news-record.com

The Senate took up its omnibus ethics bill, H 961, this morning.As expected (link) the honorables stripped out the provision that would have added several council of state offices to the state’s public financing law (link).

It’s worth noting this is a reversal from earlier in the week, when Senate Democrats popped the bill into committee complete with the public financing provision.

In essence, Senate Democrats blinked after Americans for Prosperity put out what AFP President Dallas Woodhouse said were approximately 100,000 robocalls, which in turn sparked voter phone calls to lawmakers.

“A lot of members – I would not say a majority – were uncomfortable with the public financing,” said Sen. Martin Nesbitt, the Democratic majority leader and Judiciary I chairman. “I was not one of them. I voted no on the amendment.”

Nesbit was asked if this was a defeat or could be interpreted as the Democratic caucus blinking.

“No – no, no. It’s the process,” he said. “The members were searching for an answer.”

Others might see it slightly differently. The Senate Demcoratic caucus had thrown its weight behind the measure and forced to back off less than 48 hours later.

The fuss about public financing boils down to this: its advocates say it’s a way to get dirty money – or the perception of dirty money – out of the political system. Under public financing, candidates can volunteer to raise a number of small-dollar donations and then tap public campaign funds.

The idea is that folks like the Agriculture Commissioner and Treasurer shouldn’t have to try to get money from those whom they regulate (pesticide users, say) or do business with (fund managers, for example.)

Damon Circosta, director of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, likened other provisions like ethics rules and regulations to cholesterol medicine.

“Public financing is a healthy diet,” Circosta said. “We need to get off the junk food of special interest cash.”

Opponents like Woodhouse say that taxpayers – or in the case of the current bill, users of government services – should not be forced to pay for the campaigns of politicians with whom they disagree.

And Woodhouse said that advocates don’t really want to stop with the council of state.

“Were they going to quit and leave it alone once they got this,” Woodhouse said. “They weren’t going to stop until every office from dog-catcher to president was paid for by taxpayers.”

Worth noting: participating in public financing is voluntary. It is also under fire from a Supreme Court decision focused on an Arizona case (link).

Republicans also saw the matter as a partisan issue. Democrats have generally favored public financing and Republicans have generally opposed it. When the bill was rolled out earlier in the week, they saw the measure as a partisan maneuver and objected loudly.

“I’m encouraged,” said Sen. Phil Berger, the Republican minority leader. “We felt … something had been written into the bill without appropriate public debate.”

WHAT’S NEXT: Senate Judiciary I will meet again Tuesday to work on the bill. At the end of today’s meeting, Nesbitt passed out two other ethics related bills that had come over from the House to spark some discussion. And Berger ticked off a list of amendments that Republicans may have for the ethics bill.

The big question is whether the Senate’s final version will be something that the House will find acceptable.