The Charlotte Observer ran this editorial/press release (or maybe it is an article) entitled “Support up for public campaign financing.”  The article is about how support for NC’s type of taxpayer financing systems (“clean elections”) is getting stronger.

Despite the title and focus of the article, there’s not a single poll that the “article” cites to that supports the contention that public support for taxpayer financing systems in NC is higher than before.  One poll talks about how a lot of people think contributions influence state politicians.  This tells us nothing.

Another poll says that 65% of those surveyed would support giving a limited amount of public funds to candidates.  Even assuming this was a properly administered poll, it doesn’t measure whether the public supports NC’s type of taxpayer financing systems (“clean election systems”).  There is voluntary public financing systems and then there are “clean elections.” There’s a huge difference that this poll doesn’t take into consideration–it just assumes that if someone says they support public financing that they support “clean elections.”

It doesn’t clarify whether the public supports forcing citizens to fund speech and candidates they oppose.  It doesn’t clarify whether the public believes that candidates who don’t accept public funds should be punished or organizations that support candidates who don’t take taxpayer funds should be punished.  It also doesn’t clarify whether the public believes the NC legislature should ignore their constitutional oaths by pushing these clean election systems that are unconstitutional.

There’s so much to attack in this article.  Here’s a great passage:

Public-finance advocates say the escalating costs of campaigning has
forced candidates to rely heavily on political action committees and
other special interests. They say 90 percent of campaign money in North
Carolina comes from less than 1 percent of the population.

Wow!  The costs of campaigns are increasing?  How could that be?  I thought everything was getting less expensive.

Guess what clean election systems do by capping how much candidates can spend from direct contributions?  That’s right: It forces candidates to rely more heavily on PACs and special interests.

Now my favorite passage:

Last week, more than 50 people gathered at a downtown Raleigh cafe to
celebrate the coalition’s [NC Voters for Clean Elections] 10th anniversary. Among them were legislators
and at least two statewide elected officials.

Oh my Gosh!  More than 50 people (i.e. 51) celebrated the anniversary?  This is proof that there’s a major grassroots statewide movement to have clean elections!  Granted, the more than 50 number probably takes into account the wait staff, bartenders, and 30 interns who were promised free drinks, but this still is very impressive.  I mean it isn’t more than the 60 people who celebrated the squirrel being named the official rodent of North Carolina, but it still is a lot of people.

BTW: Please don’t contact me about what really is the official rodent of NC.