A blog commenter asks (link) about a flier Guilford County voters received touting Rep. Pricey Harrison this summer:

"(P)lease tell us about the H.E.L.P. act that Pricey was working hard to pass. I'll bet that it never existed, in fact, I'll bet it was a Federal issue. In fact, I'll bet that you will agree that this mailer was more untruth than truth. If you can find a bill that Pricey co-sponsored called the H.E.L.P. act, I will buy you a houndstooth cap and a pipe.”

Here’s a link to the flier.

After giving it the once over, I will say that my correspondent won’t have to cough up a cap and pipe, but that’s due to a drafting error on the North Carolina Democratic Party’s part. (The party, not Harrison, sent the mailing in question.)

Was there a bill in the N.C. General Assembly called the H.E.L.P. Act? No, but close.

The bill in question was H 1721 (link) and was called the H.E.L.P. Small Business Act.  It is clear the description in the flier that it was referring to H 1721.

The ad claims:

“The North Carolina legislature is working hard to pass the H.E.L.P. Act, of which I am a co-sponsor, a bill that will support our small business with a series of incentives and over $32 million in investments.”

Was she a cosponsor: Yes. However, we should be clear on what it means for a lawmaker to “co-sponsor” a bill. In the legislature, the first four members to sign a piece of legislation are typically seen as the lead authors, who are primarily responsible for crafting the bill and shepherding it through the process. Signing on as a co-sponsor after that is a sign a lawmakers supports the measure in question, at least as originally drafted, but doesn’t imply authorship or “lead” status.

Would the bill in question have given small businesses “a series of incentives and over $32 million in investments?” Yes. The bill actually parceled out about $80 million in tax breaks over three years with some additional spending to support small businesses. Background.

The measure incorporated many of the business stimulation ideas Gov. Bev Perdue pitched (link) before the legislative session began.

So what happened to it the bill? It was incorporated into the House budget (link) that was sent forward to House-Senate budget negotiations. There were different but related measures that came over from the Senate. In the end, both chambers abandoned their plan in favor a different approach (link) that gives small businesses a break to offset the annual unemployment taxes they pay.

Date question: My correspondent said the flier hit mailboxes in "early July" or "late June." There is no post-mark with the date on the copy of the flier my correspondent sent me. If it did arrive in July it was already out of date by the time it landed. The budget passed before July 1 and marked the end of any thought of the H.E.L.P.-related measures going forward. However, with no postmark and memories running thing after few months, there's nothing much to say about this. 

Bottom line: The flier is basically truthful, although gets the exact name of the legislation wrong.

Bonus: There were no fewer than two Congressional bills that might also be called the HELP Act, one dealing with aiding Haiti after the massive earthquake there and the other dealing with reigning in federal spending.

Labor Day marks the traditional start of the Fall campaign season in North Carolina, which means you’ll be seeing a lot more political advertisements hitting the mailbox and television set, particularly in state legislative races and Congressional campaigns.

A few questions come up again and again watching looking at these campaign ads: Are the claims true? Can anyone be as truly objectionable (or desirable) as they’re made out to be in an ad? Do those footnotes really support the claims?

Well, that’s what your friendly neighborhood News & Record political reporters are here for. If you send us the ad in electronic form or can mail it to us, we’ll try to do fact checks on as many as we can. We’re most interested in fliers regarding races in Guilford, Rockingham and Davidson counties and will look at everything from the U.S. Senate race on down to county commissioner and city council campaigns. If you see an ad but aren't able to get a copy or recording, send an e-mail describing it and who aired it and we'll go looking.

E-mail: mbinker@news-record.com

U.S. Mail: Political Ads c/o Margaret Banks, News & Record, 200 East Market Street, Greensboro, NC 27420.

It’s a truism in politics that one man’s pork is another man’s vital economic development project. For example, take this Wilmington Star News (link) report on the film industry’s reaction to being named in political fliers by Real Jobs NC (link). The Republican 527 group criticized Rep. Hugh Holliman and others for giving the industry a particular tax credit.

“It's a total negative smear against the film industry,” Kelly Tenney, a television producer, told the Wilmington paper.

Well, some items important to Guilford County are also getting hit by the group. In a flier targeting a Raleigh-area legislator, the group criticizes spending on the High Point Furniture Market, a multi-million cash-cow that drives the economy in High Point and the surrounding area.

And today, a scan of a flier was posted on Twitter (link) that criticized Sen. John Snow in the western part of the state for voting to spend money on polar bears.

The 2008 budget (link) authorized borrowing $2.5 million to pay to expand and renovate the polar bear exhibit at the North Carolina Zoo, which is owned by the state. It was an item that then-Gov. Mike Easley included in his budget. At the time, I asked Easley budget advisor Dan Gerlach how he justified putting money into the zoo when the economy was struggling.

"What we're getting at is the fact the zoo...our capitol people, our hard core number crunchers...I think it's safe to say they're mortified by what they saw at the zoo in terms of the amount of capitol construction and rebuilding that needs to happen," Gerlach said. "The place is, I'm not going to say falling apart, but it needs some help."

Background on the polar bear spending and what it bought can be found here, here and here.

Over the last decade, the Greensboro-area has seen its fair share of funding from the state budget for the special projects and I would bet we’ll see more of them raised in the campaign before too long.
 

I’m writing a story for this coming weekend setting the scene for North Carolina legislative races this fall. While the paper will do district-specific profiles for individual contests later on, this story is more interest in the milieu in which candidates find themselves.

Part of that milieu will be independent expenditures either by groups organized as federal 527s (named for the chapter of the tax code that allows for them) or businesses of one sort of another.

Already, a group called Real Jobs NC (link), which describes itself as non-partisan, has gotten into the campaign, targeting a variety of Democratic incumbents. The individuals who have bank-rolled the group have deep ties to Republican politics. And the candidates the group is running ads or fliers against match-up pretty well with the Republican Party’s list of high priority races where they think they have a chance of unseating Democratic incumbents.

The AP’s Gary Robertson wrote about the group itself when they first started up. Click here to read that report, which details the involvement of former state Rep. Art Pope and Fred Eshelmann of Wilmington.

“They’re just another arm of the Republicans,” said Rep. Hugh Holliman, one of the Democrats Real Jobs has targeted and the House Majority Leader. “I know they’re supposed to be separate, but they’re not.”

Roger Knight, a spokesman and lawyer for the group, said any overlap between the GOP and group’s objectives is coincidental.

“I think our focus has been more on the voting records of the individuals that we have identifies in the ads and no so much who their opponent is and what the race looks like,” Knight said.

Holliman’s 81st State House District is based in Lexington, which is near Greensboro and so of interest to me. In a flier the Real Jobs group sent to residents in the district, Real Jobs says, “State Representative Hugh Holliman is wasting our tax dollars on pork during a recession.” It goes on to cite four projects as pork.

In the spirit of Factcheck.org and Politifact.com, let’s take a look at the four projects in the Real Jobs flier.

“Voted to GIVE HOLLYWOOD FATCATS UP TO $20 MILLION OF OUR TAX DOLLARS for each movie they produce in NC”

For this claim, the flier points to H 1973 of the 2010 session. In fact, H 1973 did contain a passel of economic incentives, including one for film makers.

I wrote a fair bit about this during the legislative session. That background is here, here and here.

The credits in question are refundable tax credits for a quarter of qualifying costs of production up to $80 million. In order to claim a $20 million credit, a movie production  would have to spend $80 million on the production. There is a limit on how much any one individual salary can count toward the credit.

The bottom line: the claim that Hollywood producers can claim a credit of $20 million is essentially true. But because of Real Jobs’ claim to be non-partisan, it’s worth noting that 19 Republicans voted for the measure, including Rep. Harold Brubaker from a nearby Randolph County district and Rep. Thom Tillis, the deputy GOP leader in the House.

“Voted to BUILD A $25 MILLION LUXURY FISHING PIER in Nags Head”

For this bullet point, the flier points to H 628, which passed in 2009. Much of the controversy about the pier swirled around whether Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight's family stook to earn some of that money as contractors on the project.

In regards to Holliman, there are two notes of interest. First, the bill in question requires the $25 million come from “receipts or from other non-General Fund sources.” In other words, while this is still public money it is not tax dollars.

Also, the bill in question passed the Senate and House with no opposition: 111-0 in the House and 49-0 in the Senate.

The bottom line: while the claim is true, it would be fair to say that there was a fair amount of support from Republicans and Democrats alike at the time. Also, I'm not really sure what would make this a "luxury" fishing pier.

“Voted to SPEND $218,000 FOR A SHAKESPEARE FESTIVAL in High Point”

The reference for this one is S 897, the budget bill that passed this summer. That’s actually the wrong bill. The Shakespeare Festival is mentioned in S 202, the budget bill from the year before.

In that budget, the legislature actually cuts back on funding for the festival, trimming the grant to the program by $11,524. That left the actual operating support for the festival at $208,009 (link). It’s also worth noting that this annual grant started going to the festival in 1999. So it’s by no means an idea that just cropped up in recent years.

The bottom line: the dollar amount is off, but the North Carolina state budget does fund the Shakespeare Festival. Also, the actual vote Holliman took was to reduce funding to the festival, not originate new funding.

On a political note, the Shakespeare Festival in High Point is not too far from Lexington and one wonders about the wisdom of hitting a bit of pork kind of close to Holliman’s own district. After all, voters are less likely to view spending close to home as pork and more likely to think of it as “critical economic development spending.” For this item to work as a demerit so close to home, it might have to rely on a sort of classist assumption that the voters who are the target audience for this flier aren’t going to care much about high falutin’ Shakespeare productions.

“Voted to USE OVER $1 MILLION OF OUR TAX DOLLARS ON A BOTANICAL GARDEN in Chapel Hill.”

This bullet point references S 202 of 2009 and indeed, there is a line item that references the botanical garden. However, as with the Shakespeare Festival, this is a budget reduction. In this case, lawmakers trimmed $145,162.

There also may be a problem with the “over $1 million” figure. Knight with Real Jobs said they derive that figure from a notation in the budget that said the state was reducing “the state appropriation to the North Carolina Botanical Garden at UNC-CH by 12%.”

In fact, $145,162 is 12 percent of 1.2 million and would subtract out to leaving about $1.06 million in the pot. However, this notation may have been in error. Information from the legislature’s fiscal research staff says the FY08-09 budget going to the botanical garden was $971,017 and that the 09-10 and 10-11 budgets were $775,276 each year.

The bottom line: The numbers might be off here. However, if you’re inclined to think sending money to a botanical garden is a bad idea then it probably doesn’t make a difference if it’s $1 million or $775,000. Also, this is a line item that seems to have been around for some time, so it didn’t start with the 2009 budget, an inference you could take away from the direct mail piece.

OVERALL BOTTOM LINE: This is only one of several mailers or videos that Real Jobs has put out. The claims in the Holliman flier are based in fact, although lack some context and some of the figures may be off. Claims in other district vary and I’ve not vetted them, although the group did have to retract one claim (link) made in a flier sent against a Raleigh-area candidate. Finally, their claim to be a nonpartisan group falls flat due to their funding and the fact they seem to be targeting exclusively Democrats. (One of the group's founders addresses that topic in this story by the Wilmington paper). Also, it's worth keeping in mind they are dinging Democrats for votes in which several or all legislative Republicans voted in the affirmative.

On Monday, Republican Richard Burr put out his first television commercial of the U.S. Senate general election campaign.

Democrat Elaine Marshall responded by calling it a “fairy tale” and issuing a rebuttal done up to look like was written on parchment.

Burr one-upped that today with a web video, riffing on the fairy tale theme complete with ye olde music and graphic involving Marshall perched in a castle-like ivory tower.

“In reality, it is Secretary Marshall who is living in a ‘fairy tale.’ Secretary Marshall has repeatedly endorsed the failed economic policies of this Administration and its allies,” the Burr campaign said in a news release.

Here’s the video.

Hey, I’m down with continuing the ye olde theme for a while. Maybe we can get the candidate’s to joust at their next debate?
 

Earlier this year, the AP reported (link) that the Office of Congressional Ethics was looking into U.S. Rep. Mel Watt’s fundraising along with seven other Congressmen, most of who worked on a financial services bill.

The Hill newspaper is reporting (link) that the office has dismissed its probe of Watt and several others while recommending the House Ethics Committee take up investigation of two members.

Gov. Bev Perdue's name pops up in an AP story (link) this afternoon in regards to oil drilling. Perdue is at the Souther Governor's Association conference in Alabama.

First some context. The remarks came up as governor's of gulf coast states were pressing for a greater share of oil revenue:

HOOVER, Ala. (AP) - Alabama's and Mississippi's governors got no commitment Monday from Obama administration officials as they pressed for Gulf coast states to get a larger share of money from Gulf oil wells to help cover the risk of spills.

But they were told that some drilling rigs might be allowed to return to work before a moratorium on deepwater drilling ends Nov. 30.

[snip]

Gulf coast states get a small share of the revenue from federal leases for Gulf oil wells and are scheduled to get more in 2017, but state officials are supporting bills in Congress that would accelerate that to 2010. That would mean millions for Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.

In that context, it's actually a little odd that Perdue shows up at all. North Carolina isn't on the Gulf of Mexico and isn't among the states where there is a great deal of drilling. The bulk of the story is focuses on Gulf states and the aftermath of this year's oil spill. But the writer quotes Perdue on the following:

North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue told the administration officials that her state would oppose drilling off its coast unless it gets a share of the revenue and is convinced the drilling is safe.

"We understand the risk-rewards system. And we would be willing to take the risk for the country if the supply is there, but only if there is some potential reward for the people of my state," she said.

That's pretty consistent with what she has been saying for a while, even before the spill. (link)

From the Republican Richard Burr’s U.S. Senate campaign this morning:

"Today, the Richard Burr Committee released their first television ad of the General Election, “Main Street.” The ad highlights Senator Burr’s dedication to his constituents throughout the state, as well as his commitment to fighting wasteful government spending. “Main Street” was exclusively previewed for thousands of Burr’s grassroots supporters on BurrHQ.com before the official release."

You can see the ad itself below.

I’m waiting on info from the campaign regarding the size of the buy and where the ad is running, but this is a pretty typical first ad out of the gate. It introduces a candidate, paints the incumbent as a regular fella whose doing good for the state and shows him doing folksy stuff. There’s no mention of his challengers – Democrat Elaine Marshall and Libertarian Mike Beitler. And shoot, looking at this commercial, who'd want to run against an ol’ boy who visits lunch counters and walks down Main Street like that?

Update: A National Journal blog post (link) says the following re: the buy:

"So far, Burr has purchased ad time for Aug. 30 through Sept. 12. He dished out $578K on the buy, according to a source that monitors ad buys. That breaks down to almost $213K in Charlotte, $66K in the Winston, $54K in New Bern, $70K in Asheville, $128K in Raleigh-Durham and $40K in Wilmington."

Update: From a Burr campaign spokeswoman:

"We purchased ad time for Aug. 30 through Sept. 12. for about $500,000. We will be up on the air for the duration of the election."

This is where Burr’s fundraising advantage officials kicks in, allowing him to control the paid media narrative until someone with enough money arrives on the scene to deliver some push-back. According to FEC reports (link), the Winston-Salem Republican had $6.2 million cash-on-hand at the beginning of July. Sec. of State Elaine Marshall had $163,195 after raising and spending over $1 million during the primary season, although presumably her status as party nominee has allowed for some decent fundraising since then.

Still, she’d have a long way to go to catch up to Burr and there’s not yet signs of the national Democratic organs being willing to come in and blitz television ads against Burr as they did in 2008 when Democrat Kay Hagan unseated Republican incumbent Elizabeth Dole.

Update: The Marshall campaigns responds with a spiffy PDF (link) dressed up to look like a ye olde document that calls Burr's ad a "fairy tale." It tries to knock down statements in the ad in compare and contrast style. A couple examples from the response:

• He said he was “down home North Carolina.” In reality, he was one of the largest recipients of special interest cash in Washington.
• He said he’s “listening, working for us.” But Richard Burr voted to bailout big Wall Street banks, while blocking tax credits and increased lending to small business.

It ends with the tagline: A 30-second TV ad can’t white wash 16 years in Washington.

Update: Burr's campaign spokeswoman fact-checks the fact-check, taking issue with a bullet point that reads, "He said said he’s 'tight with our tax dollars,' but pushed a deficit busting Social Security privatization plan..." She points to a FactCheck.org critique of the Social Secrutiy claim (link), which doesn't mention Burr specifically but says, "Few if any Republicans now in Congress have ever pushed for total 'privatization' of Social Security."

Wouldn’t it just figure that Greensboro would have a connection to one of the goofiest Senate races in the country?

The Rev. Mazie Ferguson, a onetime leader of the Pulpit Forum in Greensboro, has become a write-in candidate in South Carolina. Yes, write-in candidates have a hard time getting into office but a certain Strom Thurmond kicked off his U.S. Senate service to the Palmetto state in 1954 as a write-in.

For those who haven’t been paying attention to our friends south of the (state) border, Republican incumbent Jim DeMint faces Democrat Alvin Greene: a seemingly impoverished, unemployed military veteran whose stream of consciousness media interviews have raised eyebrows. Green has recently been indicted on two criminal obscenity counts (link), one of them a felony, in connection with an incident in which he allegedly showed pornography to a female freshman college student. His nomination is all the more curious as there was a better-known and funded Democrat running against him this spring.

A Green Party candidate, Tom Clements, will also appear on South Carolina’s November ballot.

According to a brief in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal, U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, an influential figure among the state’s Democrats, says he will vote for Ferguson rather than his party’s nominee.

A columnist for the paper wrote this recently:

“This is the second time it's going to be done,” Ferguson said. “My mantra is we want that seat back for the working people of South Carolina.”

Ferguson, who would not reveal her age — she would only say she is older than DeMint, who is 58 — is the niece of Mary McLeod Bethune, a civil rights leader and an adviser to President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Her long resume is full of civic and spiritual service. She has a law degree and has lived and worked across both Carolinas — including working on Spartanburg's Model Cities program in the early 1970s.

Ferguson considers herself a Democrat and says she decided to enter the race in June after seeing the choices South Carolina had for Senate. She believes DeMint is more interested in representing the Tea Party movement than the Palmetto State, and she doesn't believe Greene has the background or experience to shape public policy.

She believes both candidates are helping make South Carolina a national punch line.

The same column also notes that Ferguson aims to raise $200,000 in campaign contributions as part of her effort to make a dent in this year’s election. Click here for the whole thing.

By the way, the News & Record reported Ferguson as being 58-years-old in August of 2002, so she’s at least 66 by now. At the time, she was the pastor who listed her political experience as having been a South Carolina delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1984 and 1988 and running for South Carolina General Assembly in 1986. She holds a law degree from the University of South Carolina.

Ferguson, a South Carolina native, had a notable run in North Carolina. In 2002, she ran against Rep. Earl Jones for the state house seat he lost this year. Later, as head of the Pulpit Forum, she was one of the leading voices among Greensboro’s African American community calling for the release of more information in the case surround former police chief David Wray and allegations of unfair treatment of African American officers. A minister for several congregations over two decades, Ferguson was charged with trespassing in 1998 by a Siler City congregation that had fired her.

-=-=-=

Hat Tip: Lex Alexander, who once wrote a very nice profile of the Rev. Ferguson.

From an AP Story: 

RALEIGH (AP) — North Carolina inmates given life terms under a quirky law more than 30 years ago should continue serving their sentences, the state's Supreme Court ruled today.

The justices issued decisions in the cases of convicted killers Alford Jones and Faye Brown. Their "life" sentences were defined as only 80 years under a law that was in effect during the 1970s, and they had argued that credits earned behind bars meant their sentences were complete.

Click here for the whole thing.

Gov. Bev Perdue issued the following statement:

“We can all sleep a little sounder tonight knowing that violent prisoners will not be released into our communities without review or supervision.

“One hundred and thirty three violent criminals will remain behind bars because of today’s decision.

“I stood up for what I believed was right for North Carolina, and I thank the victims, their families, and law enforcement who stood up with me.”