NCCLGR

We hope that you will use this information to help you decide for whom you want to vote in the upcoming Election. ( Early Voting and One Stop Voting begin October 16th and last until November 4th.Check with your county Board of Elections for locations.) Election Day is November 4thWe 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

House 9
Marian McLawhorn

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. No- not a part of decision making. I do think that they should be able to provide information to a number of PACs.

House 17

Bonner Stiller

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 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.

Sean Haugh

1.No, the problem is not with lobbyists’ money. It’s that the lobbyists can buy influence in the first place. I’d prefer where possible to first divest NC government from centralized control of issues which should be left to the people. Where that is not possible, I’d prefer to strengthen the disclosure process rather than restrict contributions.]

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. No. I believe legislators need to distance themselves from the operations of any non-profit once they take office, given the recent abuses of that process.

5. Yes. Instead of restricting who can donate or raise money, I’d rather restrict legislators on how they solicit or use that money.

yours in liberty –
Sean Haugh
Libertarian for NC Senate 30

House 32

Jim Crawford
Incumbent: Yes

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

House 33

Paul F. Terrell

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

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

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

Nelson Dollar

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 40

Stan Morse

1.Yes!
2. Yes!
3.No!
4. No ! I would allow none !
5. No!

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

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 68

Mike Cognac

1.support a prohibition on lobbyists soliciting donations for candidates and I also support a prohibition on members of state boards such as the Board of Transportation, Clean Water Trust Fund Board or other policymaking boards from contributing, aggregating or soliciting funds for state offices including the General Assembly, Council of State of Gunernatorial races.

2. Yes

3.Yes. Often contributions from poltical parties are a means of circumventing disclosure and contribution limits from individuals seeking to influence legislation and as such there should be limits placed on them.

4. This is a difficult area and should be studied carefully. I recognize the possibility for abuse here, but as a Director of several not for profits, also recognize the challenges that they face in fundraising, particularly in this difficult economic environment. I would likely support restrictions, but require greater study to know what limits, specifically I would endorse.

5. The role of a lobbyist is, by its nature a position of political action. I have no trouble with lobbyists serving on the boards of Political Action Committees, as long as the impact of PACS on legislation and policy are transparent to the public and restricted.

J. Curtis Blackwood

The Legislature has recently passed laws for ethics reform. I just finished a campaign in which a lifetime Democrat became a Republican shortly before the deadline in order to challenge me in the primary. His campaign was funded by tens of thousands of dollars from the Service Employees International Union, using a 527. If my memory serves me correctly, in the last election, large quantites of money were spent by an outside group through South Carolina. I am not sure that one can legislate ethics. I think that, in most cases, people are either ethical or lack ethics. I believe that your organization has good intentions, but let’s see what the present laws produce.

House 70

Pat Hurley
1.Yes

2.Yes

3.No

4. No.

Legislators and members of the Council of State will not be allowed to solicit money for charities and not-for-profit organizations.

5. No

House 71

Larry Womble

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

House 73

Larry R. Brown

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.

Cary Morris

1.I would support such a prohibition.

2.Yes, I would support “sunshine” legislation.

3.I would like to examine some of the things those 27 states are doing, before I committed to an answer on this. Unfortunately with the time I’ve been given to complete this survey, I won’t be able to do that research and give you a solid answer.]

4.I don’t like the idea that legislators can do that. It can raise some eyebrows over improper influences. I would support some restrictions.

5. If I read this question correctly, its saying that lobbyists who work for PACs giving information and advice, can’t serve on the committee of that same PAC in deciding on giving money to candidates. I’m not sure bannning them from serving on the contribution committee would provide the results you’re looking for. Enforcement would be difficult as well. Couldn’t they simply include that kind of information in their information and advice reports?? I’d have to have more information on what those other states did, if it met their objectives, and how they enforced it, before I get behind that restriction.

I’d like to conclude with the survey, by saying I’m glad that you’re organization is helping with reforms and bringing attention to areas that need improvement. We need to do what we can to remove improprieties or even the illusion of such from our government, and I support legislation that can achieve that. Thank you for including me in your survey.

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 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 82
House 85
Name: Chuck Aldridge
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. Don’t Know
5. No, but It seems to be difficult to separate the influence from membership.

Mitch Gillespie

Does not answer surveys

House 86
Walter Church

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

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

House 90

Jim Harrell

1. North Carolina law currently prohibits lobbyists from making personal contributions to legislative candidates or their committees. Lobbyists are also banned from collecting and delivering multiple contributions to candidates and their committees. But current law does not prohibit lobbyists from soliciting contributions. Would you support prohibiting or limiting lobbyists from raising money for legislative and statewide candidates and their committees? Yes

2.The U.S. Senate has passed legislation that would require disclosure of all major fundraisers for candidates, i.e. who they are and how much money they have raised. Would you support similar “sunshine” legislation for North Carolina where any individual raising more than $10,000 for a candidate would have to be identified by name, occupation and the amount raised? Yes

3..Twenty-seven states currently imposed limits on how much money political parties can provide to legislative candidates. North Carolina has no restrictions on the amount of money political parties can give. Should state political parties be allowed to provide unlimited money to candidates??
There should be a cap on the amount of money or ancillary benefit that a candidate receives from an outside source. That cap should include 527s.

4. Should legislators and members of the Council of State be allowed to solicit money for charities or not-for-profit organizations from lobbyists? No
5. Some states restrict lobbyists from serving on political action committees that raise and give campaign contributions to state lawmakers. In addition to providing information and advice to their PACS, should lobbyists also be allowed to serve on a PAC committee and be a part of deciding which candidates receive money and how much money they do receive? Lobbyist should not be allowed to serve on PAC committees.

Jeffrey Ober

1. I’m not sure I can support limiting anyone from contributing to campaigns. On the other hand, in today’s Internet-enabled world, I think ALL donations should be declared and published for everyone to see. I think a very key freedom of speech today is to allow people to contribute to candidates they agree with.

2. Absolutely. In fact, I would set the limit much lower — I think anyone who raises money for a candidate should be identified immediately via the Internet for all to see.

3.I think campaign finance in North Carolina is a joke. I think political parties should be limited and individuals should not — again, only with complete exposure and immediate reporting so that everyone can see all the financing for any candidate.

4. No. Too many legislators personally profit from not-for-profit organizations. Often this solicitation is nothing more than money laundering to line the legislators’ pockets. Legislators should be prohibited from being a member on any not-for-profit that receives any money from any state organization or department.

5. Certainly not. If a lobbyist is prohibited from giving cash to a candidate, how does it make sense that they can control donations through a PAC?

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

Hoouse 104
Ruth Samuelson

1. Need More info on this
2.probably. Sounds like a good idea. I prefer disclsure over prohibitons like the one in question # 1.
3. Need more info. Probably agree to limits.
4. If the charity isn’t paying the member or his or he immediate family and if the charity doesn’t receive state funds, I don’t see a problem with it. Otherwise, there are conflicts.
5. I’m not sure I see the marginal differnce btt given info/advice and voting.

Les Merritt
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.