NCCLGR

Responses from candidates for Council of State, Lieutenant Governor , and Governor who have replied to our survey are printed below. The responses are divided by office and then in alphabetical order.

We hope that you will use this information to help you decide for whom you want to vote in the upcoming Primary Election. ( Early Voting and One Stop Voting begin April 17th and last until May 3d. Check with your county Board of Elections for locations. Primary Day is May 6th.) We encourage you to vote.

If you have any questions about these responses, please feel free to contact us. You can email our director at j.pinsky@nclobbyreform.org, call us at 919-833-0092 or write us an old fashioned letter. Our address is Suite 701, 19 West Hargett Street, Raleigh, NC 27601

House 5

Annie Ward Mobley
Incumbent yes
1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes, with limits
5. No

Robert Richardson
Incumbent: No

1. They should have the same limits that individuals have at this present time, $4,000 per individual.
2. Yes
3. No
4. No. The nature of a charity or a not for profit organizations must restrict political fundraising or financial solicitation of a candidate. We must always protect the general blur of a community base organization.
5. The issue struggles with the nature of the boast of the relationship of lobbyists and PAC committees. The legislators need to have an open debate on the issue. I do believe some restrictions need to be placed on lobbyists raising money fro PAC committees.

House 17

Bonner Stiller
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes
2. I believe that our system now requires all donations over $50 to be properly recorded. I don’t know that we need to document the friends to family members who help a candidate simply organize the fundraisers.
3. Not certain. It seems that the party should be able to target candidate of their party to help.
4. Absolutely not. It the elected official or any family member is a part of the not for profit etc, especially if they are some solicitations could be very appropriate.
5. No.

House 20

Dewey L. Hill
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. No

House 25

Carnell Taylor
Incumbent: No
:
1. Yes. I support prohibiting lobbyists from soliciting contributions for candidates or political parties.
2. Yes, I would like to see al contributions in North Carolina limited to $4,000 per individual.
3. No, I think a limit should be places on money given to candidates by political parties. I am in favor of limiting all contributions from whatever source.
4. I would restrict all soliciting and money because it would be just another way to buy votes.
5. no lobbyists should be ban from any PACS and committees

House 29

Larry Hall
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Not unlimited but resources to be competitive should be allowed similar to the guidelines used for publicly funded judicial races.
4. No
5. No. It may be a distinction without a real difference. The information provided by lobbyists would likely be a deciding factor of which candidates should be supported.

House 30

Paul Luebke
Incumbent: Yes

1. Prohibition
2. Yes
3. Not sure. Would like to know what the 27 states have imposed.
4. No. Prohibition
5. No.

House 32

Jim Crawford
Incumbent: Yes

1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. Yes

House 33

Paul F. Terrell
Incumbent: No

1. I would support prohibiting lobbyists from nay form of raising money for any candidate or legislature. I would prohibit lobbyists from buying a candidate or legislator a can of soda.
2. I would support legislation that any individual who can raise over $1,000 have full disclosure.
3. No, political parties should be limited to the maximum amount an individual can give. There should be limit on parties running campaigns (commercials) against your opponent however (free speech issue). These should be much higher.
4. No, they should not be allowed. No conflict of interest should be allowed.
5. No, again no conflict of interest apparent of not should be allowed.

House 35

Jennifer Weiss
Incumbent:
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) I am open to discussion on this issue
4) The current status of the law seems problematic – I am willing to explore a prohibition
5.I do not believe that lobbyists should be allowed to support on PAC committees

Eric Weaver
Incumbent: No

1. Yes, I would support this legislation as long as it could be appropriately reconciled with the lobbyist’s first amendment right to free speech.

Until such legislation passes, the sunlight of disclosure should be shined upon any money raising activity that lobbyists engage in. Donations acquired through this process should be noted as such in campaigns finance records.
2. Yes, I would support this legislation.
3. The role party donations should be limited and disclosed, similarly, to how other campaign donors are limited and disclosed.
4. Solicitations as described about would not be appropriate if the legislator also has a less-than arms-length relationship with the nonprofit, such as being an employee, member, or sitting on the board of directors for the nonprofit. As we have seen with the recent cases of Frank Balance and Mary McAllister, mixing nonprofits and legislative service is fraught with opportunities to act unethically. However, exhorting a lobbyist to donate to the Red Cross or similar organization is not an ethical issue, unless there is a deeper relationship between the legislator and the nonprofit.

A ban on soliciting contributions from nonprofits that the legislator has a less than arms length relationship with would be appropriate.
5. In an ideal world, the answer would be no. However, some PACs are so small, and operate under such miniscule budgets, and with such small staffs, that this separation may not be practical in all instances. Some reasonable guidelines on this matter would seem appropriate, as long as the tiny PACs were given some leeway.

House 36

Robert W. Campbell
Incumbent: No

1. I support the current law
2. Yes
3. I support imposing limits
4. No
5. No

Nelson Dollar-
Incumbent

I have long been an advocate for reform in government. I believe reform measures which address election and lobbying issues should be developed under the direction of a bipartisan joint legislative committee with equal representation by both political parties. The issues raised by the Coalition’s survey should be on the table along with a range of other issues and concerns. In this context, I am willing to discuss and fully consider all of the points raised by the Coalition. I trust you will agree, reason needs to be applied in this process. For example, while it’s reasonable to discourage legislators from requesting charitable donations from registered lobbyist; it was absurd to call into question lobbyist’s gifts to charities in memory of Senator Jeanne Lucas. Along this line was the short lived ethics determination that lobbyists could not send Christmas Cards to legislators. Undue influence of the type which resulted in the prosecution of Speaker Black did not originate via a Christmas Card or memorial to a deceased colleague; therefore, while charitable donations raise legitimate concerns we need to tailor the law and policy to address those actions a reasonable citizen would view as problematic.

With respect to campaign finance reform, again we need to negotiate a comprehensive, bipartisan solution. Your survey recommends limiting funds a political party can contribute to a candidate; however, the opposite may better address the underlying concern. For example, a party’s contributions are not as disconcerting as the mammoth war chest a legislative leader can amass and give to his/her party caucus fund for unlimited distribution. In other words, we should first address the issue upstream and determine whether a legislative leader is allowed on contribute unlimited funds from their campaign account via the Party to a candidate.

While all of these and other issues should be on the table for discussion, the most important reform needed in North Carolina is our method if redistricting. All reforms pail in comparison to the impact of removing partisan advantage from the redistricting process. I have offered bills to address this issue, and I hope one day we can have an election system in North Carolina where the voters choose their elected leaders rather than the elected leaders being allowed to choose their voters.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your survey.

Best Regards,
Nelson Dollar

Rep. Nelson Dollar
N.C. House District 36
Legislative Building, Suite 1209
Raleigh, NC 27601
919.715.0795

House 37

Paul Stam
Incumbent: Yes

1. No-such prohibition would violate the free speech and right to petition clauses of the First amendment to the U.S constitution.
2. I cannot answer this question unless you define what you mean by raising money. It seems to me that this would probably involve intractable definition problems.
3. Yes- That is the purpose of a political party-to provide support for its candidates. The U.S Supreme Court has ruled that an expenditure limitation on campaigns violates the first amendment of the U.S constitution. On the other hand, state political parties should be prevented from merely recycling to candidate’s money that could not have been given directly to the candidate due to its source or amount.
4. Yes unless the legislator has a significant control of the charity or obtains some benefit from the charity’s operation.
5. Yes to prohibit this violates the First Amendment to the U. S Constitution.

House 38

Deborah Ross
Incumbent
1. Yes, in fact this would be less subject to constitutional challenge than the direct contributions ban.
2. Yes
3. There could be limits, but the better route would be to promote public financing so that candidates do not need to rely on party money/
4. Not if it would in any way directly benefit the legislator or member of the Council of State. There are ethics opinions on this.
5. It depends on whether the lobbyist is compensated by the PAC or has sole or primary discretion over decisions. Some lobbyists serve on PAC Boards completely unrelated to the issues they lobby on.

House 42

Marvin W. Lucas
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes, Lobbyists should be limited from money raising activities.
They should not be allowed to raise funds from individuals candidates not should they participate in campaign committee projects.
2. Yes
3. Yes, as long as full disclosure is made.
4. Yes, as long as no political advantage is gained. WE need to accentuate our charities.
5. This would be difficult to enforce since lobbyists are generally paid by PACs. Again full disclosure is the key. Absolute “sunshine’ is good for all endeavors.

House 45

Rick Glazier
Incumbent

Thank you for sending the Coalition’s candidate ethics survey to Rep. Glazier’s campaign. We appreciate all of the Coalition’s efforts to promote ethical standards for public officials in North Carolina. The survey is a great tool and will make a great resource for voters.

Upon reviewing the questionnaire, however, we have concluded that given Rep. Glazier’s position as Chair of the Legislative Ethics Committee precludes him from being able to complete it at this time. While ethical standards of practice for legislators and other elected officials is an issue of highest priority to Rep. Glazier, to prevent any possible perception of bias we must opt to not have his positions on some of the issues raised in the questionnaire publicized, as they are issues that are/may be soon before the committee.

Again, we appreciate you including Rep. Glazier in the Coalition’s survey and regret that we must decline to respond at this time. If you have any questions please feel free to contact Rep. Glazier’s campaign or legislative offices at your convenience.

House 61

George Ragsdale
Incumbent: No

1. I would prohibit Lobbyists from all monetary and fundraising contacts for any candidate, PAC, or committee.
2. Yes, I would go for total disclosure and drop the $10,000 floor.
3. No, the electant, not the party should dictate who represents them in office.
4. This is a loophole that must be closed.
5. No

House 63
Celo Faucette
Incumbent: No

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No
5. No

House 64

Cary Dale Allred
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes. Lobbyists should not be allowed to give to the PAC either.
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. No

House 66

Melanie Wade Goodwin
Incumbent: Yes

1. I support limiting lobbyists from raising money for candidates. I don’t think a lobbyist should be able to host s fundraiser for a candidate or sending a solicitation letter. I do think we run into freedom of speech if we limit lobbyists’ ability to comment on their experience working with a candidate or with a candidate’s position on certain issues.
2. Absolutely
3. No. The limit for parties should mirror the limit for individuals
4. No, unless there is a pure personal relationship with the lobbyist that would prevent the appearance or suggestion that a contribution by a lobbyist to a candidates charity of choice is guo pro quo for the candidate or the official taking specific action favorable to the lobbyist or his/her principles interests.
5. Maybe, again the recommendation if someone, which works directly with lawmakers, is a valuable contribution a lobbyist can make to his/her principles. However, there should be a process that prevents the lobbyists from directly PAC funds and limits the lobbyist to recommending based on experience. I am not sure how to accomplish that delicate balance.

House 67

Nalin C. Mehta
Incumbent: No

1. I will support
2. Yes
3. No
4. Look Closely intention and pass back best thing would be restrict and not leave loopholes.
5. Restrict like other states

House 71

Larry Womble
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Willing to consider
4. Yes
5. Willing to consider

House 73

Larry R. Brown
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes I would support prohibiting lobbyist from raising money or establish a ceiling
2. I support the “sunshine” idea but drop limit to $5,000
3. No. I would support a cap on the amount a party can give to $5,000
4. No. Completely ban solicitations
5. I do not have a problem with lobbyists serving on PAC committees or helping decide which candidates receive money.

House 78

Harold Brubaker
Incumbent -yes

I SUPPORT THE CHANGES THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ENACTED FOR ETHICS. ANY LEGISLATION CONTINUES TO NEEDING IMPROVEMENTS. AS WE IMPROVE THE ORIGINAL LEGISLATION WE MUST CONTINUE TO REQUIRE FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE.”

House 77

Ada M. Fisher
Incumbent: No

1. Because lobbyists that I have encountered tend to avoided non incumbents and independent thinking candidates, I haven’t had the luxury of seeking or receiving their assistance.

I believe that only people who can vote should be able to donate to candidates. As individuals lobbyists etc should be able to donate as they like. The lobbyists should concentrate on getting their issues heard by candidates, the legislators and the public with full disclosure of what the represent, who is affected and how as well as who supports them legislatively and their connections.
2. I have no problems with this.
3. Yes, if all candidates in that party are treated equally.
4. No. Charities are not for profits should do their own soliciting. The legislators should run the government and all the problems and promises.
5. As long as there is full disclosure of who is doing what for whom, private activities may so as the law allows.

House 82
Larry G. Pittman
Incumbent: No

1. Lobbyist should not be allowed to raise or provide any funds whatsoever to candidates or to those in office. There is too much risk of lobbyists having undue influence if such a practice is allowed. Therefore, I would support absolute prohibition of this practice.
2. Yes. The $4,000 figure seems arbitrary and should probably be lowered. However, I do support this idea in principle. It appear to me that only someone with something to hide would object to such open reporting.
3. Yes, Again there should be transparent reporting of such contributions. However I see no need of placing limits on how much can be given. As long as it is openly reported, that is sufficient. That goes for contributions from individuals as well. I see no justification for setting arbitrary limits, so long as all contributions are properly reported.
4. No, they should not. This is just another way of opening the door to lobbyists having undue influence by doing favors for government officials. I would favors, not just restrictions, but an absolute prohibition of this practice, lobbyists should be allowed to discuss their concerns and make their case to government officials, but not to give them any money or other gifts or favors.
5. No again there would be a risk of undue influence. As I Thessalonians 5:22 (KJV) exhorts us we should “abstain from all appearance of evil” it is simply better not to allow a practice that could lend itself to wrong doing or that puts our government officials integrity in doubt. As for myself, I do not intend to accept any funds or gifts of any kind from anyone I know to be a lobbyist. If elected, I would be willing to give lobbyists a hearing in my office, but not to go to dinner with them or receive anything from them but their views. Count on it!

House 85
Name: Chuck Aldridge
Incumbent: No
Responses:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. Don’t Know
5. No, but It seems to be difficult to separate the influence from membership.

House 86
Walter Church
Incumbent –yes
1. Lobbyists should be able to contribute contributions to any candidate they choose but abide by limit imposed
$4,000
2. Yes
3. 3. Whatever they can afford- but a limit of $50,000
4. None
5. Yes

House 87

Edgar V, Starnes
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. No

House 103

Larry Hale
Incumbent: No

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Need more information to answer this questions
4. I don’t see why not
5. Why not

strong> House 105

Ric Killian
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. Bared upon my experience, I understand one role of the lobbyist is to educate their client on the attitudes of legislations on their interests. I don’t know how a lobbyists can be taken out of the role of determining role for candidates, regardless of whether or not they are on a PAC committee.

House 109

William Current Sr.
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No, Law making it illegal
5. No, Information only should be the lobbyists role.

House 110
Kelly Hastings
Incumbent: No

1. I am for the most open and ethical government possible; however, I realize that the U.S constitution and North Carolina Constitution protects free speech. I also realize that equal protection of the law and the ability to petition the government for redress of grievances are important to the stability of our state and republic. Therefore I am for common sense reform, but I am not willing to participate in state action that would violate a person’s constitutional rights.
2. I am an advocate of open government and I do not like government secrecy or secret political societie. I will support reforms that makes sense, but I am not willing to violate a person’s constitutional rights. Before supporting any legislation, I would have to apply basic rules of statutory interpretation so that we do not pass laws that are vague or over inclusive. I would also apply other principles of statutory interpretation to make sure that our laws have a good chance of passing constitutional muster.
3. any limit that would support would have to satify constitutionl muster. I do not have the time to research every equal protection and first amendment case, but I would honor the tradition of stare decided. My goal is to monitor state action and make sure that our citizens are provided with as much freedom as possible. If the U.S Supreme Court equates contributions with free speech, we must be careful not to expose ourselves to legal action. The taxpayers can’t afford to pay for endless legal actions.
4. As I have said many times, I am supportive of laws and rules that make the machinations of our government more transparent; however, I will have to work with our staff to make sure that we are not passing laws that will not pass constitutional muster.

House 110
Bruce (Avram) Friedman
Incumbent –no

1. Yes, I would support this prohibition
2. Yes. I would support this measure.
3. No. there should be spending limits on all campaigns.
4. No. There should be a clear and strict division between legislators or members of the Council of State and all special interests. There should be no appearance of favors between lobbyists and legislators.
5. No. Lobbyists that are trying to influence the decision-making process should not be able to deliver money to legislators or political candidates.

House 115
Paul Perdue
Incumbent no

1.yes only if it constitutional.
2. Yes
3. No
4. NO
5. No

House 117

Carolyn Justus
Incumbent - yes
1. I don’t know
I would support a limit

2. Yes
3. no
4. Probably with disclosure of fund raising.
5. Yes, they know the positions of incumbents

Senate 1
Marc Basnight
Incumbent- yes

Thank you for your letter and for the candidate questionnaire from the North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform. As you know, serving with integrity is tremendously important to me and something I take seriously. I was proud to help pass the toughest ethics reforms in the country and I truly appreciate your efforts in ensuring good government. However for the reasons outlined below, I must decline your invitation to participate.

It has been my long-practice while serving in the North Carolina Senate to not sign pledges or fill out questionnaires committing myself to be either for or against a specific issue on a wholesale basis. I believe that these pledges and questionnaires impede officials’ abilities to use their best judgment when dire situations arise or to change their minds as new information becomes available – these impediments are not in the best interests of our state. When I consider any matter that may come before the Senate, I want to be free to hear the debate, to consider all information available, and - if my previous position is wrong – I want to be free to change my mind so I can make the right decisions for our people and our state. That is my job as a representative of the people.

This is not to say hat public servants should not make promises – all of us should make a promise to represent our constituents and our state to the best of our abilities, and to use good judgment, compassion and common sense in our decisions. But to do that, we need the freedom to respond to new information and changing circumstances in a manner this is in the best interest of our state. That is why I refuse to sign any pledge or questionnaire from any groups because, in restricting my freedom, I believe I weaken my ability to effectively represent my district and my state, and worse t limit myself to a position that may not ultimately be in the best interest of those whom I have been elected to serve.

The freedom to listen, to debate, and to make decisions is at the very crux of my duties as a public servant- and the duties of the 169 other lawmakers who serve our people. As you can imagine, with 170 people in the legislature it can often be challenging to come to agreement- yet another reason freedom and flexibility are critical for legislators.

Senate 5

Chuck Stone
Incumbent – no

1. Yes, I would support prohibiting lobbyists from raising money for legislative and statewide candidates and their money for legislative and statewide candidates and their committees. Lobbyists need to be removed from the conduit for political contributions because of the negative public perception regarding the fundraising process.
2. Yes! The public should have access to information regarding individuals raising more than $10,000 for a candidate.
3. As political entities, I am not certain that political parties should be limited in amounts they can contribute to candidates since the public perceives that as the purpose of the party. If a political party had a tendency to use funds for only a small number of candidates, limited restrictions might be appropriate.
4. No. Again, it is better to remove lobbyists from serving as a conduit for such contributions due to public perception. Charities and non-profits could still receive contributions and donations from lobbyists by having friends and supporters, who are not legislators and Council of State members, make the request.
5. No. Lobbyists should not be allowed to serve on a PAC Committee in which the lobbyist is part of the decision process in deciding which candidates receive money and how much money they receive. This still allows lobbyists the freedom of speech to advise their organization’s PAAC an to provide information to the PAC. Participation in the actual voting process is a totally different matter creating the potential for negative public perception and quid pro quo.

Don Davis
Incumbent: No

1. I believe there should be limits
Cap the amount.
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. No
5. No

Senate 7

Charles Stires
Incumbent –no

1. I support prohibiting lobbyists from raising money for candidates and their committees. I support banning all contributions, gifts, trips from lobbyists to candidates and their committees.
2. I support the same reporting requirements for all candidates, lobbyists, committees, PAC’s, etc. Complete transparency is the goal.
3. Yes
4. Yes. Make the transactions transparent
5. yes. Full disclosure of PAC membership is required.

Senate 8

Bettie Fennell
Incumbent: No

1. Yes, I would support prohibiting lobbyists from raising money for candidates. I would support any effort to bring the cost of campaigns down. I also support any effort to put candidates on a level playing field. Incumbents whether good or bad legislations, often have an advantage over political newcomers.
2. Yes. In fact, I would prefer that the amount be lowered to $5,000. The public has a right to know who is working behind the scene to get candidates elected-and what the fund-raises except in return.
3. No. Campaigns are becoming so expensive that only the wealthy and well connected can afford to run for public office. The effect is that well qualified people are unable to mount effective campaigns.
4. Absolutely not! I believe that is a way to secretly funnel money to legislators and their families out of the watchful eyes of the public. I am reminded of the block causes setting up a foundation that gave scholarships to legislator’s children.
5. No. At first blush, I believe there should be at least an arms length relationship between legislators and lobbyists when campaign contributions are involved.

Senate 10
Charles Albertson
Incumbent- yes

Thank you for your recent questionnaire. For some time now, because of time constraints and the large number of questionnaires received, I have been declining to complete such forms.
It has always been my policy to carefully study the issues at hand and try to make the best decision possible for the good of the people. I will continue to make education a top priority.
I think my record speaks for itself in as much as I work hard to serve not only my constituents, but all of NC citizens.

Senate 12

Patricia A. Oliver
Incumbent: No

1. I believe that every American citizen and/or lobbyists should have the right to make their and/or their peers point of view heard. Lobbyists are paid by people to push someone’s point, the normal American people would not pay anyone to push their point. I would want to limit lobbyist’s solicited contributions.

An elected official spends a lot of time doing their job. This is not just an eight hour a day job. This is a 16 hours or more of their time each and every day. If they have to go out and solicited contributions then you would be cutting into the work they really need to do. I am willing to work for the people and by the people and did know raising money is important, but let me do the work for the people and let someone else raise the money.
2. I would support “sunshine” legislation for North Carolina, I believe that the amount should be more realistic. I would say $30,000. Then we would want name, occupation, address, telephone, and social security number.
3. People like myself work everyday to make a living. I have limited resource to manage a political campaign. I believe if you want people that are for the ordinary American than their party should help back that candidate with money and free labor.
Just because a party backs me with money and free labor is no sign I would sell my vote. I am an American first and a democrat second. I will do everything I can for the American people!
4. If they solicit money then the name, addresses, telephone numbers and social security numbers should also be identified of any person that gives that money.
5. Lobbyists are very informed people and I would want to hear what they had to say. I would want them to hold a meeting/or something to let us all hear their information
Lobbyists should never be allowed to serve on a PAC committee and should never be allowed to make any decisions for anyone, about anything. We are trying to get back to basic government, where the elected official can still make a decision without money being given to the official and it being the most important factor.

Senate 15

Neal Hunt
Incumbent: Yes

1. I do not support allowing lobbyists to raise money for candidates or their committees.
2. Absolutely
3. Not! This is the biggest travesty still allowed under the previously approved ethics reform rules. It is ridiculous to allow contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars to a political party who then dole it out to candidates of their choice.
4. As evidence by recent examples of abuse, it is a bad idea for politicians to solicit money for charities or nonprofits. I would support a complete ban on this practice.
5. I am undecided on this issue

Senate 16

John M. Alexander
Incumbent: No

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No. Zero dollars should be solicited from lobbyists.
5. No

Jack Nichols
Incumbent – no
1. Yes, I support such a ban; however, lobbyists have First Amendment rights and there will always be the possibility of a constitutional challenge.
2. Yes.
3. Yes I support state political parties from providing funds to candidates because it promotes political parties and diminishes the impact of special interest groups, single issue groups and 527 Committees. They should have to report such contributions the same as other political contributions.
4. All public servants (which under the new Ethics legislation includes legislators and members of the Council of State) should be allowed to support charities and not-for-profit organizations; they should also be allowed to solicit financial support.
They should not be allowed to identify themselves in their elected official capacity; If they send solicitations to lobbyists or Political Action Committees, then it should be disclosed on the Charitable Solicitations Report that the charity must file.
5. Lobbyists should not serve on a Political Action Committee (PAC); but, it is consistent with the advocacy responsibilities and First Amendment rights to be able to advise them and provide information about the endorsement process and political contributions.

Josh Stein
1. Yes

2. Yes
3. No

4. No

5. No

Senate 19

Anthony (Tony) Rand
Incumbent: Yes

“Thank you for sending me your questionnaire for state legislative candidates. It is my policy not to respond to this type of survey.

As a state legislator, I must consider a multitude of variables when making public policy decisions. It is impossible to mark a yes or no answer on many of your questions for these actions.

In the 20 years that I have been privileged to serve in the General Assembly, I have voted on thousands of issues concerning almost every imaginable subject matter. I find this a much better indicator of my position than a questionnaire. Suffice it to say, I consider myself fiscally conservative, socially moderate and pro-choice.

In addition, I approach the representation of my district with an open mind. I welcome the lively discussion and debate that occurs in committee and on the Senate floor. As a result, I may be persuaded to change my mind on an issue that I previously thought I had resolved. It is the nature of my service to the State of North Carolina to listen to all sides of an issue before casting my vote.

Thank you again for contacting me, I look forward to working with you during session.

Senate 23

Moses Carey
Incumbent: No
:
1. Yes, lobbyists should be limited in this regard.
2. Yes
3. No there should be limits
4. Such solicitations should be made with certain limits and no such proceeds should go to the member of the legislature or candidates for such.
5. I see no need for prohibition as long as such memberships are disclosed and limits are placed on how much PAS can give.

Senate 29

Ronald Franklin
Incumbent: No

1. So long as incumbents remain the focus of lobbying efforts, I support prohibiting raising money for candidates. Lobbyists can play an important role in government, but the playing field should be level and fair. Our currents system is blatantly unfair for non-incumbents.
2. North Carolina currently limits individual contributions for candidates to 4,000 with the exception of the candidate and selects immediate family members. I support limiting contributions from any single donor to this limit. With regards to individuals who bundle donations of others, disclosure of the name of those individuals bundling in excess of 4,000 would be advised as well
3. Yes. Provides they remain with the guidelines described above.
4. No legislators and members of the council of state are there to look after affairs of state of state, not charities. Lobbyists wishing to donate funds to charities or not for profit organizations should do so directly with a donative intent.
5. So long as the playing field is level where donations are concerned, the participation of lobbyists in PAC decision making may be helpful to committee members who are less familiar with legislative issues. Lobbyists and PACS can serve an important Role in the government process but their financial involvement must be balanced, fair and open for public oversight.

Jerry Tillman
Incumbent: Yes

1. Lobbyists should not be allowed to solicit contributions for candidates/legislators and their centers. Yes, I would support legislation to prohibit this practice.
2. Yes, I will support sunshine legislation in N.C similar to the passed in U.S Senate.
3. There should be a limit on the amount of money political parties can give to candidates.
4. Legislators should not be allowed to solicit money for charities or not for profit organizations from lobbyists. There should be an o limit.
5. Lobbyists should be prohibited from sewing on PACS and should not be a part of the decision-making process relative to which candidates receive money and how much they receive.

Senate 34

William Barnette
Incumbent: No

1. No
It would depend on whether it is a local election or statewide.
2. I need more data.
3. Yes
4. Such solicitations must be reasonable guidelines should be established.
5. Yes

Andrew Brock
Incumbent- yes
1.No see question below.
I support full disclosure. However, I question the limiting of one’s freedom of speech.

2. Yes

3. No

4. No

5. No

Senate 36
Mike Helms
Incumbent: No
:
1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

4. No

5. No

Senate 40

Ed Milheren
Incumbent: No

1. Yes

2. Yes but would lower to 1,000

3. No

4. No

5. No, would not allow

Senate 42

Austin Allran
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

4. This sounds like there should be more restrictions. I’ve never done this* so I don’t know much about it. I’d like more information before making suggestions. (* solicit for charities or non for profits from lobbyists)

5. no

Senate 44

Jim Jacumin
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

4. No

5. No

Senate 45

Steven Goss
Incumbent: Yes

1. Yes, I believe lobbyists should not be involved in the fundraising process.

2. Yes, absolutely

3. No, I prefer public financing of all campaigns

4. No the not for profit itself can solicit the contribution, but council of state and legislators should not.

5. No there should be a complete separation of the activities.

Senate 46

Debbie Clary
Incumbent: No (currently a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives)
Responses:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No, simply not do so if they are connected to the not for profit in any way.

5. Provide voting records and allow PAC to make decisions on voting records and surveys.

Les Merritt
Auditor
Incumbent -yes
1.Yes, I support any effort to prohibit lobbyists from raising money for legislative and statewide candidates and their committees. Our government was established on the principle that people have the control and can make a difference by working together on issues to find common solutions. Political campaigns and issue campaigns should not be run by how much money can be raised and spent.

2.Yes, I support legislation that will require the name, occupation and the amount raised by any specific person for any legislative or statewide candidate. Personally, I think this information should be collected on any individual that raises over $4,000 for any specific candidate.

3.No, state political parties and organizations should not be permitted to give unlimited amounts of money to legislative candidates. North Carolina’s General Assembly was established as a citizen’s legislature and we must maintain that tradition and not allow limitless amounts of money to dictate elections in North Carolina.

4.No. Members of the North Carolina General Assembly and the Council of State should not be allowed to solicit contributions from lobbyists for charities and non-profit groups under any circumstances. If a member of the General Assembly or the Council of State wishes to raise money for any of the worthwhile causes in North Carolina he or she should do that on their own time.

5 No. Lobbyists registered in North Carolina should not be allowed to be part of the decision making process on how PAC money is distributed to candidates. If a lobbyist wishes to sit in an advisory capacity for a PAC that should be permissible; however, any further involvement on how funds are spent over the course of a campaign should be limited to those not registered as lobbyists.

Wayne Goodwin
Insurance Commissioner

1.Given my strong support during my past legislative service and as a member of the campaign finance/election reform community for many years, I am much inclined to support such a prohibition or limitation.

Notwithstanding my answer, above, please consider this: If the proposed prohibition does not become law, then I would propose an alternative: Any and all lobbyists who solicit contributions must identify on their reports (1) those candidates for whom they solicited campaign contributions, and (2) those persons or PACs to whom the solicitation was made on behalf of such candidates.

2. Yes. This not only comports with my past legislative record and on-going activities in the reform community, but it also mirrors – in part – what I proposed in the previous answer.

3.In this instance, I must say “yes.” If we are going to have stringent limitations like those mentioned in questions 1 and 2 (and other limitations), then we do not want to take any actions which will harm the political party construct. Political parties are creatures of the First Amendment, relying heavily upon freedom of association and freedom to petition the government for one’s grievances, etc. My concern is that if we allow the restriction proposed in this question then it may seriously harm a system where the two major political parties already face growing numbers of unaffiliated voters who vote in the primaries of the political parties. As my record and public actions reflect, I am a stalwart proponent of campaign finance reforms; however, I am not persuaded as to the necessity of the reform proposed by this question. … Of course, I am willing to listen to counterarguments and re-assess, and would appreciate learning more about the details of statutes in those States that have imposed such limits.

4. No. I have concerns about the appearance of a conflict.

In terms of restrictions, I suggest either a complete ban … or, barring passage of this reform measure, a “sunshine law” like that described in Question 2, above.

5. I’m undecided about this one. The reason: I can foresee circumstances where a small organization has a part-time lobbyist who serves various other administrative, etc., functions with the PAC or the parent organization, and how such a prohibition may be unnecessary. The question in my mind is: How does one get at the concern suggested by the question

Elaine Marshall
Secretary of State
Incumbent

I am pleased you are raising these issues during the campaign of 2008. Thank you for your assistance in the past biennium with enactment of North Carolina’s current lobbying laws. Your support was a vital compliment to the initiative I began in late 2003. Thanks for your help.
My replies and insights to your questions are possibly different from other candidates and are based upon my personal experiences as a former State Senator and now the Lobbyist Compliance Administrator.
North Carolina is not yet achieving everything possible under our current reform legislation. I am grateful that the State Budget Office has indicated an intention to conduct a study later this year to determine appropriate staffing levels. Your support in this regard would be appreciated. It is imperative that the state provide adequate funding to assure every lobbyist, lobbyist principal, government official, and media personnel is completely educated on the goals and requirements under the law. This would have the side benefit of taking an unfortunate workload off lobbying compliance staff and enable them to focus on those individuals that are resistant to complying with the reforms.
I can understand the desire to move the reform agenda forward while the public is interested in this issue. However, we haven’t harvested the fruits of the reforms that have recently been enacted. We need to make sure offices such as the Secretary of State, the Ethics Commission, State Board of Elections and the Legislative Ethics Committees have the tools and resources to do the work already assigned to them.
I have tried to answer your questions thoughtfully, rather than seemingly quick-fix responses. I would he doing the reform community a serious disservice by not pointing out that much remains to be done to implement current law. That having been said, we can still look at changes hut need to be mindful that prior efforts are not yet frilfilled.

1. I am unsure that your suggestions to ban or limit lobbyists from fundraising single contribution by single contribution will have a huge impact on funds raised. We are in the early stages of the current law and have yet to have a statewide election under the new legislation. The deeper the prohibitions on fundraising, the more diffuse the fundraising will be. Campaign fundraising is lawful and likely will remain lawful for some period of time. Even the pilot project publicly funded races require a certain level of fundraising for eligibility.
My concern is that your proposal will force this activity underground and over time, the net effect is less disclosure rather than more disclosure. I sympathize with your goal, but the goal needs to he achieved in a manner that will not result in litigation over constitutional rights for a protracted period of time. My personal philosophy in this area favors disclosure over prohibitions.

2. 1 favor disclosure measures as a whole believing that “sunshine” is the brightest element of transparency and good government. Since the U.S. Senate proposal is not yet law with an experience factor to evaluate, it is difficult to evaluate totally.
I believe contributions under $50 per donor each election cycle should not trigger a reporting requirement to parallel current campaign finance laws. Since cash is now prohibited, that loophole has been closed.
From practical experience, a number of issues would need to be considered, including thc qucstion of who has the reporting obligation — the candidate, the solicitor, or the donor. Any such disclosure requirement should be written so as not to chill civic participation as campaign giving is a constitutionally based lawful activity. I would not support criminal penalties for disclosure failures and I would not place the obligation on the candidate as it is difficult to know who did the solicitation, as surprising as that sounds. Any law that is written should he clear and easy to enforce and at the same time accomplish the intended goal.

3. Given the current state of our laws. I would not support this restriction as suggested. Currently there are no limits on candidate spending. including funds from their own pockets. The only way a candidate can fund a campaign is through individual contributions, PAC (Political Action Committee) contributions, party contributions and selGfunding. Independent expenditures by others are also currently unlimited.
North Carolina has no institutional, reliable statewide method in place to inform voters about candidates. Wide-distribution newspapers are either consolidating or reducing their coverage of government issues. Given all of the above, opportunities for serious distortion can occur with little opportunity for correction. One way to counteract misrepresentation and distortions is with party funded support. I would not restrict party resources to party nominees in the absence of any authoritative, comprehensive voter’s guide.

4. If the contribution appears to benefit the personal finances (earnings, contracts, sales, etc.) of a covered individual or their immediate family, I would support a prohibition.
All lobbyists are not the same, all non-profits are not the same, all requests are not the same. This proposal deserves more study. A fire department or church meal ticket is quite different from a check with many zeros in the amount. We would need to make sure that valuable charities, doing meaningful work, are not unnecessarily impacted by overly broad restrictions.

5. Prohibiting lobbyists from serving on PACs by itself will not bring about the change I believe you seek. A number of constitutional issues underlie the information flow in lobbying. Protected speech includes identifying favorable and unfavorable opinions regarding certain candidate stances. Even if lobbyist participation is denied, a candidate’s stance will already be known or can be ascertained. Once a candidatesposition is known, past voting performance by the district is known, the decision on a contribution is not especially difficult.

Janet Cowell
Treasurer

1.Lobbyists play an important role in developing and advocating for either new legislation and administrative rules or changes to existing laws. The development of rules which prohibit lobbyists from contributing to campaigns was an important step in insuring that the people that are helping to influence the development of the law are not also the ones that are financing the law makers. I support changes which would prohibit lobbyists from raising money for candidates and their committees for public office. However, if this occurs we would need to take a look at how these lobbyists could affect elections by sending contributions to independent 527 groups. The power of these independent 527 groups could grow and influence elections by hijacking the ability of political campaigns to have their message heard. It is important as we go through the process of figuring out who can and cannot give money to a political campaign to determine what unintended consequences we expose ourselves and our representative government to.

2. I support this type of proposal.

3. Until North Carolina has public financing for all candidates for office, political parties should not be capped in providing resources to candidates. Capping resources to candidates for public office makes the political playing field unequal. Fundamentally, the legislature should be representative of the State and should include people from all walks of life who have the best ideas on how to carry the State’ business forward. To earn a seat in the legislature already costs over $100,000. The average income in North Carolina is around $38,000 annually. Without having party support there is no way that someone of average means but superior thoughts can be elected to the legislature – especially if they are running against someone who can write one or two checks and self finance their election. If we want to have a representative republic then we need to make sure that our elected officials come from all walks of life and for that to happen we need to make sure that everyone can afford to run for public office.

4.Legislators and members of the Council of State should not be allowed to solicit money for charities or not for profit organizations from lobbyists. However, lobbyists should not be prevented from giving to charities with which public officials are affiliated with.

5. Lobbyists should not be able to serve on a PAC committee and be a part of deciding which candidate receives money and how much money they do receive.

Commissioner of Labor
John c. Brooks
Incumbent: YesResponses:
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes and No: there should be limits on amount of money parties can give to an individual candidate or committee of individual candidate, but no limits on money spent in behalf of parties composite tickets or unity campaigns.
4. No
5. No

Michael Weisel
State Treasurer Candidate

1.Many candidates can answer this question with a simple yes. However, people reviewing these responses should also examine that candidate’s contribution record. Saying you oppose
soliciting contributions in a survey is easy – what is their actual record? Has the candidate ever accepted lobbyist, special interest money or in the State Treasurer’s race – contributions from
people who invest the state’s pension funds? I am the only candidate who has refused
contributions from pension fund investment managers investing North Carolina’s money.

Lobbyists are paid to impart their political knowledge and acumen to their clients. Part of that
knowledge is determining what effective legislators are supportive of their clients’ legislative
interests. As “soliciting” is currently being legally interpreted by some, lobbyists are prohibited
from providing their professional services to their clients in the form of advice indicating what
legislators and statewide candidates are supportive of a client’s legislative interests.

From a legal perspective, there is a significant question whether the current law of prohibiting
lobbyists from making contributions will withstand constitutional challenge.
Placing limitations on a lobbyist making contribution recommendations based upon their
professional expertise seems to raise even larger free speech constitutional issues.
Consequently, I am unable to support free speech limiting legislation that would appear
unconstitutional on its face without reviewing the precise language proposed for such a
prohibition.

The most effective way to allow people to determine motivations for legislative or executive
action is full and complete transparency in contribution receipt with full donor information,
contribution amount, occupation and employer with penalties for filing false information.
Reporting political contributions or expenditures should be on an immediate basis so there is no“game” about holding off expenses or contributions until the report filing date in order to “hide”these items until a reporting period after the election.

I propose an online contribution and expenditure reporting system housed with the State Boardof Elections that each political committee and candidate must enter within forty-eight (48) hours after the event above a dollar threshold. This is currently a legal requirement for any contributions over $1,000 after the 10-day campaign report. A comprehensive campaign report would then be filed within the regular reporting cycle currently in place. However, the ability to see who is contributing and where that campaign money is being spent in a timely, meaningful manner would enable the greatest deterrent to the corrupting influence of money in politics –full public disclosure and scrutiny.

2. Yes, I absolutely support fuller disclosure and would propose lowering the threshold to $5,000.

Once again, the timing of reporting and disclosure is the key to any proposal. No one will care
or follow up on information after the election is over. Unless there is people can learn about
contributions and expenditures during the campaign, they cannot make informed decisions
about their vote.

3.No, state political parties should not be allowed to provide unlimited money to candidates.
Likewise, unlimited corporate and union money should not be permitted in political campaigns.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled otherwise as a prohibition against free speech. I
have fought against such unlimited money in the form of “527” expenditures both legally and
legislatively. I helped draft and pass North Carolina legislation requiring public disclosure of 527 expenditures in a timely manner to ensure the public knew who was contributing money and making expenditures.

4.No. I would support full prohibition on solicitation.

5.Yes – for the legal reasons outlined in Question 1.

DAVID YOUNG
CANDIDATE FOR STATE TREASUER

1.The General Assembly has taken a major step in prohibiting direct contributions from registered lobbyists. If the General Assembly decides that further limitations are required, I will abide by them. I will conduct myself and my official activities in an open and transparent manner – showing no favoritism whatsoever in the handling of my duties and responsibilities.

2. Yes.

3. I would support reasonable limitations.

4. I would support a prohibition on legislators and members of the Council of State soliciting contributions for charities or other non-profit organizations from lobbyists if the elected official or an immediate family member has a direct financial interest in the charity or non-profit organization. If no financial interest exists, I would support a limit on the amount that could be solicited.

5.I would support a limitation that would permit a lobbyist to provide data, analysis, and other information to members of a PAC committee but that would not permit a lobbyist from participating in any final decision on support or allocation of campaign contributions.

Lieutenant Governor Responses

The candidates’ responses are listed in alphabetical order by last name .
One candidates has not responded -Robert Pittenger. If we receive answers from him, we will post them.

Walter Dalton

1. Yes. We must do everything we can to ensure that money is separated from influencing the legislative process. Legislation should be argued on its merits, not on the amount of money given to a candidate or office holder.

2. Yes. Transparency is the key to campaign finances. There is no reason that a person raising money for a candidate should not be completely open about his or her fundraising practices.

3. State parties play a valuable role in how campaigns are run in North Carolina, but they shouldn’t have unlimited financial say in the outcome of campaigns. There should be some limitation on how much money a state party can donate to an individual campaign.

4. I believe that elected officials should be able to solicit contributions for charities and not-for-profit organizations. There should, however, be strong oversight into these practices to ensure that lobbyists are not seeking to influence legislation through their charitable contributions and that this practice does not lead to a so-called “pay-to-play” scenario. Furthermore, we should ensure that these charitable organizations are legitimate.

Charities and not-for-profit organizations depend on the contributions of private citizens. I believe if elected officials can help them be successful, we should. At some point, we must realize that lobbyists are still private citizens and their occupation should not prohibit them from giving to organizations seeking to make a positive impact on society.

5.As I have said before, we must do everything to ensure that money does not intertwine with the legislative process. Separating lobbyists from a PAC’s contribution decision-making process would be a good way to ensure that these two elements do indeed remain separate.

<

Responses of Gubernatorial Candidates
Responses are in alphabetical order by last name

PAT MCCRORY

1.As with the laws of physics, i.e., for every action there is an equal or opposite reaction, such it is with the laws of political contributions. Over the years, various attempts have been made and various legislation passed attempting to limit the ways contributions can be made. If there are candidates who are willing and eager to receive dubious, questionable, or illegal contributions there really is no law that will stop them. For such a system to work, you have to presume honest candidates, honest campaigns, and honest contributors. I would be most interested if you could persuade Bev Perdue and Richard Moore to join me and together we might be able to lead by example and help clean up North Carolina politics.
Make sure that candidates and their campaigns obey state and federal election law by having stricter scrutiny of their finance reports.
Eliminate cash contributions because they cannot be traced (i.e., known as “passing the hat”).

2. Yes.

3. Yes. State parties are in the business of being involved in partisan politics and elections. As long as the money is raised and distributed legally they should be free to operate. As the media in this state has become even more monopolistic and uniform, and news stories continue to take on editorial page style commentary, the parties and candidates who are not favored by the media have to have an opportunity to raise enough money to get their agenda in front of the public. Many of your questions involve the actions and behavior of PAC’s and continue to presume the benign intent of what is more and more a slanted, disinterested media in the state.

4.Absolutely No! – especially for “not-for-profits” that they directly stand to benefit from as many of our state legislators appear to be doing. Simply putting a “not-for-profit” patina on a fund raising scam does not remove the taint of corruption and conflict of interest it creates. The amount of money the state has doled out in recent years to such “not-for-profits” run by state legislatures is neither coincidental nor capricious and merits both an intensive and in-depth investigation into the highest levels of government in this state.

Eliminate the practice entirely and end funding such “nongovernmental organizations” from the state budget

5.Yes. An individual, simply by being a lobbyist, does not surrender their rights to actively participate in partisan politics via their PACs. The PAC itself can better determine who should serve on the boards. Elections are partisan by nature and the government should not be overly involved in choosing who is eligible to participate and how they should participate. The contribution rules should be clean and simple and easy to understand and investigate. Personally, I believe that cash contributions should not be

BEVERLY PERDUE

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share my thoughts on lobbying reform with you and your member organizations. I appreciate the hard work the North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform has done to combat the influence of special interests in our government. I have issued a plan to establish the Public Endowment for Positive Gubernatorial Campaigns which addresses some of the concerns of your organization and I would like to take this opportunity to share it with you. Adopting this or a similar policy would be an important first step in creating an even playing field for gubernatorial candidates. I am proud to say that my rival for the Democratic nomination for governor has endorsed this plan.

I am strongly committed to the task of raising the to start the public endowment in 2012 as well as securing permanent endowment funding from individual philanthropists, foundations, companies as well other civic groups, and the contributions of ordinary North Carolinians. I also believe that the Endowment could ultimately be expanded to council of state and legislative campaigns. This would eliminate the influence of private special-interest money and require a positive tone in gubernatorial, council of state and legislative campaigns.

Reducing the power of special interests in elections is an important first step. However, as Governor I am committed to going further by reducing the influence of special interests in government after elections are over. I believe that the best way to accomplish this task is by shining the light of day on government contracts. I have proposed creating NC Open Book, an online resource for the public that will bring “Google” accountability to state contracts. Under this program, state agencies would be required to report all state contracts over $10,000. The public would then be able to search these online, ensuring that special interests can no longer make back room deals without the knowledge of the citizens of our state.

I am fed up with the status quo of private special-interest money influence and I am dedicated to leading the effort to change the system.

Respectfully,

Bev Perdue

1.Yes, I support prohibiting lobbyists from raising money for legislative and statewide candidates and their committees. Yet I would see such a step by itself as only a stop-gap measure because a transformation of the system is needed. Especially in the absence of public financing, such total contribution and fundraising bans may be subject to constitutional challenge. Thus, I would also support significant restrictions that stopped short of a total ban if constitutionally necessary.

2.Yes, I would support “sunshine” legislation where any individual raising more than $10,000 for a candidate would have to be identified by name, occupation, and the amount raised. My Public Endowment proposal would put an end to dependence on private special interest money and big dollar fundraising. But as a stop-gap measure, I would support state legislation like that co-sponsored by Congressman David Price at the federal level (Section 10 of H.R. 776).
I believe in shining the light on campaign contributions during the election cycle, but we can not stop there. It is not enough to reduce the influence of special interests on elections; we must also reduce their power in the General Assembly. I believe that the best way to do this is by allowing the public to have easy, open access to review government contracts. I have introduced a policy that will create NC Open Book, an online resource which is searchable over the internet. Every state agency will be required to submit detailed information about government contracts that exceed $10,000. This kind of “Google” accountability will ensure that special interests have less influence over how state money is spent.

3.No, I do not believe that state parties should be allowed to provide unlimited money to candidates. My Public Endowment plan requires political parties to agree not to spend or raise money in order for a party nominee to qualify for funding. I agree that in the absence of public funding we should place limits on how much money parties can provide to candidates.

4.I would support a ban or significant restrictions on the solicitation of lobbyists by legislators and members of the Council of State

5. I would support a formal ban that prohibits lobbyists from serving on the PAC committees of their clients. But I believe that the main focus of reform efforts should be on establishing a public endowment for positive campaigns as I have proposed and ending the current system of private special-interest and big-dollar fundraising