The answer to that question, at least as of now, is a resounding NO.

Background

Matching funds are a central part of North Carolina’s taxpayer financing system (referred to as “clean elections.”).  If a candidate that doesn’t take taxpayer dollars spends beyond a threshhold amount of money, such as $10,000, then $10,000 is automatically given to that candidate’s opponent.  It is even worse than that though.  To calculate matching funds, the expenditures of independent groups are used to figure out whether a candidate has exceeded the threshold limit.  The effect is to punish candidates and independent groups for exercising their First Amedment rights.  They are forced to choose between exercising free speech but helping the opponent, and not engaging in speech.

The United States Supreme Court in a case called Davis v. FEC likely spells the end of these “clean election” systems.  While not directly addressing matching funds, it addressed a system where candidates were punished for spending beyond a threshold amount of their own money and the Court found this to be unconstitutional.  You can learn more here.

On June 8, 2010, the United States Supreme Court took the unusual step of blocking matching funds from being distributed in Arizona this upcoming election until it issues an opinion on the matching fund case at issue (or it decides not to hear the case, which is highly unlikely).

Bottom Line

The Supreme Court was so concerned about the constitutional problems with matching funds that it blocked them.  If the Court heard a case involving NC’s matching funds, it would also block them from being issued in the upcoming election.  Our matching funds are no different than Arizona’s matching funds.  Plus, there’s the Davis case.  Note: Even a leading proponent of public financing agrees that matching funds will be struck down by the Court.

Being Proactive

On June 22, 2010. I wrote this letter to the State Board of Elections (SBOE) asking them to withhold matching funds in the upcoming appellate court races.

On that same day, the SBOE mailed a weak letter to me struggling to defend why it should continue to distribute matching funds in light of the Supreme Court’s actions.

Today, I sent out a response letter to the SBOE addressing their flimsy arguments and asking again that they withhold matching funds.

Unfortunatey, unless the SBOE is taken to court, they likely will continue to ignore the obvious: matching funds are likely unconstitutional and should be blocked.

This is also a strong reason why Section 1983 claims are so important–these are actions against government officials violating federal rights (including Constitutional rights) of Americans.  Whether such a claim would work here is unclear.

The Attorney General is the one that should step in and at least provide a formal advisory opinion to the SBOE that matching funds should not be issued until the Supreme Court provides some resolution on the matter.

This past week, we had the legislature wanting to expand matching funds (they have changed their mind for now).  We also have state officials ignoring the obvious implications of the Supreme Court’s actions. 

There’s no wonder why the public has no faith in goverment.  Instead of more ethics bills, a better start would be for government officials to honor their oaths (or obligations) to the North Carolina and United States Constitutions.  Many legislators and the SBOE are failing in this regard.