Following legislative approval earlier this year, Chapel Hill is ready to begin putting together its plan for publicly financed campaigns. Supporters of this approach say it will neutralize the power of money in elections, but what it really does is force taxpayers to help fund the campaigns of people whose policies and views they do not support. That’s simply wrong-headed. A big-government progressive should not have to help pay to spread the message of a conservative who promises to reign in spending. Nor should a fiscal conservative have his/her tax dollars used to help elect a candidate who promises to increase taxes. Locke Foundation Legal and Regulatory Policy Analyst Daren Bakst writes about public financing — what he calls “political welfare” — in this 2006 paper. It is a good overview of North Carolina’s experience with public financing of judicial campaigns, and illustrates why Chapel Hill is heading down the wrong road. If not public financing, then what should we do? Locke Foundation President John Hood suggests “freedom-zoned elections” in this commentary from last year. In a nutshell, Hood makes this sound recommendation:
I suggest we move in an entirely different direction. Let’s adopt freedom-zoned elections. First, abolish all public-financing schemes that attempt to subsidize campaigns or restrict individuals from saying what they want, when they want, with resources freely given. Second, require immediate, 24-hour disclosure of all campaign contributions, no exceptions or excuses. Third, address the real barriers to political entry and competition in North Carolina – starting with a redistricting system that provides most incumbents, of both parties, with gerrymandered sinecures. And fourth, if judges raising private funds from willing supporters is a prospect too revolting to contemplate, much less revive, let’s get rid of judicial elections and adopt some kind of appointive system.
