news-record.com

The state can't force lawyers to pay for judicial campaigns, a Wake County judge ruled last week.

That should get other professions off the hook if the state tries to expand public campaign funding.

In a decision worthy of Solomon, Superior Court Judge Howard Manning found a way to protect attorneys' constitutional rights without overturning the state's Public Campaign Fund. Nevertheless, if his ruling stands, the state may be hard-pressed to keep enough money in those coffers.

The judge was sorting out a complaint filed by a group of public defenders in Mecklenburg County. They protested a law that requires the State Bar to collect a $50 annual surcharge to their licensing fees, with the money going to the Public Campaign Fund. That fund pays for publicly financed campaigns for statewide judicial candidates and for a voters' guide published by the State Board of Elections and mailed to all registered voters.

The plaintiffs argued it violates their First Amendment rights to compel them to provide financial support to candidates without their consent. Manning agreed. Rather than overturn the law, however, he offered this remedy:

"The plaintiffs, and those other lawyers who are chafing under the collar because some of their $50 may go to an appellate judicial candidate they despise or disagree with, should simply be permitted to designate that their $50 go into the pot for the very constitutional and very legitimate Voters Guide ... ." He ordered the State Bar to implement his solution.

That's fair for the lawyers, but it potentially bleeds the fund of money to pay for an expanding program of public campaign financing. It barely pays enough now for participating Supreme Court and Court of Appeals candidates to run an effective statewide campaign. Last year, the state added public funding for candidates for state superintendent, auditor and insurance commissioner.

If lawyers could be taxed to pay for judicial campaigns, it was probably a matter of time before teachers would be assessed a fee to pay for superintendent campaigns, accountants for auditor races and insurance agents for insurance commissioner contests. When the agriculture commissioner is added, farmers might be taxed. And so on.

But Manning's ruling, unless reversed on appeal, knocks those options off the table. And it should. No one should be required to contribute to a political campaign that may represent values and beliefs he abhors or simply has no interest in supporting.

The public campaign finance debate has moved down to the local level, with some in Greensboro pushing for a similar system to fund municipal campaigns.

Manning's decision should encourage them to couple their proposals with plans to obtain voluntary funding rather than rely on fees or taxes.

Not only lawyers will chafe under the collar if they're forced to pay for campaigns they don't like. Local taxpayers might, too.