It’s been an interesting week at the General Assembly with Tax Payer Financed Campaigns in the news.  Hood weighed in earlier in the week, Rick has a nice followup today and I tweeted the debate.  Here are my followup notes:

Fees
for the taxpayer-funded campaigns as proposed in House Bill 961, Government
Ethics and Campaign Reform Act of 2010 would come from:

1. On the backs of small businesses:  New
businesses and LLCs filing for incorporation and organization ? registration required to do
business in NC. 

2.  On the backs of those trying to pay for
health insurance:  $5.00 additional
fee for insurance agents, brokers, adjusters (includes health insurance AND
Medicare supplement and long-term health care insurance) ? costs will be passed
along to the consumer.  In addition,
life, property and car insurance is affected as well.

3.
Securities dealers and salespersons (as if the stock market business wasn?t bad
enough)

4.  On the backs of churches and civic groups
that hold outdoor festivals and every building that has an elevator ? office
buildings, hospitals, community colleges, and universities with a fee on
Elevator and amusement devices

5.  On the backs of people trying to pay
their heating bills:  additional
fees to inspect boilers and pressure vessels (heating units) in every building
in NC (includes businesses, schools and public residential buildings)

6.  On the backs of farmers, vendors at the
fairgrounds, 4-Hers (horse and animal show): 3% increase on rental leases on
everything owned by Dept of Ag 

Currently, North Carolina’s public financing is funded from a $3 fee to taxpayers, a $50
mandatory fee to lawyers and some donations. Candidates have to raise $10,000
to qualify before the primary but then the campaigns are financed by the taxpayer.

Just some thoughts:

    Although many have argued that the program is voluntary
    and only those candidates who choose to participate can do so, the program
    is not voluntary for the taxpayer.  New fees have been proposed (see
    above list) to fund these campaigns whether the taxpayer agrees to it or
    not.  

    Taxpayers would be forced to subsidize candidates and
    speech they oppose and even find offensive.

    It is just wrong for politicians to take money away from
    legitimate government programs like education and transportation to fund
    their own campaigns.

    If someone decides to run for public office, they should assume responsibility for their campaign and not expect the government (the taxpayer) to bail them out. The system of rescue funds serves as a disincentive for
    candidates to assume the responsibility for their own campaigns and at the
    same time discourages free speech at the risk of triggering funds that
    would help their opponent.

    Legislators take an oath to uphold the Constitution. In June 2008, a United States Supreme Court decision in
    Davis v. FEC struck down a provision authorizing the use of matching funds
    and more recently a case in Arizona most likely makes this bill
    unconstitutional.  At the very least, any North Carolina legislation expanding
    the use of taxpayer funded campaigns needs to be tabled until the
    constitutionality has been determined.  

    Taxpayers have had the opportunity to weigh in on whether
    they want to fund campaigns.  Only 7 percent of taxpayers mark the $3
    check off on their tax returns to fund taxpayer funded elections and less
    than 12 percent of attorneys chose to contribute to publicly funded
    judicial races last year.

    In a display of arrogance and hypocrisy, the Senate
    leadership inserted the taxpayer funded language into an ?ethics reform?
    bill thinking they could trick some legislators opposed to taxpayer funded
    elections into voting for the bill or risk being labeled against ethics
    reform. It didn’t work and the public was outraged.  The bill was crafted
    in secret, presented at the last minute with a vote expected within 24
    hours.  This is ethics reform?