Council of State Candidates
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Roy Cooper
Incumbent
no response as of 23 October,2008
Bob Crumley
no response as of 23 October, 2008
AUDITOR
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.
Beth Wood<
1.Yes I would whole-heartedly support legislation that prohibits, lobbyists from raising money for legislative and statewide candidates in any capacity. Legislators and Council of State members should not be “beholding” to anyone when they take office and should not be in a position to owe favors to those supporting/working for special interest groups.
2.Absolutely
3.No for the most part. I do think that if one candidate has unlimited funds to use to get their message out, then the Party of the opponent should be able to aid the opponent to get their message out also if the opponent funds are limited. It should not be about whose name is heard the most, it should be about the voters having the information they need to make an informed decision.
4. No, we should not create even the perception that there is some sort of bond/relationship between lobbyists and Council of State members.
5. Absolutely not.
COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURE
Ronnie Ansley
1.I would support prohibiting and/or limiting lobbyists from raising money for s=legislative and statewide candidates.
2. Yes, I would.
3. Political parties should be allowed to provide money and support to candidates as long as it does not violate any existing laws nor ethics.
4. No.I would limit any solicitation by elected officials and candidates from lobbyists.
5. Lobbyists should not serve on PAC committees nor be a part of deciding which candidates recieve money or how much money they recieve.
Steve Troxler
Incumbent
no response as of 23 October, 2008
COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE
Wayne Goodwin
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 .
John Odom
1.YES
2.YES
3. NO
4. NO
5. NO
Mark McMains
no response as of 23 October, 2008
Nathaniel Cooper
no response as of 23 October, 2008
COMMISSIONER OF LABOR
Cherie Berry
Incumbent
no response as of 23 October, 2008
Mary Fant Donnan
no response as of 23 October, 2008
SECRETARY OF STATE
Elaine Marshall
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.
Jack Sawyer
1.I support prohibiting lobbyists from raising money for legislative and statewide candidates and their committees.
2.Yes, I would support similar “sunshine” legislation.
3.No
4. No
5. No
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
June St. Clair Atkinson
Incumbent
no response as of 23 October, 2008
Richard Morgan
no response as of 1 October, 2008
TREASURER
Janet Cowell
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.
William Daughtridge
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. The influence a lobbyist might have on a PAC’s contributions is not determined by whether or not the lobbyist is on the PAC’s committee. Lobbyists should not be made to forfeit their right to participate in the political process simply because they are lobbyists.