Rep. Rick Glazier was right Wednesday when he described the legislative hearings against Rep. Thomas Wright as a sad day.
Prosecutors from the Attorney General’s office methodically laid out the case against Wright, complete with documents that seem to confirm that he did not report thousands of dollars in campaign contributions which he converted to personal use, convinced a state employee to lie to help him get a loan, and set up a nonprofit to raise and borrow money that he apparently also used for personal expenses.
Wright solicited money for the nonprofit from corporations who may have seen the contribution as a way to curry favor with a member of the General Assembly who could be helpful to their legislative interests.
That wasn’t necessary illegal. The problem in Wright’s case was that he was soliciting money for a nonprofit that really existed in name only and then putting the contribution in his personal checking account.
The nonprofit itself was the problem in this case, not the solicitation. It is still legal for legislators to ask lobbyists and corporations to donate to a nonprofit, even though both are now prohibited from making contributions to legislators’ political campaigns.
Last session, the reform community pushed for legislation to restrict lawmakers from soliciting money for nonprofits, but the effort failed. There was also discussion of at least making the solicitation and donations public like most campaign contributions, but that didn’t go anywhere either.
The recent attention to Wright’s case may have made lawmakers a little reluctant to ask lobbyists for charitable contributions, but we don’t know because none of that is public.
No one doubts that political contributions buy at least access to elected officials, if not influence. The same logic seems to apply when a lawmakers asks lobbyists for help with a favorite charity. It is about financial resources playing a role in the relationship and ought to be banned.
The role of money in politics is at the heart of the dispute between the two Democratic candidates for Governor that prompted a disappointing response from Governor Mike Easley.
Part of Richard Moore’s plan to reform the troubled Department of Transportation includes a ban on fundraising by the members of the Transportation Board. Historically, Board members have been big political donors and in many cases also campaign fundraisers for the governor who appointed them.
Moore thinks that ought to stop and he’s right. His Democratic primary opponent, Beverly Perdue, attacked Moore for other reasons for proposing the plan, but didn’t seem to disagree that it was a good idea to keep big donors and political fundraisers off the Board that makes decisions about which roads are built.
The opposition to the proposal came from the man who appointed the current DOT Board, Governor Mike Easley. Easley says banning political money people from the Board could end up keeping well-qualifying people from serving.
It is the same argument that’s always made when public interest groups ask why registered lobbyists serve on high-powered panels like the UNC Board of Governors or why Blue Cross Blue Shield executive Brad Wilson is the chair of the 21st Century Transportation Committee and the Campus Safety Task force convened by Attorney General Roy Cooper as well as a member of a high-powered tax commission and the UNC Board.
Some leading politicians seem to think that there are only a handful of people in the state that should serve on powerful boards that make decisions about our roads, universities, taxes, and safety. Most of them are wealthy and most of them donate to politicians and raise money for their campaigns.
That’s an often forgotten problem with our current campaign finance system, that it creates a small world that most politicians seem to operate in, the well-connected big money corporate insider world. That’s who the elected officials know, who they see and who they rely on for advice and money. And who they appoint to make key decisions about our lives.
Easley’s is right that Moore’s proposal might keep some well-qualified people from serving on the DOT Board. But there are plenty of well-qualified people who could still serve, folks not in the political circles. The same is true for every important board.
Too few people have access to the levers of power in Raleigh. Anything that changes that is worth considering.
