Sen. Fred Smith missed more than 300 votes this session.

The Clayton Republican, who is running for the Republican nomination for governor, was listed in a survey by the Greensboro News & Record as having missed about a quarter of the votes, or 318 out of 1,238.

Some were minor, such this bill to honor Independence High's football team, or this one to honor the founder of Peace College. Others were procedural moves on bills that he eventually voted on.

A few were high profile decisions, however. Smith missed votes to change billboard setbacks, divest state money from Sudan, allow judges to carry handguns and create a pilot program for publicly financed campaigns.

Two bills tie into his gubernatorial campaign theme of stopping illegal immigration. Smith missed votes on a bill that would help jailers determine the legal status of prisoners, and another that would require fingerprinting of drunk drivers who don't have valid ID.

He also missed a vote that ties to his theme of Democratic corruption. That bill will limit legal defense funds like the one created for disgraced former House Speaker Jim Black.

A complete list of his votes is online here. Missed votes are listed as "excused absence." The News & Record's spreadsheets: Senate and House.

Legislation that would monitor legal expense funds set up by elected officials may get tied up over whether there should be limits over who can contribute and how much.

The House unanimously voted today to not concur with the Senate-amended version of the bill. The next step is a conference committee of House and Senate members to work out their differences, Dan Kane reports.

The legislation surfaced after former House Speaker Jim Black, a Mecklenburg Democrat, had set up a legal expense fund to help pay his bills from a long-standing investigation that eventually led to his guilty pleas on state and federal public corruption charges.

There is no current requirement that those who contribute be identified, causing some to fear that the funds could be used by special interests to curry favor with elected officials.

Both the House and Senate agree that those who contribute should be identified, as well as how the funds are spent. But a Senate committee stripped out House language that said contributions should be limited to no more than $4,000, and businesses and unions should not be allowed to contribute.

Senators argued that placing such limits on funds that are intended to help someone defend themselves in a criminal case, or against a civil action, was unduly harsh.

Contributions to legal expense funds will soon be more open.

A Senate committee approved a bill today that would require elected officials and candidates to disclose contributions and spending in legal expense funds, but not before stripping out language that limited contributions to no more than $4,000 and barred businesses and unions from giving, Dan Kane reports.

The legislation has already passed the House. A floor amendment there added the contribution limits, so that the funds would be similar to campaign finance accounts. The State Board of Elections would regulate the funds.

But Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Select Committee on Government and Election Reform said the contribution limits did not make sense when the purpose of the fund was to help someone pay for the best defense possible.

The bill now moves to the Senate for a vote. If it passes, it will need to go back to the House for concurrence.

More after the jump.

   Comments (0)

The state House unanimously passed a bill Thursday requiring that elected officials and candidates who have legal expense funds disclose who contributes as well as how the money is spent.

House members also decided to apply the same limits to the legal funds that exist for campaign contributions: no more than $4,000 in an election cycle, and no contributions from corporations, unions or other entities. Rep. John Blust, a Greensboro Republican, proposed the additional requirement.

The bill was filed after then House Speaker Jim Black, a Mecklenburg Democrat, created a legal defense fund to pay his bills during the long running public corruption investigation into his campaign and legislative activities.

Black did not have to disclose who was contributing to the fund, causing some public interest groups to worry that the fund represented an opportunity for special interests to quietly buy influence with the speaker.

Black is to be sentenced in federal court on a charge of corruptly accepting things of value and in state court on bribery and obstruction of justice charges.

The bill now heads to the Senate.

Before we get to the roundup of Day 3 of Speed Week, here's what we've already covered on Wednesday:

Approved: A House bill would require equal insurance coverage for mental illnesses, a House bill would allow death row defendants to appeal on the basis of racial discrimination, a House bill would study the future of Dix Hill, a House bill would require politicians reveal donors to legal defense funds, a House bill would teach high schoolers about the state's safe surrender law and a House bill would allow Chapel Hill to experiment with publicly funded campaign.

Tentatively Approved: A House bill that would make schools write anti-bullying policies.

Rejected: A House bill that would have banned corporal punishment in schools and a House bill that would have raised the limit of undisclosed campaign contributions back to $100.

All elected officials and candidates for elected office would have to disclose contributors to legal defense funds if legislation that tentatively passed the state House today becomes law.

The legislation comes after former House Speaker Jim Black, a Mecklenburg County Democrat, created a legal expense fund while he was still in office and under investigation for public corruption. Public interest groups said that the lack of disclosure allowed special interests another avenue to try to influence one of the state's most powerful officials.

The legislation by Rep. Melanie Goodwin, a Rockingham Democrat, is patterned after state election law.

Reporting would be quarterly to the State Board of Elections, and expenditures would be disclosed. Those who contribute $50 or less would not be identified. There is no limit on how much a person or business could give.

Those who violate the proposed law could face a misdemeanor charge.

The bill passed a first vote unanimously, but Rep. John Blust, a Greensboro Republican, objected to a second vote, That means it will need another vote before it can move to the Senate.

Update: Blust said he objected to the second vote so that he can prepare an amendment that would require the same kinds of limits on giving as under state election law.

He said the legal expense funds should not be open to contributions greater than $4,000, nor should they take money from corporations or unions.