Voting & Democracy In the News

From Rob Thompson of the N.C. Public Interest Research Group:

Speaker Jim Black recently sent a letter to the House Committee on Ethics and Government Reform outlining his suggestions for ethics and lobbying reforms for the 2006 legislative session.

Black's proposed solutions are a step in the right direction but, like the other reforms on the table, only address the symptoms of a broken system. The disease that persistently undermines our democracy -- powerful interests using their deep pockets to win elections and buy influence -- must also be cured.

Still, it is important in the short-term to address the symptoms. Speaker Black's proposals are a decent start. Among his proposed reforms is to "strengthen the State Ethics Board by codifying the board and giving it greater enforcement powers such as the power to remove a political appointee from a board or commission." The board must have the authority not only to remove appointees from office, but also to levy fines on former appointees. Kevin Geddings, who lied about his income from Scientific Games following his appointment to the lottery commission, should have been punished.

An independent ethics commission with jurisdiction over all branches of government and strong enforcement powers also is critical because it ensures that state officials comply with existing regulations and provides a mechanism to hold the bad apples accountable. It is a key component that any ethics reform.

Black is silent, however, on the second key component of ethics reform -- a blanket ban on gifts to legislators. A gift ban will help to ensure that legislators vote and use their influence not to reward monetary favors, but to promote good public policy.

Finally, Speaker Black proposes to "ban all personal contributions from lobbyists and prohibit lobbyists from organizing or hosting political fundraisers." This reform is well intended, but slightly misses the mark. The main problem with lobbyists' campaign contributions and involvement in political fundraisers is that lobbyists often represent powerful interests from outside a lawmakers' district, not the average voter. That's why limiting contributions from lobbyists and all other out-of-district interests should be the third piece of any real reform.

While these solutions will make an immediate difference, we still must cure the disease. The fundamental problem persists: powerful interests use their deep pockets to win elections and buy influence. Democracy North Carolina reports that the top-spending candidate for each seat in the legislature won 84 percent of the time during the three election cycles leading up to 2000. Less than 1 percent of citizens typically contribute most of the money. These donors are unrepresentative of the public at large, and often have agendas that are contrary to the public interest.

Right now, we're treating the symptoms of a disease that has infected our entire democratic process. That's an important first step. However, to ensure the long-term health of our democracy, we must address the fundamental problem of big money in politics. It's time to find a cure.

Public financing of elections and tighter limits on campaign contributions are two of many ways to achieve systemic change and a more responsive democracy. These reforms would limit the deluge of money that too often results in the unethical behavior that's come to light in recent months.

For The Record offers commentaries from various sources. The views are the writer's, and not necessarily those of the Observer editorial board. Contact Rob Thompson at 112 S. Blount St., Suite 102, Raleigh, NC 27601 or www.ncpirg.org.