Candidates for the North Carolina Senate
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 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
Kay Carroll
1. yes
2. yes
3. No
4. No
4. No
Senate 13
David Weinstein
Senator Weinstein does not respond to surveys
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
Josh Stein
1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No
4. No
5. No
SEnate 17
Brian Irving
1.This is a clear example of why lobbying reform will always fail. Legislators will always find loopholes to circumvent the law, either those deliberately written into the law, or those invented by creative interpretation.
Even lobbyists have the same rights as other citizens. An individual’s right to support the candidate of their choice in any way they can should never be restricted. Simple stated, laws restricting campaign contributions are abridgments of the right to free speech.
The intent of lobbying reform is noble. Yet, good intentions do not address the actual issue. It is not that money is used to influence how legislators use their power, it is the fact that legislators have the power in the first place. Our nation was founded on the fundamental principal of limited government. Yet government, at all levels, has grown exponentially to envelope every aspect of our lives. Until and unless we reduce the size, scope and power of State government, the problem will remain and no legislation will fix it.
An alternative solution is for legislators to pledge — as I do — to never to accept money from any group, to only accept money directly from individuals, and to make public a list of all donations and donors.
Finally, no lobbying or government reform is possible as long as the Democratic-Republican duopoly is allowed to maintain a closed election system. North Carolina has arguably the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation. People deserve at least as many choices when voting as they do when buying bottled water.
2. The U.S. Constitution does not give the Federal government any authority for such legislation. A similar law in North Carolina would be unnecessary if legislators made and keep the “full disclosure” pledge I have made.
3.Yes. I only wish it had not been necessary for the North Carolina Libertarian Party to spend $130,000 just to get on the ballot, so that we could have used that money to help candidates.
4. If by “allowed” you mean “should it be legal” my answer is: Yes. It is their right. The question should be: is it proper or appropriate, to which I answer: absolutely not.
5. Again, my answer is yes, they should be allowed — as individuals exercising their right to free speech. Here again, the connection between lobbyists and PACS is not the problem. The problem is that the primary purpose lobbyists and PACs exist is to influence legislators who wield way too much power over everything.
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 20
Floyd McKissick
told us on phone tht he does not answer surveys
Senate 23
Eleanor Kinnard
1. Yes. Although it would be difficult to discover, I would ban all soliciting and collecting from lobbyists to candidates.
2. Yes.
3. If it would slow down the war of fundraising, I would agree we should limit the amount a party can give to candidates.
4. No. This is a major loophole of influence.
5. I don’t know that this makes much difference. They are all political and the PACs are identified by their interest anyway.
Senate 24
Richard Gunn
1. Yes
2. I am not opposed to thsi concept/idea . If it is appropriately drafted it would be a good idea.
3. I beleive tahis is a good idea and would support legislation to limit the contribution amounts.
4. No;unless well documented, fully disclosed, and with strict dollar limits. Allowing solicitation open the door to abuse.
5. I see where lobbyist could give valuable input to PAC’s about state lawmakers; however full disclosure should be required if they are allowed to serve. I would consider legislation that prohibits lobbyists from being involved in contribution allocations to cnadidtes or lawmakers.
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 37
Vince Coscia
1. No. No Limit
2. Yes
3.No a restriction should be imposed
4. No
5. I have no problem with this
Senate 38
Charlie S. Dannelyy
As a legislator, I am concerned to serving the best intersts of the constituents of my district and the citizens of this state. In doing so,I must view every issue from all sides. Consequently, I stopped completing surveys and questionnaires years ago. Surveys and questionnaires tend to limit my response in certain situations rendering me unabel to make approp[riate decisions for changing conditions that occur in the unknown future and ultimately affect the wellbeing of this state.
Additioanlly, my record as to where on stand, presently, on various issues, is availabel to the public on the Internet.
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 43
Kathy Harrington
1. Lobbyists are currently limited in their fundraising activites. All contributions made by lobbyists , or groups they represent, to Legitslative or Statewide Candiates should be fully disclosed and reported.
2. All contributions directly to Candidtes should be fully disclosed regrdless of the amount or source.
3. North Carolina has limits on wht political parties can do and how they spend funds for candidates. Ful disclosure is mandatory.
4. Legislators and COuncil of state memebrs should not be allowed to head or be directly affilaites with Non-Profits or Charities.
5. Full disclosure is the important factor. All groups giving money through PACs should disclose who is on their committees and to whom they contributed.
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.
Senate 49
RL Clark
1. Article I the Bill of Rights must be preserved. In my opinion your proposal is unconstitutional. Honesty and Morality cannot be legislated.
Again this is a free speech issue
2. Free speech
3. Again free speech
4. Free speech
5. Free speech
To provide some clarity I don’t accept campaign contributions from lobbyists or PAC’s. I am not for sale.
Senate 50
John Snow
1. I would support prohibiting lobbyists from raising money for legislator and statewide candidates and their committees for public office. Lobbyists should also be restricted from being involved and contributing to independent 527 groups; because these groups are or could be very influential in a political campaign.
2. I would support this type of “sunshine ” legislation.
3.I think it is important tht not just retired, or rich people be the legislators in our state. A school teacher would have a hard time financially winning a Senate seat in North Carolina without having party support. It is doubtful, that without that support, a teacher could be elected. SOmething needs to be done to make a more level playing field. Until all elections are publically financed, I believe the political parties should not be restricted on donations.
4. No
5.Lobbyists should not be allowed to serve on PAC committees or be part of deciding which candidates receive money and how much money they receive.