Glazier: Expand public campaign financing

"these funds only elect Democrats"

You know, considering how poorly North Carolina Republicans did this last election cycle re campaign fundraising, not to mention all the whining we heard about "union money" helping Democrats, you'd think Republicans would jump at the chance to even the playing field some. Just one more example of a "knee jerk" reaction to an idea that would benefit everybody.

What is the world coming to? We don't spend enough tax money? Now this? We all know, like the other writers state, that these funds only elect Democrats. For them, they DO work well.

I think Glazier needs to be recalled from his office for such a crazy idea. But, then again, we all know how he got there...

John_Burns, you can pay my share.

I managed a campaign under the judicial program. It works (though that year they didn't budget enough for judicial candidates to compete for air time).

It's a good thing. These folks can run on the merits rather than on the sheer volume of ads they can buy.

I agree with scharrison. In this state big business actually supports Democrats more than Republicans. But either way they use the money to buy influence. I am against taxpayer funded elections. The only way to fix this is to limit pac contributions and eliminate a party giving $400,000 like the Democrats did for Senator Boseman.

"I do not want my money to be spent on someone running for office!"

Okay, where do you think corporations get the hundreds of millions they donate to political campaigns? It's really a one-two punch: they're using your money to make your voice less important.

"It really should be called "The Incumbent Reelection Fund"

Eric, I think I can understand your frustration, although I haven't (yet) run for public office. But you know what? To earn the percentage you did against someone with name recognition like Richard Morgan is pretty impressive. Have you done an analysis of what each of your votes cost vs Morgan's?

It really should be called "The Incumbent Reelection Fund"

There are a few former judges and a former state auditor that would disagree.

I do not want my money to be spent on someone running for office!

As a participant in the last election in this program it became real clear real early that if you are not an incumbent or a "seasoned" politician it is not a good program. It really should be called "The Incumbent Reelection Fund"

We tried using Optometrists and Chiropractors but it didn't work out.

Why does everything have to be paid for by the Taxpayers in the eyes of Democrats?