Log in to WRAL.com with one click using your favorite social network:
OR
Log in using your WRAL.com account:



Wrong email/password combination.

Forgot password?

Register with WRAL.com using your favorite social network:
OR
Register for a WRAL.com account using our web form.

4:53 p.m. • 5-19-13

Weather Forecast for Raleigh

  • Mon: Thunderstorm.
    • Hi: 76° F
  • Tue: Thunderstorm.
    • Hi: 81° F
  • Wed: Partly Cloudy.
    • Hi: 86° F

Other Locations

> 7 Day Forecast

Doppler Image

Published: 2011-09-13 15:27:00
Updated: 2011-09-13 15:30:59

Anti-abortion groups challenge NC public campaign funding


Campaign finance
Campaign finance
print friendly

Two political-action committees affiliated with an anti-abortion group have filed a federal lawsuit to challenge North Carolina's law allowing public funding of judicial campaigns.

North Carolina Right to Life PAC and North Carolina Right to Life Committee Fund for Independent Political Expenditures want the law declared unconstitutional, claiming that it violates their free speech rights.

Under the Voter-Owned Elections Act, judicial candidates who apply for public financing cannot obtain large contributions from individuals or special-interest groups. Whenever donations to a candidate who chooses to seek private contributions top a specified threshold, the state releases matching funds to the candidate's opponents who have signed up for public financing.

"This matching funds scheme imposes a substantial burden on the speech of privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups while releasing all publicly financed candidates from their agreed-to expenditure limits," the two groups said in their suit.

The groups tried to overturn the law five years ago, but both federal district and appellate courts ruled against them. They said they are making a second run at the law after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a similar matching-fund law in Arizona.

Since their initial suit, the groups said, they haven't provided financial support for any state Supreme Court candidate "for fear that the $240,100 trigger for matching funds for candidates ... would be pulled and cause funding to go to a candidate they did not support."

Their reluctance to contribute to the campaigns of candidates they support is evidence that their free speech rights are being "chilled" by the state law, they argue, asking that the law be overturned in time for the 2012 election.


13 Comments


WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

View Comments VIEW ALL 13 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments
"I'd be for that, but the problem is, politicians would have to vote for this to be put into place, and they are already bought."

Yup

"All candidates get X dollars from a public fund with which to run their campaigns, all campaign expenditure must come from that X dollar amount, and when it's gone, it's gone."

I'd be for that, but the problem is, politicians would have to vote for this to be put into place, and they are already bought.

I'm all for whatever works, babble. The basic problem is that we have made elections for sale to the highest bidder by making their outcomes so dependent on the ability to raise and spend money.

That assures that whoever raises the most money wins, and effectively puts candidates at the mercy of the guys writing the checks. It's a backdoor way of legalizing bribery.

How about a ban on ANY private contribution to political campaigns... All candidates get X dollars from a public fund with which to run their campaigns, all campaign expenditure must come from that X dollar amount... elcid liked Ike

You qualify for the funding by submitting a petition with Y% of registered voters as of the last election. The state will provide petition forms, pens and clipboards. The parties may, if they choose, provide places and times when people can come sign petitions, but are not allowed to provide anything more than a speaking podium with microphone, tables, chairs and water.

My husband and I have thought about this a LOT. We think the biggest hurdle (aside from the entrenched interests) is selecting who qualifies for funding, then tracking it. I'd prefer the gov't provides most of the 'financing' as materials / media time, rather than $$, to reduce fraud.

When elections swerve to pivot upon campaign financing, we have all sold ourselves out and the right to vote is no longer a valued priveledge.

Money IS the root of all evil.

View Comments VIEW ALL 13 COMMENTS

Political Video Picks

 
  • Dozens of proposals failed to clear the House or Senate before the General Assembly's self-imposed "crossover" deadline this week for…

  • The scandal within the Internal Revenue Service was front and center Friday on Capitol Hill, as a committee heard testimony from…

  • The House and Ways Committee holds a hearing on the Internal Revenue Service's practice of targeting conservative political groups.…

  • The state House has released its own version of a tax reform bill that lower income and sales tax rates, but makes fewer sweeping…

  • The House approved several bills before the "crossover" deadline, including measures on abortion and social media privacy.

  • President Obama says he'll hold a Rose Garden news conference Thursday to answer questions about the scandal enveloping the Internal…