New rules for Carrboro campaigns sent back to House committee, measure will not pass this session
By Kirk Ross
Staff Writer
A campaign finance bill that would limit the amount of contributions and lower the threshold for reporting contributors was pulled from the North Carolina House of Representatives calendar last week, making it unlikely the bill will pass this session.
Senate Bill 488 — Carrboro Campaign Regulation — was re-referred to the House Election Law and Campaign Finance Reform committee at the request of Rep. Bill Faison (D-Orange, Caswell), after Faison heard concerns raised about the bill by Katrina Ryan and Sharon Cook, two candidates for the Board of Aldermen.
“The bill is not specific enough,†Ryan said in an interview Wednesday morning. She called the bill, which would allow the town to set contribution thresholds and require contributors’ names for those who give a candidate more than $20, “arbitrary and capricious.†Ryan also objected to the fact that members of the Board of Aldermen would set the limits.
“It’s a badly written bill,†she said. “It needs to be reviewed and it needs a public hearing.â€
Sharon Cook, a member of the town planning board, said she also was concerned that the legislation had not had a proper airing. “This just popped up,†she said. “Where did this come from?â€
Both Cook and Ryan filed earlier this month to run for the Board of Aldermen.
The bill mirrors a similar measure passed for Chapel Hill in 1995.
Last week, Mayor Mark Chilton said he was disappointed to see the bill pulled and was working to try and address concerns over the bill with Faison.
Faison did not respond to an inquiry about the bill’s status.
Board of Aldermen member Dan Coleman called the effort to stop the bill “a power move†and said the objections raised could have been answered by he or Chilton if Cook and Ryan had asked. The bill is typical of state enabling legislation, he said, and would require a process with public hearings and discussion before any new limits and restrictions are set.
“It’s very unfortunate,†Coleman said. “It’s an indication of a very adversarial style.â€
He said the bill was filed in early March and had been discussed as early as January at an annual breakfast meeting with the legislative delegation.
Lydia Lavelle, a planning board member who is running for the Board of Aldermen, said she had hoped the bill would pass and was surprised at the move since it so closely paralleled the Chapel Hill legislation.
“I support the bill,†she said. “If it can’t happen in this session, then I hope it can in the short session.â€
Rep. Verla Insko, (D-Orange), who sponsored the bill in the House, said she thought it was “interesting†that the people who had objected to the bill were running this year for office in Carrboro.
“I think it’s a campaign issue,†she said. “The people of Carrboro ought to know the position of those who want to be their elected officials.â€
As written, the bill would have become effective when signed into law. Ryan said that means it would apply to the current election.
But both Coleman and Insko said it was never intended to apply to this year’s election. Once passed, Coleman said, the bill would have required a public hearing and discussion by the board on the details and rules.
Insko said in light of it’s defeat this year, she and Faison will try to craft a new version of the bill with hopes of moving forward with it in next year’s short session. “He’s agreed to work with me to make it a consensus bill,†Insko said.
Faison represents two northern Carrboro precincts, including recently annexed areas that are home to Cook and Ryan.
Insko represents the rest of Carrboro except for St. Joe precinct, which is represented by House Speaker Joe Hackney (D-Orange, Chatham).
In addition to concerns about the timing of the bill, Cook and Ryan both said they were worried about “outside money†flowing into local races.
“We need to keep local campaigns conducted locally without a lot of outside money and influence,†Cook said.
Ryan pointed to development money that helped fund Paul Newton’s failed bid for a seat on the town board in Hillsborough and County Commissioner Mike Nelson’s run two years ago.
Ryan said that Nelson had received about 60 percent of his financing from outside the county, a number Nelson disputes.
In an email response to The Citizen, Nelson said Ryan was trying to use the issue to deflect attention from her attempt to kill a campaign finance bill while a candidate for public office.
“Ms. Ryan is an active supporter of Lillian’s List, an organization I also contribute to on a regular basis. Lillian’s List helps elect Democratic Women to the NC General Assembly. It does so by funneling contributions from across the state into the campaigns of women they support. Nearly all of my out of county contributions came from lesbian and gay North Carolinians who understand that it’s important to elect gay people to office,†he wrote. “Katrina’s hypocrisy on this issue is stunning. How can it be acceptable for Democratic women to support each other, even if they don’t live in the district, but it’s not acceptable for gay people to support each other? Her position is offensive.â€
Ryan said language in the bill, which limits it to only in-state donations, might favor Nelson or a candidate favored by an out-of-state developer.
Both Nelson and Lavelle noted that such restrictions have faced constitutional challenges.
Thanks for bringing this issue to the public attention. I am curious as to why the BOA would have requested this bill without first putting it on a public agenda. According to your article it was discussed at a legislative breakfast only. A quick search of BOA agendas and minutes using the term “campaign finance” returns no documents so it would appear that there was no opportunity for citizen input. Are Cook and Ryan’s objections about the bill itself or the lack of public process that brought the bill to the legislature?
I’m also interested in knowing whether Chapel Hill’s cap on spending has been effective at reducing the impact of money on elections. Looking at the board of election site for this years election, all but one of Chapel Hill’s candidates are planning to spend more than $3,000. On the other hand only one Carrboro candidate (Lydia Lavelle) is not voluntarily capping spending. That leads me to believe that Carrboro is doing well without this formal cap.
Here is the exact email I snet Verla on why I opposed the bill.
> I would like to voice my STRONG opposition to HB465. While I support the
> principle of campaign finance reform, this bill is fatally flawed and
> should be defeated. It does not define a timetable for the local board
> to determine finance limits, making it impossible for candidates to know
> what resources will be available while considering a run for office.The
> BOA could literally come back on August 29th and completely change the
> rules for a filing cycle that is already in progress. It doesn’t limit
> contributions for out of district money, which has been a growing
> problem in Orange County elections.
> It also exempts out of state contributions from being reported in a
> similar manor to instate contributions. There was no public meeting at
> which the details of this bill were discussed. I believe that Carrboro voters should decide what is appropriate for Carrboro elections.
>
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
> Katrina Ryan
And for reference, here is the text of the bill:
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT TO AMEND THE Carrboro CHARTER TO ALLOW THE TOWN TO REQUIRE CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE TOWN OFFICE TO DISCLOSE THE NAMES OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTORS AND TO LIMIT BY ORDINANCE THE AMOUNT THAT PERSONS MAY CONTRIBUTE TO A CANDIDATE OR THEIR POLITICAL COMMITTEE.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. Section 2‑7 of the Charter of the Town of Carrboro, being Chapter 476 of the 1987 Session Laws, as added by Section 2 of Chapter 660 of the 1993 Session Laws, is repealed.
SECTION 2. Article 2 of the Charter of the Town of Carrboro, being Chapter 476 of the 1987 Session Laws, is amended by adding the following new sections to read:
“Section. 2‑8. Disclosure of contributors. (a) The town may by ordinance require the disclosure by candidates (and their political committees) for elective town office of the names of all contributors to their campaigns. The ordinance may exempt from disclosure contributions below a monetary amount set in the ordinance.
(b) The ordinance shall apply regardless of the total amount of contributions, loans, or expenditures by the campaigns.
(c) G.S. 163‑278.10A does not apply to municipal elections in the Town of Carrboro.
“Section 2‑9. Limitation on contributions. Except as provided by G.S. 163‑278.13(c), the town may by ordinance limit the amount of contributions which any individual, person, or political committee may contribute to any candidate for town office or to any political committee of that candidate. The ordinance may not set a limitation which has a dollar amount greater than the dollar amount set in the general law which would apply to elective office in the town.
“Section 2‑10. Definitions. The definitions in Article 22A of Chapter 163 of the General Statutes apply to Sections 2‑8 and 2‑9 of this Charter.”
SECTION 3. This act is effective when it becomes law.
>
I don’t see where in this bill that it prevents the town from restricting out-of-state or county contributions. “Except as provided by G.S. 163‑278.13(c), the town may by ordinance limit the amount of contributions which any individual, person, or political committee may contribute to any candidate for town office or to any political committee of that candidate.”
In my own humble opinion, I believe the motives of Katrina Ryan & Company’s opposition to the campaign bill are transparent. While skillfully composed, her email to Verla reads to me like a litany of illogical rationale and rhetoric in a thinly veiled attempt to disguise her real concerns…that she will be limited in her ability to collect ample and unlimited donations from her primary supporters…deep-pocketed residents who were victims of the annexation, and Highlands residents who identify with their concerns.
While not perfect, this campaign bill is a step in the right direction, and closely resembles the working model in Chapel Hill. I share her concerns about outside financial influences in local elections, but to oppose this bill contradicts that point. Get this fundamental law on the books. Laws evolve and improve, if they were perfect the first time out, there would be no constitutional amendments or Bill of Rights. This is how legislation works, it always has. Katrina’s “throw out the baby with the bathwater” mentality is a red flag to me. The only threat this bill poses for her is a wrench in her plans to run a campaign where annexation wounds are the sole foundation of her platform.
I respect Katrina’s dedication to her community and determination to represent the new residents of Carrboro, but I think it’s time to start healing wounds instead of poking them with a stick. These folks in the Northern Carrboro area need a voice in town politics. They deserved it in the last election, in fact. But using Karl Rove tactics to conceal the underlying motives for opposition to this bill underestimates the intelligence and perceptiveness of the citizens of Carrboro.
Sebastian,
While I agree that some Rovian tactics have found there way into Carrboro government, it’s not me who’s used them.
To call this bill campaign finance reform is a bit like calling the patriot act telecom reform. It gives the sitting BOA complete control to change the rules of an election cycle any time they want. Note the lack of limits and definitions. It’s not about whether you trust this particular BOA to enact reasonable policies regarding campaign contributions, it’s a question of empowering every BOA from now until the next charter amendment not to abuse their incumbency in elections.
I don’t trust this BOA, with good reason. For all of the differences I had with Mike Nelson, I believe that Carrboro government was more transparent than it is today. How did something like this make it to the General Assembly with no public hearing ?
I believe in campaign finance reform. I, unlike some candidates this cycle will raise and spend less than $3,000. None of it will come from out of Orange County, and if you like, I’ll tell you the name of every contributor. I have always been very forthright, perhaps to my detriment. You may choose to believe Alderman Coleman when he says it wasn’t intended to apply to this election, but clearly section three reads differently.
I did not advocate a ” throw out the baby with the bathwater” MO. I pushed for the bill to be held over to the short session, so that Carrboro voters, not Dan Coleman, can decide what Carrboro elections should look like.
Katrina,
Since you have stated in writing that you intend to raise and spend less than $3000 on your campaign, I have clearly drawn the wrong conclusion about your motivations. Please accept my apology for the mistake.
It sounds like we both are passionate about campaign reform. As I mentioned, I also think that outside influences can be detrimental to community politics, but others are beneficial. I would personally like to see all developers and big business lose all influence in local politics, but to cut them out of the political process would also exclude organizations like “Lillian’s List” and other advocate groups that positively shape local politics. I don’t know what the solution is, but I assume that is why the language was left out of this particular bill.
This bill is somewhat vague, brief, and it could be crafted better…but it is a good start. It may just be my perspective is different than yours, but don’t think it leaves room for the kind of incumbent abuse that you fear. I haven’t seen that kind of manipulation in the Chapel Hill arena.
Regardless of the outcome of this election, I hope that you will continue to be as enthusiastic to promote campaign finance reform when the short session comes around, it will take determination like yours to affect a change. With this bill as a template, I’m sure you could help compose a version that would address your concerns yet preserve the integrity of this one. Rather than shooting it down, if you get the opportunity to work with the framers of this bill to improve it…I’d expect the results would be more beneficial to the cause.