidate would need for public financing, causing that candidate to become indebted to the groups.

Speech May Become A Little Less Free

HB 1517 was voted out of Appropriations this morning by a count of 39-34. Next will come a vote on the House floor.

Folks who believe in our right to free speech and our ability to actually own our own political expression should keep an eye on this bill. In short, taxpayer dollars will be used to fund political campaigns. That means that more money will be taken from your pocket and given to politicians because they don't feel like doing the fundraising themselves. Political contributions will no longer be voluntary.

Supporters of the measure claim it will rid campaigns of the influence of special interests. This is simply not true, in fact it will allow special interest groups to hand-pick their candidates and then force taxpayers to foot the bill for the campaign. I have written extensively on this here and here.

By the way, this is simply the next step in the taxpayer-financed campaign lobby's master plan to expand this system to all elections in North Carolina.

Stolen Speech

Brian Balfour had a column in Sunday's Chapel Hill News about the town (and state's) illiberal plot to take taxpayer money for politicians' campaigns.  Balfour delivers a clever money-shot via Thomas Jefferson:

Citizens receive none of the promised benefits and instead see their freedom of political expression severely limited. We should all remember what Thomas Jefferson said: "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Here's another piece on the same subject by Lee Butler.