House Bill 120, Taxpayer Funded Municipal Elections was scheduled for a third reading and final vote in the House today. At the last minute, the bill sponsor, Rep. Rick Glazier (D Cumberland) asked that the bill be skipped over today and rescheduled for tomorrow. Glazier explained the delay by saying SB 287, State Health Plan Funds/Good Health Initiatives; also on today?s House calendar is going to take up a lot of today’s time. However, the House has no time limits on session and often goes way into the night to debate and vote on controversial bills. The bill had a close 60-52 vote on second reading, with eight members absent. Speculation is that support for taxpayer funding of municipal elections is waning as people learn what it?s really about and the votes may not be there to pass on the final vote.
Here are few points on the bill:
1. Although many have argued that the program is voluntary and only those cities that choose to participate can do so, the program is not voluntary for the taxpayer. A portion of local taxes collected will be used to fund these campaigns whether the taxpayer agrees to it or not.
2. It is just wrong for politicians to take money away from needed programs like police and fire protection, water and sewer services and public parks to fund their own campaigns.
3. Taxpayers would be forced to subsidize candidates and speech they oppose and even find offensive.
4. 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.
5. In June 2008, a United States Supreme Court decision in Davis v. FEC struck down a provision that penalized candidates for spending money on their campaigns, which most likely makes this bill unconstitutional. Legislators take an oath to uphold the Constitution. 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.
6. 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.
For more on taxpayer funded elections, see Daren Bakst?s Spotlight report, Taxpayer Financing of N.C Elections: Clearly Unconstitutional After the Supreme Court Decision in Davis v. FEC and his op-ed, The Political Welfare State.
If you?re like a lot of people around the state (including many lawmakers), the more you learn about taxpayers funding elections, the less you like it.
