news-record.com

RALEIGH — The spectacle of a former governor being called before an elections tribunal to answer for transgressions committed by his campaign was historic in many ways.

If nothing else, Mike Easley was the first former chief executive subpoenaed in that way in this state.

True, a former agriculture commissioner and House speaker went to jail in the past decade for campaign-finance-related crimes. But the sight of a governor testifying about unpaid flights and peculiar car-lease arrangements is more symbolic, more traumatic to the state’s one-time reputation for clean government, say observers.

The question for many is how to prevent another governor, legislator or high official from going down the same path.

“We have a cultural problem in North Carolina that too many politicians are willing to play the game and the public doesn’t seem to care,” said Joe Sinsheimer, a one-time Democratic Party researcher who helped drive former Speaker Jim Black, also a Democrat, from office.

“Hopefully this case, because of its high profile, will make the public care more,” he said after the State Board of Elections pronounced judgment on Easley. “What will actually change this will be one election cycle where 30 or 40 members of the General Assembly lose because people are mad enough to take action.”

Others suggest there are steps the General Assembly could take, before voters decide to “throw the bums out,” that could help curb campaign finance abuses.

***

Election board members voted Friday to ask the General Assembly to make individual candidates liable for fines levied against their campaign committees.

Although the board issued a $100,000 fine against the Easley campaign — one of the stiffest in its history — there might not be any money there to collect. If so, the penalty could go unpaid.

“We do want candidates to accept responsibility for the committees....They choose the people who head up their committees; they ultimately have to accept responsibility,” said board Chairman Larry Leake.

During his testimony before the board last week, Easley said he didn’t have time to keep up with campaign finances. Instead, Easley said, he delegated the job.

“Did you ever have occasion to review campaign (finance) reports, to make inquiries as to as to where payments were being made, etc.?” Leake asked Easley during the hearings.

“Well,” Easley said, pausing for moment, “to my knowledge I don’t think I’ve ever seen a campaign report. My main interest in the campaign was message, what the ads were going to say. ... I had people paid to do that.”

Leake argued after the hearings concluded that such a laissez-faire approach to running a campaign that handled more than $20 million over two election cycles wasn’t sufficient.

“If all candidates thoroughly understand if their committee messes up, the State Board of Elections might be trying to get in their personal pocketbook, I think it will make them more attentive,” Leake said.

***

State law limits how much an individual donor can give to a particular candidate. In a typical cycle, those donations are restricted to one $4,000 contribution in the primary and another $4,000 for the general election.

But that same donor can give virtually unlimited amounts to a political party. And that party can spend unlimited sums in support of their candidates. In theory, money given to the party must remain under the strict control of those officials, at arms length of any one candidate.

But testimony and documents introduced during the Easley hearings suggested that relationship is far cozier than the law envisions. Campaign strategists have figured out not only how a political party can pay for polling and get-out-the-vote efforts but also a candidate’s staff salaries and travel expenses.

“You can set up a shadow committee or duplicate committee for your own campaign, your own candidate,” said Bob Hall, who leads Democracy North Carolina, the government watchdog who brought the original complaint against Easley. Hall has not advocated closing the loophole that allows parties to launder large contributions in that way, but others have.

Rep. John Blust, a Greensboro Republican, filed legislation this year that would impose the same limits on a party’s contribution to a candidate now faced by individuals.

“Right now, there’s a glaring loophole that’s been used, and the Easley campaign was pretty cynical about it in their memos,” Blust said. “That’s a huge loophole that allows whoever has got the power at the moment to grossly evade the limits.”

***

Others argue that it is not merely the amount of money spent on elections that is the problem but where it comes from. Politicians running statewide like Easley are forced to raise thousands of dollars — millions in the case of a legitimate gubernatorial or Senate run — from people who often have a particular interest in certain government actions.

For example, testimony last week showed Gary Allen gave two separate $50,000 contributions to the N.C. Democratic Party about the same time he was trying to wrangle a permit from the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

The governor — Easley at the time of those donations — oversees DENR. And documents submitted at the hearing showed an Easley staffer who was involved in helping Allen get his permit also helped solicit those donations.

“Unless and until we start thinking about systemic ways to changes, bigger-picture ways to change, we’re going to continue to see these sorts of things,” said Damon Circosta, who leads the nonprofit N.C. Center for Voter Education. “It’s not because the majority of people who go into public service are bad people. It’s because we’ve set up a system that has false incentives and we need to change that.”

The races for campaign cash have become particularly acute in the television era, when statewide campaigns can be won or lost depending on who has enough money in the bank to buy television time.

Circosta and Hall are among a growing cadre of advocates for publicly financed elections. Under such a system, used now in North Carolina for appellate court races and some lesser statewide offices, candidates can voluntarily limit the number and size of donations they receive from individuals. In exchange, they receive public funds.

“We need to think about shifting the money away from private individuals and all of us chipping in,” Circosta said.

Such a system has critics who say taxpayers should not be forced to fund the campaigns of candidates they find objectionable.

***

Still, no change to the law will head off someone determined to do wrong or a candidate who lacks a moral compass. And Sinsheimer argues that the blights put on display during last week’s state board hearings are only the beginning for Easley.

State and federal prosecutors are actively looking into more than just his campaign fundraising practices.

“We’re looking at activity that should not be viewed in isolation,” Sinsheimer said. “When we see the governor accepting free airplane rides for personal use, when we see the governor accepting $50,000 in waived golf memberships, when we see a governor getting a $135,000 discount on a lot, it shows a pattern of a governor that’s very tight with his own personal money, that likes for other people to pay for perks and privileges.”

Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com