30 Minutes with Bob Phillips

Warren Smith: The Common Cause Education Foundation is not an advocacy group, but I am assuming that you believe the current condition of election financing in North Carolina is flawed and you want a change. What is wrong with the current system?

Bob Phillips: The cost of running for the North Carolina General Assembly has tripled in the past six years. In 1994 it cost about $25,000 to run for a state house seat. Today it costs about $75,000. To run for a senate seat in 1994 it cost $33,000. Now that number is $134,000. North Carolina has never seen anything like it. Twenty five legislators spent more than a quarter of a million dollars to win a job that pays $13,000 a year job and has full time responsibilities. That is keeping people from running.

WS: How do you know that?

BP: Out of 170 legislators the North Carolina General Assembly, one-third didn't have any opposition at all. All thy had to pay their fees and they were in. Why? Because people don't want to subject themselves to it. The fundraising hurdles are too high. That is not healthy for democracy, whether you are Republican or Democrat or whatever. Competition is healthy in our democracy and I think that is what we want.

WS: I agree philosophically that competition is healthy. But I also believe that a candidate's ability to mobilize grassroots supports, to interact with supporters, to understand the issues, and to be able to build a team is not a bad way for that candidate to demonstrate his ability to lead and serve. I agree that competition is healthy. But isn't the process of raising money part of the competitive process?

BP: I think what you say is true. What we are trying to say is there has to be some kind of sense to it, where people don't feel disconnected. 

WS: So what would the bill before the NC Senate do to the election process in North Carolina?

BP: It would take the special interest money out and relieve the burden of fund raising for a candidate. For people running for the legislature, the council of state offices, and governor it requires one to raise small contributions from a specified amount of people at a level to show they are credible. For instance if you are running for state senate, you have to have 400 contributors who give anywhere from $10-$100. Once you have reached that level, and you pass other qualifications, you then are eligible to receive funding which was the average of what was spent in the previous election. You are provided that money. Then the candidate is not forced to spend all his time raising money. 

WS: Where does that money come from?

BP: It comes from what they call a Democracy Fund. Right now the proposal -- and this has been put forth by a republican in the state senate -- would be a check off on our tax returns. Five dollars off your tax bill. It would be a voluntary thing. People could decide to opt out, which mean their money would not go to this Democracy Fund. But budget analysts have looked at this and feel that this will provide enough funding to pay for this program.

WS: Is that what happens at the presidential level? With a check box on your federal tax forms?

BP: Similar. I have to confess to you I don't know all the details of the presidential program. It is a similar concept with the exception that for the candidate the program is voluntary. A candidate who would participate in this system would then have to agree to strict fund raising limits. In other words, they would not raise any more money. There are exceptions. If you and I are running for the same house seat and you are running under this program and I am not, and I am spending more money than you, there is something called “rescue money” that let you compete with me. It levels the playing field. It allows candidates to listen to the people who they will serve.

WS: I understand that a lot of candidates spend a lot of time fundraising, but isn't a lot of listening going on in that process, too. If I'm on the phone with one person, having a substantive conversation about the issues, really listening, isn't that valuable, too? How is it better to stand in front of 4,000 in a big arena or 400 people at a bar-b-q and give the same speech that you've given for the 50^th time? How is one qualitatively better for democracy than the other?

BP: most Carolinians are not $4000 givers. They are not big givers. In fact, 90 percent of the money in our political system comes from just 1 percent of the people. I worry about the single mom out there, the working person who lives in Caldwell County. The teacher in Gates County and the farmer in Green County. Are their voices being heard? This is the kind of thing that this type of program would give these folks the opportunity to feel more connected with our campaign finance system. Now they don't. They think politicians are going out for the big bucks. They only listen to the big contributors.

WS: OK. Let's say for the moment the current system is flawed. There are other possible solutions. Rep. Connie Wilson has suggested that the best way to solve the problem of campaign finance is to simply require full disclosure. What would be wrong with that solution?

BP: Once again, that empowers the people who have the ability to give a lot of money. That is not to say that people who have money are bad and they are all out to do something corrupt, but who has access and influence, and whose voices are going to be heard by a politician who needs money? The politician is certainly going to be more responsive to the people with wealth.

It continues to escalate. Two months ago a survey was done and it revealed that 79 percent of those surveyed believe that politicians spend most of their time raising money. Ninety-one percent feel that a campaign contribution of size really affects how laws or policies are written. Whether that is true or not, it's disturbing that that is what the people of our state think, which is probably a reason why few turn up to vote.

WS: I struggle with that idea in part because of a situation that just took place in Charlotte. People in favor of bond referendum to build a new sports arena and other facilities raised and spent nearly $1-million on their message. Those opposed spent barely $100,000. Yet those opposed carried 57 percent of the vote. I know that this is a special case. But it does suggest that the voice of the people can be heard in spite of money.

BP: I know that the arena was a fascinating issue in Charlotte, but it was not typical. The candidate with the largest war chest wins. There are exceptions, but for the most part, that is the case. And where there is competition between candidates, voter turnout is higher and apathy is lower.

WS: Let's talk about the voter turnout question, because that's another one that I'm having trouble figuring out. Your theory is that voter turnout is low because the level of satisfaction with the political process is low. There is disillusionment and a feeling of disenfranchisement because money rules the day. However, I think you could also make a case that voter turnout goes up when there is dissatisfaction with the status quo, and that low voter turnout is not such a terrible thing for democracy. Low voter registration, maybe, but not necessarily low voter turnout.  

BP: In the election of 2000 in this state, primary turnout was 17%. The general election was high but lower than we had 8 years before in 1992.

WS: I would argue that these data make my point rather than yours. You have George Bush in office, and people turned out to make a change. The same thing happened in 1980, when people turned out for Reagan. My point is that I see no direct relationship between voter turnout and the health of democracy. Low voter turnout doesn't necessarily mean apathy and disillusionment. It could mean contentment with the status quo. After all, some countries have mandatory voting and one-party rule. The people are required to vote, and they turn out at near 100 percent rates, but those countries are hardly democracies.

BP: 2000 was an opportunity for change. Yet the turnout was low and the cost of campaigning in the last years has gone through the roof, particularly at the legislative level.

WS: Predict what will happen if this piece of legislation become a law in the state of North Carolina.  

BP: First of all, this can only be a voluntary system. It certainly doesn't replace or prevent people from running for office and raising as much money as they can, or funding it all themselves, but it offers an alternative one that we hope more candidates will take advantage of. 

WS: We talk about America being a democracy, when in fact it is a republic. What we really have is not a one person-one vote system, but a two-party political system and a representative form of government. Part of the genius of this system is that it prevents factionalism that we see in some European countries. You've argued for this legislation on the grounds that it is good for democracy, but isn't it possible that this kind of legislation could have unintended consequences? For example, resulting in more third and fourth party candidates who are not really politically viable, but who siphon off large sums of this money, and a few votes, and the net result is that we end up with office holders who consistently win less than 50 percent of the vote. This is exactly what has happened at the presidential level.

BP: In North Carolina it is difficult for a third party candidate to get on the ballot.

WS: Well, yes, but my point is that there could be some unintended consequences, even some counter productive consequences, to this legislation. But before we know this we will have created a slush fund of millions of dollars, administered by state employees who dole out money to politicians – both elected and not elected. Is there any way to put a sunset on this legislation if things don't work out the way you say they will?

BP: I have to say this that is a difficult question for me to answer. What this would do is in the first year would exclude the governor, and 2 years later -- after careful review -- the legislative candidate would run under the system, and then 2 more years the governor comes in. There would be a protection for unanticipated consequences.

WS: Four or eight years from now, what do you hope the system will look like?

BP: I will hope the numbers do not go up as fast. Currently, we have 25 legislators who spent $200,0000 or more to win a part-time position that pays $13,000 a year. Hopefully, we won't see a list like this.