Taxpayers foot bill for campaign 'reform'

In more than three decades in the newspaper business, I made it a point to keep out of politics — no yard signs, no bumper stickers, no precinct offices. And I expected those who worked for me to follow the same rules. Because politics is such an important part of news coverage and carries such volatility, I knew that any degree of partisanship could jeopardize our position as a neutral observer of the political scene.

One advantage of this policy was that I had a perfect excuse when I was approached for a campaign donation. Those donations are a public record, which could be used to question the fairness of an editorial endorsement or news coverage.

Now I'm out of that business and have been approached by an old friend who is running for N.C. Court of Appeals, I'm out of excuses. I met Harry Payne 40 years ago when his twin brother lived on my hall in college, and I had followed his political career with some interest — state legislator, commissioner of labor, and Employment Security Commission director. He emailed earlier this month to say he's running for Court of Appeals.

With taxpayer financing of judicial races, that should be an easy race for someone with Harry's credentials. After all, he has won statewide races before, when he had to raise all the campaign money himself. In this year's race, if he raises $26,000 from 225 or more voters contributing $10 to $500, the state will match his campaign fund on a two-to-one basis. Raising that much money in such small amounts is not easy, he says.

I'm willing to help Harry with a small donation, but the concept of taxpayer-financed elections has always bothered me. Although proponents like to call this system "voter-owned elections," the fact is that government will be collecting and disbursing money for the benefit of politicians. Your tax money will go to support candidates you might like, or you might abhor. Forcing someone to support, through taxation, the political career of someone with whom you disagree seems contrary to American values.

There's no doubt that the present system of endless fund-raising by politicians and the appearance that a wealthy few "own" politicians and call the shots in Raleigh and Washington is disgusting. But there must be a better way to reform the system than by forcing taxpayers to foot the bill for political ads that turn their stomachs. The McCain-Feingold campaign reform law chips away at the First Amendment by limiting political speech. A reform should reduce the influence of the wealthy few, including corporations and labor unions, without prohibiting vigorous political debate.

The low response rate for state and national campaign fund checkoffs on tax forms show how unpopular taxpayer financing of campaigns is. American taxpayers don't want to see their taxes go into political advertising. N.C. politicians have inserted this experiment into low-profile races for judgeships and Council of State races, but widening this plan will only be popular with the politicians who benefit from it.