| mySPIN |
 Outsides may Determine Election Outcomes
by Tom Campbell
August 21, 2008
North Carolina’s elections may be determined by people who live outside our state. Estimates indicate that more than 10 million dollars will be spent by 527 groups trying to influence North Carolina voters.
We’ve had non-candidate groups spend money in the past but there are two significant differences this year. The most obvious is the amount being spent; at least three million more than in the 2000 election. This clearly signifies the degree of importance of the election outcome. More worrisome is that these “soft money” expenditures are coming from different sources. In the past most of these contributors gave to the national political parties, which in turn funneled contributions to the state Democrat and Republican parties. State parties expended the funds on behalf of candidates.
Last year the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin, ruled that these 527 groups, named after the section governing them in the IRS tax code, are entitled to purchase “issue advocacy advertising” under the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech. These groups can name candidates they favor, those they oppose, and have a wide leeway in what they can say. Normal campaign contribution limits don’t apply. A person, corporation, union or special interest group can spend as much as they wish in support of a candidate or issue. The Republican Governors Association, the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, the Alliance for North Carolina and Americans for Prosperity are but a few of the groups sponsoring ads in this current campaign. Some are North Carolina based, many are not.
Why worry about this new wrinkle in North Carolina elections? These groups completely negate the generally agreed notion that there ought to be some limits to campaign contributions; individuals and organizations can contribute as much as they want to 527 groups. Many of these groups are located outside the state, raising the question why they have such a strong interest in our state elections? Candidates could lose control over their campaigns as outside groups determine the issues, the tone, and the amount to be spent. By law the candidate is not supposed to have any contact with or knowledge of what the 527 group may be doing. A candidate desiring to run a positive, issue oriented campaign might encounter support groups running negative attack ads on opponents. Accountability becomes a major issue as a candidate disclaims any knowledge or responsibility for what is done by the group.
This speech is anything but free. The candidate raising and spending the most money often wins most elections but this raises the bar. Now the candidate with the most outside support money can buy the election. What might that candidate owe to the group that helped win the election? We’ve heard politicians say they never pay attention to who contributes and don’t show favor to big contributors, but their actions often indicate otherwise. There is no free lunch. Today’s support group assistance becomes next tomorrow’s pressure to support a position. Candidates can easily become conflicted and compromised.
Maybe The McCain-Feingold Act regarding campaign finance and support wasn’t the correct solution but neither is unlimited contributions and spending. There is a difference between guaranteeing someone has a right to be heard versus allowing elections to essentially be purchased. Much as we want participation in the political process there must be some restraints. After this election we predict many more will agree.
|
|
