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.

The percentage of money in the campaign for N.C. Commissioner of Insurance that came from industries regulated by that office plummeted from 66 percent in 2004 to 5 percent this year, according to N.C. Voters for Clean Elections.

The figure dropped because both candidates in the commissioner's race chose to accept public financing, a pilot program in North Carolina in which the candidates receive public funding but must agree to fundraising limits. Commissioner-elect Wayne Goodwin, a Democrat, received $22,000 from members of industries regulated by the office, such as insurance, bail bondsmen and manufactured housing companies. Republican John Odom collected $9,600 from contributors in that category, according to the clean elections group's report.

Goodwin raised a total of $492,000, while Odom raised $433,000. 

The industry money for both candidates accounts for 5 percent of what they both raised, wrote Chase Foster, of the clean elections group.

By comparison, outgoing Commissioner Jim Long had no opponent in 2004 but still raised $354,000, two-thirds of which came from regulated industries. Candidates in lower tier races have long complained that businesses and groups regulated by their prospective offices are among the few who show interest in their campaigns, so they have no option but to raise money from them.

This year most of the candidates' money, $380,000 each, came from a public grant. In exchange they could only raise money for a limited time period early in the year and could not accept contributions greater than $200.

Nine statewide candidates will accept public financing in their campaigns.

At a press conference held by N.C. Voters for Clean Elections outside the state Capitol today, nearly all of the three Republicans and six Democrats said that the financing program will make them less reliant on special interests.

The group includes two incumbents, Democratic Superintendent of Public Instruction June Atkinson and Republican state Auditor Les Merritt. It also includes insurance commissioner candidate Wayne Goodwin, who said his 2004 campaign for labor commissioner was eye-opening.

"While candidates used to visit all the county seats across this great state and visit every courthouse sheriff and stop in to enjoy an RC Cola at a country store or go to umpteen barbecue rallies around the state, in 2004 I learned how campaigning had succumbed to the money chase," he said.

He said he spent up to eight hours a day, six days a week, calling donors.

The other participants include superintendent candidates Eddie Davis and Eric H. Smith, auditor candidates Beth Wood and Fred Aikens and insurance commissioner candidates John Odom and David Smith.

David Smith did not attend the rally due to a family emergency.

The folks at N.C. Voters for Clean Elections say that public financing of campaigns is catching on with several candidates for Council of State offices.

The group says that nine of the 11 candidates for state insurance commissioner, state auditor and superintendent of public instruction - the only offices eligible for the new state program - have said they intend to participate in the program. They will take part in a press conference Wednesday to discuss the program.

Under the program, candidates for those three offices can receive a grant to pay for their campaigns if they collect at least $29,000 in small donations from at least 750 registered voters, according to a release by NCVCE. They must also agree to spending and fundraising limits.

Beverly Perdue's campaign reform plan drew praise — and attacks — in broad strokes.

N.C. Voters for Clean Elections, a coalition of about 30 campaign reform groups and nonprofits, released a statement today applauding the Democratic gubernatorial candidates plan to provide public funding to gubernatorial candidates who pledge to run positive campaigns.

Chase Foster, coordinator of the coalition, said Perdue is showing "important leadership," but he would not discuss the feasability or details of the plan.

"I'm not commenting on the details of the proposal," Foster replied when asked about the feasibility of the plan. "What's important here is that the proposal raises the problem of current privately financed campaigns."

Bob Hall, executive director of coalition member Democracy North Carolina, said also he would not "quibble with the details," as did field organizer Jonathan Peterson.

"There may be more intricacies that need to be worked out but we recognize that this is a positive step of  gubernatorial candidate supporting public financing of elections," he said.

Meantime, John Hood of the conservative John Locke Foundation also described the proposal in broad strokes.

"It makes no sense, it solves no problem and it'll never happen anyway," he said.