Supporters of publicly financed elections are using revelations from the State Board of Elections hearings into former Gov. Mike Easley to push their cause.

In publicly financed elections, taxpayer dollars provide candidates with money for advertising and campaigning. To qualify, candidates must demonstrate they have a minimum base of support and must agree to spending limits and restrictions on fundraising.

Municipal elections in Chapel Hill, appellate judge races and some Council of State races use the system. 

That's exactly the type of election the state needs in the wake of revelations that Easley's gubernatorial campaign planned to funnel money through the N.C. Democratic Party to circumvent the state's campaign finance limits, said Chase Foster, director of N.C. Voters for Clean Elections.

"More and more, North Carolina leaders see Voter-Owned Elections as the obvious answer to the rising cost of elections,” Foster said in a news release.

Foster released a scorecard tracking votes on publicly financed elections bills. Foster said the scorecard shows that lawmakers are increasingly supportive of the election changes.

A bill that would create a pilot program for more publicly financed municipal elections cleared the House this year. The Senate approved a bill that would expand the program to more Council of State races.

Opponents to such elections say taxpayers would be forced to fund political speech, and that political contributions would instead be given to special interest groups to spend.

Senate Democrats shuffled away a bill this week that would allow cities and towns to use taxpayer money to fund campaigns.

Sen. Don Davis, a Snow Hill Democrat who was shepherding the bill in the Senate, diverted it to the state and local government committee Thursday after a floor vote was postponed three times since May 20.

"It's not the time to explore the option for municipalities to authorize public financing," Davis said.

The campaigns would be set up similar to statewide judicial races and several other statewide offices. Candidates who voluntarily participate must abide by limits on contributions to their campaign, but they receive public funds. No city or town is required to adopt the program. City or town council members must vote to participate in it.

Advocates portrayed the legislation as a way to remove the influence of big money from local campaigns, while critics portrayed it as welfare for politicians.

UPDATE: The North Carolina chapter of Americans for Prosperity lobbied heavily against the bill, and state director Dallas Woodhouse on Friday said lawmakers came "to the common sense conclusion that the public cannot stomach being forced to pay for campaigns for city politicians."

A bill that would allow cities and towns to use taxpayer money to pay for campaigns cleared the House Tuesday.

The bill, which was approved 60 to 56, now moves to the Senate. The bill's supporters have repeatedly delayed the bill to avoid adding long debate to already long sessions and because supporters have been absent.

"It's been pulled so many times I've about forgoten why I'm opposed to it," said Rep. William Current, a Gastonia Republican.  

The bill allows cities and towns to create programs to give realistic candidates taxpayer money to campaign. The bill was amended Tuesday to apply only to municipalities with populations greater than 50,000.

Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat and co-sponsor, said the bill is voluntary and that cities and towns will decide whether they beleive publicly financed campaigns are a good idea. 

Rep. Paul Stam, an Apex Republican and House minority leader, again quoted Thomas Jefferson in opposing the bill. Stam said the bill would force a person to pay for a political ad they disagree with. 

Nearly half of North Carolinians oppose publicly financed campaigns.

In a survey by the Elon University Poll, 47 percent of respondents said they oppose the public financing of political campaigns, while 41 percent supported it. Nearly 11 percent did not know.

That is a much lower percentage of opposition than another recent poll by the conservative Civitas Institute which found that 73 percent opposed public campaigns.

Question wording is likely a major factor in the difference:

Civitas: The state of North Carolina currently gives millions of taxpayer dollars to candidates for some public offices to fund their campaigns. Do you think they should expand the program to more offices and give more dollars, leave it as it is or stop giving the money and let all candidates fund their own campaigns?

Elon: In general, do you [support or oppose] public financing to pay for political campaigns? (The words in brackets were rotated to minimize bias.)

A bill in the state legislature would allow cities to publicly finance campaigns. Another bill would expand a pilot program for statewide candidates.

The live poll of 620 North Carolina residents was conducted March 15-19 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Cities who want public financing of election campaigns would have to pay for it, under a bill moving through the House.

The bill would allow cities and towns to create public finance programs in which qualified candidates would use taxpayer money to run for office. The programs would be similar to those used in judicial and council of state elections. It is up to the city or town's elected leaders to decide whether to set up a program.

The State Board of Elections would monitor and administer the elections and the number of municipalities participating would be limited by the funds the board has to administer the elections.

The idea behind public financing is to make running for municipal office easier, proponents say.

"It is in essence about good government," said Rep. Rick Glazier, a Fayetteville Democrat and co-sponsor of the bill.

Rep. Paul Stam, an Apex Republican, said he opposes the bill because it would force taxpayers to pick up the tab for political advertising that could be false, offensive or even racist.

"This is a solution in search of a problem," Stam said.

Dallas Woodhouse, state director of Americans for Prosperity, a libertarian group, said that the bill won't take the money out of campaigns. It will steer it to groups such as his, which will still be involved in elections.

Russ Stephenson, a Raleigh City Councilman said he had to raise $60,000 to win his at-large council seat. He said he would like to have the option for publicly financed elections. Running for council, a part-time job that pays $11,000, has become more difficult.

"It is increasingly a high-stakes endeavor, a high-cost endeavor," he said.

What state bills have the most opposition?

Recent surveys by the Elon University Poll, the conservative Civitas Institute and the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling have shown broad agreement on a number of issues.

Below, the percentage in opposition and the corresponding bill:

H.B. 362: Access to Higher Education (75 percent, 74 percent, PPP)

H.B. 120: Public Municipal Campaigns (73 percent, Civitas)

S.B. 20: Voter-Owned Election for Treasurer (73 percent, Civitas)

H.B. 71: Four-Year Terms (59 percent, Civitas)

S.B. 7: Allow Hunting on Sunday (58 percent, Civitas)

H.B. 154/H.B. 155: Appoint State Superintendent (51 percent, Civitas; 65 percent PPP)

Update: A poll by the N.C. Center for Voter Education found support for publicly financed municipal campaigns. 

A poll shows support for public campaigns for local office.

The survey by the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a nonprofit lobbying for the public campaign financing, showed 56 percent of voters supported allowing cities and towns to set up their own programs.

Under current law, municipalities must get state permission to run publicly financed campaign. Only the town of Chapel Hill has been given permission, starting with this year's elections.

A bill in the House would allow more cities and towns to set up programs.

"This bill would give municipalities the freedom to create public financing for their local elections, if they so choose," said Damon Circosta, the group's executive director.

The automated poll of 818 North Carolina voters was conducted March 2-3 by Democratic firm Public Policy Polling. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.4 percentage points.

After the jump, the wording and results.

   Comments (4)

Some interesting bills filed in the House recently:

H.B. 120: Public Municipal Campaigns, Reps. Rick Glazier, Melanie Wade Goodwin, Pricey Harrison and Winkie Wilkins

H.B. 123: Death Penalty / Proportionality Review, Reps. Glazier, Dan Blue, Deborah Ross and Earline Parmon

H.B. 125: Raise the Cap on Charter Schools, Reps. Jim Gulley, Marilyn Avila and Ric Killian

H.B. 126: Eliminate the Cap on Charter Schools, Reps. Gulley, Avila, Killian and Nelson Dollar

H.B. 128: Authorize Grandfather Mountain as State Park, Reps. Phil Frye, Edgar Starnes and Cullie Tarleton