Survey Results from Lieutenant Governor Candidates
Lieutenant Governor Responses
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.
1. It seems the distinction between “collecting and delivered multiple contributions to candidates” and “raising money for …candidates” is too blurry to be practical. The real problem is the big money that goes to the legislative leadership for access to power. The answer is to have term limits on the leadership of the N.C. House and Senate – the Speaker of the House and Senate Pro Tem. Much of the problem we have is that too much power is concentrated in these two positions and the politicians appear to be willing to go to any lengths to protect that power.
2.Sunshine legislation often sounds good but this proposal sounds too difficult and ambiguous to realistically work. How would one know if a contribution from an individual was initiated by a “major fundraiser,” direct mail, or a call from the candidate. This sounds like an impractical idea.
3.For too long, the Democrats have felt they were above the law and couldn’t be touched by the normal electoral process to take them out of leadership in the N.C. House and Senate. This power was derived largely by the incredible amount of money they were able to amass from people and entities wanting access to this power. The new ethics laws will do little to address this problem. The heart of the problem lies in the way unlimited amounts of money can be funneled through state parties and then spent on campaigns to protect the political leadership’s position. The answer is no.
4.Full disclosure is important. The law should require full disclosure of the initiative of the legislator and if the legislator sits on the board of the non-profit. It will be hard to really know if it was disclosed. If there is a restriction on raising money by legislators for non-profits, that would be hard to track, too. The legislator could always go through intermediaries and never have a direct solicitation.
5.This is another “sounds good” proposal that has no teeth. Even if the lobbyist doesn’t officially serve on a PAC committee, the lobbyist could have the same influence. The key again to curb corruption in North Carolina is to have term limits for legislative leadership.