Why a lobby group’s gifts to lawmakers should provoke outrage and lots more scrutiny

Last week, NC Policy Watch investigative reporter Sarah Ovaska broke a story of great importance in the world of North Carolina politics and state government. After weeks of carefully reviewing public records and responses to information requests, Ovaska reported that a conservative education lobby group, Parents for Educational Freedom, paid to fly a group of 11 state legislators (including the Speaker of the House Thom Tills) as well as a legislative staffer, the group’s registered lobbyist and two unidentified businesspeople to Florida for a two-day trip that was clearly and admittedly designed to advance the group’s legislative agenda.

The trip took place during tourist season (March 14 and 15) and included free airfare, hotel accommodations and a luncheon at a tropical resort. The group’s official reports indicate that it spent $8,300.87 on plane tickets, meals and hotel rooms. After the trip was concluded, many of the same lawmakers received significant campaign contributions from a PAC associated with Parents for Educational Freedom and/or a Florida businessman who addressed the group on the trip.

The trip is of great importance for at least two reasons: 1) It creates a blatant and obvious appearance of impropriety and 2) It quite arguably violates state law.

The state of the law

Six years ago in the midst of the disastrous Jim Black bribery scandal, North Carolina passed a series of tough new laws designed to end the culture of “pay to play” politics that had infested state government for decades. At the core of these reforms was the simple and straightforward idea that it should be unlawful in North Carolina for lobbyists and groups that lobby government to give gifts to public officials: No travel, no basketball tickets, no rounds of golf, no swanky meals, and no cups of coffee, nothing.

The rationale was equally simple and straightforward: Gifts to public officials from people trying to win their favor are just wrong. Not only do such gifts give the appearance of corruption (and thus make it that much harder to ferret out genuine incidents of out and out bribery), but they also serve to provide the lobbyists and lobby groups that provide the gifts with access not available to other lobbyists and interest groups, much less the general public.

It was for this reason that, in 2006, North Carolina law was amended to make perfectly clear that public officials cannot accept gifts from lobbyists or groups that lobby. Here’s what the law was amended to say:

“No public servant, legislator, or legislative employee shall knowingly accept a gift from a lobbyist or lobbyist principal registered under Chapter 120C of the General Statutes. No legislator or legislative employee shall knowingly accept a gift from liaison personnel designated under Chapter 120C of the General Statutes.”

That’s the law. It’s still on the books. If a registered lobbyist invites a Senator or State Representative to the legislative cafeteria to talk about a proposal in the legislature (or, indeed to talk about the weather) he or she is forbidden from buying the lawmaker a cup of coffee.

The law surrounding trips and “educational” meetings

In a perfect world, lawmakers would have left the law as simple as that. Unfortunately, for a combination of reasons – some honorable and some not – lawmakers saw fit to enact some exceptions to the rule when they enacted the gift ban law. Perhaps most prominent and relevant to the discussion at hand is the matter of “educational meetings.”

The law says that it’s not illegal for specified public officials to accept “reasonable actual expenditures… for food, beverages, registration, travel, lodging, other incidental items of nominal value, and entertainment” from lobby groups in connection with their attendance at certain “educational meetings.” The law then goes on to define which kinds of “educational meetings” are okay and which are not.

This is by any fair assessment a terrible and unnecessary exception. There is simply no good reason that lobbyists or lobby groups of any kind should be allowed to pay for lawmakers to attend meetings anywhere (“educational” or not) – much less in some luxurious, far off resort.

If these meetings are truly important to a lawmaker’s service, then they ought to be provided with some sort of publicly-funded allowance provided by taxpayers. Let lawmakers apply to an impartial arbiter and/or justify their expenses to voters rather than allow them to be wined and dined by lobby groups. As a matter of clear and honest public policy, this would have been the best solution.

Still, however, even under these flawed exceptions provided in current law, it’s very hard to see how the Florida trip documented by Ovaska is legal. Here’s why:

The clear implication of the law (click here and scroll down to subsection (e) (3) to read it) is that it is intended to bless attendance at public or quasi-public meetings that are truly “educational” – i.e. attendance at an event hosted by public bodies or perhaps, a non-partisan group like the National Conference of State Legislatures. The language in the law talks about the need for a “formal agenda” and “notice” of the event that is “given” 10 days in advance.

While someone intent upon rule-bending might try to make a trip to a hotel to meet with lobbyists and other advocates for one point of view “educational,” it’s hard to see how this argument can be taken seriously.

Indeed, a 2007 article in the newsletter of the State Ethics Commission – the group charged with enforcing the law – says as much: “If the meeting’s primary purpose is to influence a public servant, legislator, or legislative employee with respect to executive or legislative action (rather than educate them on a legitimate subject), the meeting is not ‘educational,’” the newsletter states. The mere fact that Republican and Democratic legislators received the gifts does not somehow make everything okay.

As Ovaska reported, Parents for Educational Freedom President Darrell Allison publicly admitted that the purpose of the trip was to help “lay the groundwork” for his group’s legislative agenda.

Moreover, if the trip documented by Ovaska does meet the “educational meeting” exception, then the law is utterly meaningless. Think about it: By such “logic,” Duke Power would be fully within its rights to fly the entire membership of the General Assembly to France for an all-expense paid trip to learn about that country’s nuclear energy grid. Americans for Prosperity would be free to wine and dine lawmakers at some Koch Brother soiree in a posh resort. The gambling industry would be free to jet dozens of state officials to Las Vegas for a “fact-finding” mission.

This simply cannot be the state of the law. If it is, the exception is swallowing the rule and it is in desperate need of an immediate rewrite.

Going forward

So what happens next? With any luck, public outrage will help spur state ethics officials to step up to the plate to investigate the matter. The law specifies a variety of sanctions that may be imposed upon offending officials. If lawmakers are found to have benefited from gifts unlawfully, they should be held accountable (as should Parents for Educational Freedom).

Regardless, however, of whether there are formal sanctions, let’s hope that, ultimately, the message is delivered loud and clear to all state officials, lobbyists and lobby groups in North Carolina that lobbying trips of this kind are not “educational meetings” and are permanently forbidden.

 (This article was updated to make clear that the 2006 reform laws were passed in the midst of the Jim Black scandal, not after it had happened).

Image above from Wikimedia Commons, used under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, 2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic license.

Legislative proposal would actually tell scientists which data they can and can’t consider on rising sea levels

Since as far back as the Scopes Trial (and probably even Galileo), the debate over science has been at the crux of numerous political and cultural conflicts between progressives and conservatives. For a variety of reasons – fear, greed, ignorance and religious orthodoxy to name just a few – many (but certainly not all) conservatives have frequently resisted science and the advances it has brought about in comprehending the universe and our place in it.

Whether it’s modern day religious fundamentalists who claim that dinosaurs and humans once roamed the earth together or conspiracy kooks who remain convinced that fluoridation and vaccines are monstrous Communist plots, head-in-the-sand beliefs and attitudes are hard to eradicate. Still, despite the frequency with which this phenomenon continues to rear its head, it’s always a bit of a shock for caring and thinking people to confront it face to face.

Sadly, North Carolina has recently become the home to yet another and example of this frustrating phenomenon and it is one that will make your head spin: It concerns the matter of the sea level rise that can be expected to occur in coming decades along the North Carolina coast and a disturbing effort by conservative ideologues to deny and hide the truth and forbid honest scientific inquiry.

Measuring our rising seas

As most people who pay attention to the news are aware, the earth’s atmosphere is gradually warming. As a result, sea levels are rising slowly but measurably as ocean ice melts and ocean water heats and expands. For a state like North Carolina, with a huge coast line and large sounds, this has obvious and serious implications.

Given this hard reality and the huge importance of coastal areas to the people who live there and the rest of North Carolina, smart people in and around state and local government made the common sense decision to try and get a handle on the facts surrounding the matter. To do this, the state Coastal Resources Commission empowered a panel of scientists to study the matter and make findings.

Two years ago, the Science Panel (which included an impressive combination of respected university professors, former and current members of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other experts) presented a document entitled “North Carolina Sea-Level Rise Assessment Report.” The report looked at a wide variety of data and predictions and concluded that the best estimate of sea level rise between now and the end of the century is around one meter (39 inches). Here’s how the report puts it:

“The research concluded that a range of 0.80 meter to 2 meters is a more plausible range than the figures presented by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. A 2-meter rise is considered very unlikely, but still possible, and could only occur with rapidly accelerated and very high rates of warming and ice sheet melting. 12

A one meter (39 inch rise) is considered likely in that it only requires that the linear relationship between temperature and sea level that was noted in the 20th century remains valid for the 21st century (Rahmstorf, 2007). This level of rise is consistently encapsulated within all of the projections reviewed, and is not located at the upper or lower extremes of the projections. Given the range of possible rise scenarios and their associated levels of plausibility, the Science Panel recommends that a rise of 1 meter (39 inches) be adopted as the amount of anticipated rise by 2100, for policy development and planning purposes.”

Now note that the panel wasn’t dogmatic, confrontational or ideological about its conclusions. The final words of the report put it this way:

“Predicting sea level rise in North Carolina for the next century is now and will be for an extended period, an inexact exact science. Immediate actions should be guided by what we know best, the historical sea level and storm records combined with reasonable safety factors. With improvements in data collection, climate science and modeling, sea level decadal to century-scale predictions should improve in the future. The Panel recommends a general reassessment of the planning predictions every five years or more frequently should any significant breakthroughs develop.”

In other words, the panel did what all good scientists do. It looked at the data and presented its best assessment with a caveat that constant reexamination of the facts and date would be important going forward. Its findings were also consistent with findings emerging around the world in a wide variety of scientific studies.

Running afoul of the global warming deniers

Though the Science Panel’s findings were possessed of obvious validity and critical importance to North Carolina’s future, they had one huge shortcoming: they didn’t comport with the desires and beliefs of global warming deniers on the ideological right – especially a group of such people who had in recent years taken control of a coastal economic development coalition known as NC-20.

NC-20 is a private nonprofit made up of county managers and volunteers that is dedicated to promoting economic development in 20 coastal counties. Unfortunately, NC-20 has also fallen under the sway of one of the nation’s most active global warning deniers – a real estate broker, long-retired aerospace industry employee from New York and self-appointed climate expert who owns property along the coast named John Droz. Droz, who is listed on the NC-20 website as the group’s “Science Advisor,” recently drew international attention for his role in a secret, corporate-funded “subversion” effort to foment opposition to wind energy. NC-20 contends that there is no acceleration whatsoever underway in sea-level rise.

At Droz’ urging, NC-20 went to war against the Science Panel’s findings and recommendations. According to the group’s own website, the group launched a military-like lobbying effort against the report and prevailed upon the Coastal Resources Commission to have the report’s recommendation effectively quashed.

Legislating against science

Unfortunately, merely blocking the Science Panel’s report wasn’t enough for NC-20. With the return of the Republican-controlled General Assembly for the 2012 legislative session, NC-20 is attempting to take the offensive and affirmatively dictate to the state exactly which science data it may consider in making sea-level rise predictions – namely the data approved by people like John Droz.

In recent days, General Assembly staff was directed by conservative lawmakers to develop a bill that would actually tell the Science Panel how to do its job. As summarized by journalist Kirk Ross in a recent article for the online newsletter of the N.C. Coastal Federation:

“The proposed bill would limit forecasts for future sea-level rise to what the ocean along the N.C. coast did last century. Using that standard, the state would plan for rise of about 12 inches by 2100.

Determining the rate would fall to the N.C. Division of Coastal Management. Language in the bill says the rates ‘shall be limited to the time period following the year 1900’ and that ‘(R)ates of sea-level rise may be extrapolated linearly to estimate future rates of rise but shall not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise.’”

You got that? An economic development group with an obvious self-interest in assuring that large tracts of land remain available for development and are not included by planners in potential flood areas (a group that relies on the “expertise” of one of the nation’s most notorious global warming deniers), is advancing a bill to tell a group of respected, credentialed scientists and engineers the data that they’re allowed to examine and use in planning for one of the most important environmental issues to ever confront our state! It’s simply amazing.

Going forward

Earlier this week, the anti-science directive – which was prepared as an amendment to an unrelated measure that’s already passed the House and that resides in the Senate Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources Committee – was scheduled to be heard today, Thursday May 17. Subsequently, the meeting was cancelled and, presumably, rescheduled for next week.

In the days to come it will be morbidly fascinating to see if the anti-science forces are able to prevail. If they do, we can rest assured that somewhere the persecutors of John Scopes and Galileo Galilei will be smiling.

Why yesterday’s vote is more likely to hasten marriage equality in North Carolina than delay it

Assume that a couple of years back you had been thinking about how to bring about marriage equality for North Carolina’s LGBT community. What might have been your first steps? What would you have done to jumpstart the issue in what was by any fair assessment, a hidebound, conservative, Bible Belt state with essentially zero tradition of high-profile gay rights advocacy?

At the time, the answers to these questions would have been elusive. The state had a longstanding law banning same sex marriage. Leaders of both major political parties were strong, on-the-record opponents. Support in the public opinion polls was very low. The possibility of a successful court challenge seemed remote at best. Even most liberal activists were indifferent; having never really thought much about the issue or, if they had, maintaining a cynical pessimism. Even the flurry of activity around the country in recent years – from the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” to the emergence of full marriage equality in a handful of northern states — seemed not have an impact in North Carolina. By just about any measurement, the issue in North Carolina was, in a word, “dead.”

The turnaround

And then came 2011 and the fateful decision of North Carolina Republicans to advance an amendment to the state constitution.

You know what’s happened since that decision last fall to ram through a national hate group-approved proposal that’s among the most extreme in the country: a remarkable and inspiring change.

Forced to take sides and to really confront what it means to deny hundreds of thousands of their fellow citizens a core human right that the vast majority takes for granted, large numbers of North Carolinians underwent a remarkable transformation. In just a few months, millions of people who would have never given the idea of same sex marriage even a hint of sympathetic consideration – straight-laced middle-aged bankers and religiously conservative African-American pastors, self-absorbed college kids and church-going grandmothers, even Republican politicians and think tankers – looked in the mirror and really thought about what our state’s lack of marriage equality means and what it would mean to enshrine that discrimination in the constitution.

And then – perhaps even more remarkably – they did something else: they spoke up publicly. They put signs in their yards and on their cars. They self-identified as opponents of the amendment in letters to the editor and on Facebook. They gave money and talked openly about the issue to friends and family members.

And they voted. In an otherwise low-energy primary with no presidential contests at all, hundreds of thousands of people turned out to say “no” to discrimination. They turned out in all regions of the state. In the state’s largest urban counties where media coverage was most intense and accurate information the most plentiful, they voted “no” by sizable majorities.

Overcoming long odds

And to make all this that much more remarkable, it occurred in an environment in which the really big national money and political figures were AWOL. Sure, Bill Clinton recorded a robocall at the last minute and a lot of good people from around the country chimed in. But, make no mistake, the big money at the national level decided early on that the amendment would be impossible to stop and stayed away. By any fair and honest assessment, the “no” campaign was a true grassroots, shoestring operation.

And yet, despite these handicaps, the “against” vote was surprisingly large. Had just a couple hundred thousand people — a tiny fragment of the state’s adult population — seen the light and changed their minds, the amendment would have failed outright. If you think about it, it’s really quite remarkable.

Indeed, if the experts and Public Policy Polling are to be believed – and when it came to the actual vote, they were just about spot on – a large majority of North Carolinians oppose the actual substance of the amendment, but simply couldn’t connect the amendment to its actual impact. Many voters didn’t actually understand the amendment at all!

Add to this the blatant and shameless appeals to hate and intolerance propagated by so many pastors and priests – from the embarrassing and troubled mega-church zealots like Fayetteville’s Sean Harris to the backward-looking, top-down push from the state’s ultra-conservative Catholic hierarchy – and it’s really amazing that the “against” forces managed to do as well as they did.

Going forward

So what now? Where does the marriage equality camp go from here? Clearly, nowhere but up. In a state in which the movement lacked momentum and a rallying cry – some kind of a tangible and visible manifestation of hate and exclusion against which to fight and organize – we now have our target.

Eight months ago in this space, I worried about the damage that the amendment fight would do to our state and its public psyche. In particular, I worried about how it would divide us and force us to “choose sides.”

But I also wrote the following:

[R]egardless of the outcome of the vote, there can be no doubt that the months to come will speed up the process – already well underway – in which North Carolinians are coming, at long last, to accept and embrace the concept of LGBT equality. This time next year, we can rest assured that more people than ever before will accept LGBT North Carolinians as full and complete citizens. The trend on this matter is strong and irreversible and the impending campaign will abet it.

Today, it’s clear that the predictions about actually speeding progress were accurate. Rather than harming the public debate and turning it disastrously toxic, the amendment passed (if such a thing is possible) with a whimper. Even conservative Democrats who voted for the amendment last September spoke publicly against it in recent weeks. Many proponents ended up almost sheepish and embarrassed. Conservative corporate executives ran for cover. The top architect, House Speaker Thom Tillis, even called it a generational matter and predicted repeal in the foreseeable future.

So, here on May 9, 2012, the bottom line is this: There are plenty of reasons for caring and thoughtful people to be frustrated and depressed this morning. The near-term impact of the new law will be a lot of unnecessary confusion in our legal system and a lot more wrong-headed and mean-spirited pain and exclusion for a lot of human beings.

But the following is also true: Full marriage equality was never going to come to North Carolina until millions of people woke up to the truth and began to act on it. And when it comes to making such a process a reality, there’s been no single more effective force in state history than Amendment One.

Twenty years ago people picketed and pilloried Pullen Memorial Baptist Church in Raleigh for performing “holy union” ceremonies within its own walls that had no legal effect. Last night, voters in the county where Pullen is located voted against marriage discrimination for everyone by a large majority.

The proponents of the Amendment may have won the battle last night, but it will ultimately prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. Amendment opponents would, obviously, never have chosen this path, but now that it’s been thrust upon them, there’s no denying the following: 1) the day on which North Carolinians will no longer tolerate marriage discrimination is coming sooner rather than later, and 2) the last eight months have only served to expedite the process.

The broken heart file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

What North Carolina courts have to look forward to if Amendment One becomes law

For months now, prominent and well-respected lawyers and law professors of both political parties have been raising questions about the impact that Amendment One will have on the North Carolina courts and law enforcement systems.

You don’t have to be a legal expert or have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express to understand why. It comes down to four little words: “only domestic legal union.”

Amendment One says that “marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State….”

To the best of the knowledge of experts, this is not a phrase that we’ve ever had in North Carolina law before or one that our state courts have ever interpreted before. It only stands to reason, therefore, that it might just cause a little confusion and have some important consequences beyond just banning same sex marriage.

Here are just a couple of the potential problem areas:

Domestic violence protections

Many experts worry that the broad language of the amendment will wreak havoc in the state’s domestic violence protection laws. Here’s why: If the amendment becomes law, a lawyer representing a person accused of domestic violence could quite plausibly argue that the state’s Domestic Violence Protection Order law (G.S. 50B) is unconstitutional in that it offers the possibility of state protection (i.e. “recognition”) for unmarried and same sex couples.

Do you see the potential conflict? How can a state law confer protection on a person in an unmarried domestic relationship (opposite sex or same sex) if the state constitution says that traditional marriage is the “only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State”?

“Oh this is making a mountain out of a molehill” say the defenders of the Amendment, “this will never happen.” A group of pro-Amendment lawyers (including Senate President Pro Tem Phil Berger’s son and an obscure far right gubernatorial candidate who favors a “personhood amendment” to the Constitution) even convened a last minute press conference this week at the General Assembly to make this argument. One speaker even accused the lawyers and law professors raising the concern of “lying.”

But as reporters and observers noted, the position of the pro-Amendment lawyers essentially boiled down to this: “Trust us, this won’t happen.”

The problem, of course, is that such situation did arise in Ohio a few years back when that state adopted an even less assertive constitutional amendment. And while the Ohio Supreme Court ultimately did settle the matter by upholding domestic violence laws, it wasn’t until three years had passed and dozens of abusers had escaped sanction.

Would the same thing happen here? No one knows for sure. But to argue that none of the thousands of intelligent attorneys in North Carolina will ever make such an obvious argument on behalf of their clients and that none of the state’s hundreds of judges will ever find any merit in it is preposterous. To the contrary, it’s almost a sure thing that something like this will happen. An amendment of such breadth cries out for court interpretations.

And, of course, if people are bringing lawsuits and filing motions based on Amendment One, it won’t be a development that’s likely to lead to an expansion of individual or human rights. To the contrary, it will be because they (or some public official somewhere) think that Amendment One restricts the protections available to one or more groups of North Carolinians. In other words, the absolute best case scenario is that the Amendment will do only limited damage.

Domestic partner benefits

Another subject area in which we are certain to see all sorts of expensive and controversial litigation surrounding the amendment concerns the issue of domestic partner rights and benefits.

Right now, for instance, seven cities and towns in North Carolina (all subdivisions of the State, of course) allow their employees who are unmarried to sign up for domestic partnership benefits like family health insurance coverage. Five of the seven allow it for same-sex couples. This will almost certainly be unlawful if the amendment is approved.

Even if one can concoct an argument that the amendment would not prevent such arrangements, the notion that this will be resolved without lots of costly and confusing litigation is simply ridiculous.

Similar issues are certain to arise around matters like child custody and even hospital visitation rights. If “traditional” marriage is the “only domestic legal union” that can be recognized by the state of North Carolina, how long will it be before some disgruntled in-laws or other officious meddlers decide to bring suit against public (or publicly-funded) hospitals that permit same sex partners who want to visit their loved ones?

And as for family and child custody law? Good grief! All one can do is shake one’s head when contemplating the impact of the amendment on this already supercharged, super-heated area of law. To think that the Amendment won’t be dragged into this subject – an area that already overflows with controversy, vitriol and parties attempting to find any means at their disposal to gain the upper hand against their former partners – is simply laughable.

Indeed, a North Carolina family court judge told me in a private conversation last week that he is preparing himself for “a flood” of such cases.

The legislature’s lack of debate

Of course, it didn’t have to be this way. Even if supporters were bent on passing an amendment, they didn’t have to advance such an extreme version that raises so many questions. Unfortunately, rather than allowing a full and fair debate in the General Assembly that provided ample time for constitutional law experts to explore the complications and nuances of such a momentous change, they opted to ram the measure through without even allowing public testimony.

We are all now witness to the result. As the New York Times editorial page noted this past Sunday:

“In their zeal, lawmakers got careless with the wording of the measure, known as Amendment One. It would constitutionally prohibit recognition not just of same-sex marriages, but of other legal arrangements like civil unions and domestic partnerships. That could harm all unmarried couples, imperiling some children’s health insurance benefits, along with child custody arrangements and safeguards against domestic violence.”

Going forward

Will these concerns be enough to dissuade voters from approving the amendment? One might think so given the overwhelming unpopularity with voters of many of these likely results. Unfortunately, if polls are to be believed, many North Carolinians have yet to connect the dots – telling pollsters that they support the amendment even as they oppose what it would do.

The bottom line at this point appears to be this: On the question of same sex marriage, North Carolinians are either in for a tumultuous week of political change or several more years of it.

Why the right keeps talking about anything other than the real issues

One of the basic and usually accurate rules of modern Americans politics is that when a candidate starts talking like a pundit or an analyst (i.e. he or she starts talking like an insider rather than a real person – think Newt Gingrich or John Kerry on their bad days) he or she is blowing it.

As soon as you hear a candidate start saying things like “I believe we’re well-positioned to compete for the 18-49 demographic in this particular market” or waxing poetic about the some obscure congressional procedure, you know that either: a) they’ve been a political insider way too long and/or b) they have nothing substantive (or at least very little) to say.

A parallel rule that one can apply to both politicians and political activists and groups goes something like this: When the only subjects that they can talk about are obscure scandals and/or obscure causes designed to appeal to people’s baser instincts, you know they’ve run out of things to say (or feel they’re losing the debate) on the core issues.

N.C. conservatives: Hitting the low road

To see this latter rule played out in the real world, you need look no further than the recent spasm of scandal sheet quality content produced by conservative politicians, “think tanks,” activists and bloggers in North Carolina. At a point in time in which our state is grappling with the some of the most fundamental matters of governance – how to put hundreds of thousands of people back to work; how to preserve our fragile and threadbare systems of K-12 and higher education; how to provide health coverage to 1.6 million people – what is one of their top current obsessions? Why, a case of alleged sexual harassment by an unelected Democratic Party employee, of course.

To read the gleeful flurry of tweets, blog posts and news story comments in recent days about the unfortunate story surrounding outgoing Democratic Party chairman David Parker and his attempt to explain the complex details of a troubling personnel matter in a press conference, you’d think some kind of major statewide policy disaster had taken place.

Needless to say, the level of the comments and attacks were rarely above gutter level.

Here’s a typical “tweet” from recent days; it was authored 2010 Republican nominee for the state House of Representatives and prolific online commentator, Steve Henion of Raleigh after Parker’s press conference:

“Steve Henion?@henionforhouse of course NCDNC head won’t resign, gay sexual harassment is SOP http://bit.ly/I4S08N #ncgop #consnc #ncga it’s only wrong for normal dudes.”

Got that? According to Mr. Henion, “gay, sexual harassment is SOP” for Democrats. “SOP” is a common online acronym for “standard operating procedure.” Heterosexual men, according to Henion, are “normal dudes.”

Meanwhile, the Pope-Civitas Institute plumbed the depths by sourcing one of its stories with links to the National Enquirer of the far right, a truly embarrassing website called The Daily Caller.

The state Republican Party even went to the trouble of cobbling together a video that attempted to somehow link President Obama to the issue!

But, the Democratic Party’s personnel problem wasn’t the only irrelevant or downright absurd side issue that conservatives have been trying to shove into the spotlight in recent days. As Chris Fitzsimon noted last Friday, right-wingers seem once again to be bent on trying to question President Obama’s citizenship.

In the Eighth Congressional District, Republican candidate Richard Hudson – a former aide to state Republican Party chief Robin Hayes — has been quoted in a national publication as saying the following:

“I think there’s (sic) a lot of people that think that he’s not a citizen. I don’t know.”

Meanwhile, as Chris also reports, two other prominent “birthers” will be featured at Republican events in coming weeks. The keynote speaker at the Union County Republican Party Lincoln-Reagan Day Dinner is the infamous Obama-hater, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The keynote speaker at the North Carolina Republican Party convention in June will be another member of the birther camp, Donald Trump.

In volume, the birther nonsense may only be matched by the endless drumbeat of irrational and paranoid claims from the pro-gun groups – a movement that stands all powerful and completely victorious on the American political scene and yet still feels compelled to act and speak as if the country were moments away from a complete totalitarian takeover.

Still, despite this utter detachment from reality, it’s almost impossible to visit the conservative blogosphere on a normal workday of late without seeing multiple conservative office seekers trying to outdo their competitors in professing abject obsequiousness to the pro-gun crowd. Whether it’s “machine gun social” fundraisers or passionate diatribes about the critical need to arm restaurant patrons, there appears to be no weapon or means of arming humans that conservative politicians will not urgently champion.

So why the change of subject?

Even a moment’s reflection makes it clear why North Carolina conservatives would attempt to divert the public’s attention toward these ridiculous “issues”; they recognize that they’re losing the public on the real issues that define state government – issues like education, transportation, the environment, and consumer protection. On these issues, the record of the current General Assembly (which mostly amounts to slashing funding for core services) is so abysmal that conservatives recognize they must change the subject or soften their image.

This latter phenomenon (image softening) has been rather amusing to watch as well. After several months of unapologetic, full-steam-ahead, hardball politics – a strategy that reached its apogee in the January midnight madness session and the February decision to remove demonstrators from the second floor of the Legislative Building – conservative leaders have, all of a sudden, gone all warm and fuzzy.

After making repeated statements that anything was fair game at any time the legislature was in session, House Speaker Thom Tillis didn’t even bother to come to Raleigh this week for a special session that he called. Meanwhile, Tillis’ Senate cohort President Pro Tem Phil Berger felt compelled to release a slick “education reform” package that purported to show that he really does believe in public schools (and even new programs!) along with a lengthy personal video biography in which talk of ruthless budget-cuts and service reductions is nowhere to be found.

Going forward

So, will it work? Will conservative politicians and activists be able to distract the public from the central issues and the damage inflicted over the past 16 months in North Carolina? It’s certainly possible. Public attention spans are short. Witness the long line of notables seeking to climb aboard the Mitt Romney bandwagon of late who were demonizing the man as an Obama clone just weeks ago.

Let’s hope, however, that the scheme ultimately fails. Because try as they might to change the subject with a combination of red meat appeals to the fringe and image-polishing efforts for Raleigh insiders, the record of North Carolina conservative politicians is clear: they mean to dismantle a wide array of public structures and systems that have helped make North Carolina the great state it is and have no intention of halting such efforts anytime soon

New study on kids confirms link between tax revenues and child wellbeing

There is a bit of popular mythology in the modern American political spin world – especially in conservative circles – that it’s somehow a mistake to preserve or increase public spending on important public programs and structures in order to get better results. According to this oft-repeated, through-the-looking-glass talking point, all government services (with the exception, naturally, of things like immigration control, prisons and weapons systems) are bloated with waste and, therefore, any increased funding amounts to throwing money down a rat hole.

Here in North Carolina, this particular talking point has been the chief defense for the huge budget cuts that conservatives have heaped upon pre-K, K-12 and higher education in the past year. “If school personnel just work harder and more efficiently,” goes the conservative mantra, “they’ll be able to do more with less.”

Meanwhile back in the real world…

The ironic thing about this talking point, of course, is that not even conservatives really seem to believe it. At the same time that they’re repeating it out of one side of their mouths, they’re bragging about having increased spending on “state-funded teachers” out of the other.

And while this latter point is deceptive and designed to hide the overall cuts they have inflicted on schools, it does acknowledge the obvious rule understood by any citizen with a modicum of common sense: Imperfect as it sometimes is, when government allocates more resources to address a need, it generally gets more done than when it allocates fewer resources.

A recent N.C. Policy Watch poll confirmed a widespread understanding of this obvious truth amongst the North Carolina electorate. When asked: “Do you think your local public schools should receive more funding, less funding or about the amount they have right now?” 65% said “more,” 21% said “about the same” and only 13% said “less.” Similarly:

• 67% said teachers were not paid enough while only 9% said they were paid too much,
• 80% said keeping class sizes small is important while 16% said it is not, and
• 64% said it is a bad thing that North Carolina schools have fewer teachers, teacher assistants and other professionals, while only 23% said it was a good thing.

In other words, it’s pretty simple and straightforward: Common sense tells us that it makes sense to spend more money on critical public structures like education and politicians and voters of all stripes agree.

Research-based confirmation

But don’t just take the opinions of politicians and voters or common sense as proof of this proposition; consider the hard evidence. A new report released this week by the respected nonpartisan research and advocacy group, Action for Children contains just such evidence.

The report is entitled “Public Investments Matter for Child Well-Being: Smart State Policy Can Change Lives” and it is based in large measure on a venerable national metric known as the Child Well-Being Index (CWI) that researchers have now applied on a state-by-state basis across the country. Here are some of the key findings:

“Broad demographic and economic fac­tors play strong roles in child well-being, but they cannot be altered quickly by state and local governmental action. A third factor—state policy—has also been shown to play an important role. Since state policies can be altered relatively quickly through legislative action, they are the focus of this report….

The public policy in each state that most strongly correlates with high child well-being is the state and local tax rates and related revenues (r = +0.50).

[S]tates with higher tax rates and revenues have higher child well-being scores than states with lower tax rates and revenues….

After studying key measures of child well-being such as child mortality, elemen­tary school test scores and adolescent behavioral outcomes, the State CWI re­searchers concluded that, ‘States that spend more on children have better out­comes, even after taking into account potential confounding influences.’ Re­searchers found that states with higher tax rates and revenues:

• Invest more money in public pre-kindergarten and full-day kindergarten, which gives at-risk children more time to ready them­selves for elementary school.
• Invest more per pupil in elemen­tary and secondary schools, sup­porting higher pay for teachers and improving access to state-of-the-art instructional resources.
• Have less restrictive eligibility rules for participation in Medicaid, allowing more children to enroll.
• Pay higher TANF benefits, increas­ing the economic resources avail­able to families.”

When it comes to applying these data to North Carolina, the report minces no words:

“In North Carolina, state investments that improve child well-being are on the decline.

Divestments can be grouped into three major categories:

Cuts to K-12 and higher educa­tion, including community colleg­es and the university system ($858 million in FY 2011-12 and $861 million in FY 2012-13)

Cuts to non-education state spending, including Health and Human Services, Medical Assis­tance, Public Safety, Natural & Economic Resources and General Government ($684 million in FY 2011-12 and $903 million in FY 2012-13)

Foregone federal matching funds for Medicaid and CHIP due to an insufficient state share of contributions to these programs ($440 million in FY 2011-12 and $833 million in FY 2012-13). Cuts to the Division of Medical Assis­tance (Medicaid) of around $300 million and the subsequent loss of over $500 million in matching federal dollars are devastating. Most Medicaid enrollees are chil­dren.”

You get what you pay for

In other words, despite mounds of evidence that the state would be better served by preserving and expanding its investments in essential public structures for kids, North Carolina legislators are pursuing a shortsighted and potentially disastrous path based on cutting them instead.

Moreover, this is not a path that was forced upon them. After all, the budget cuts inflicted by the General Assembly were, in large part, the result of intentional decisions to cut taxes and to take state and local government spending (as a percentage of total state income) back to levels not seen since the early 1970’s. Even had taxes simply been left alone, large proportions of the cuts described above could have been avoided at the same time that overall government spending would still have remained at historically low levels.

The bottom line on all of this is pretty simple and not a matter of rocket science: As in most other areas of life, you get what you pay for and right now North Carolina is paying for a lot less when it comes to children. We will almost certainly come to regret this decision very soon.

Public transit plan is a key to the Triangle’s future prosperity and wellbeing

Last week in this space, we explored the implications of a recent national study that assessed and ranked the health and wellbeing of every county in the country. As the piece noted, there’s no particular mystery as to why some parts of North Carolina are faring much better than others:

“Public education works; so do public health programs, public roads, environmental protection laws, consumer protection and safety rules and dozens of other public structures and systems. Despite all of their many human imperfections, these structures and systems are the linchpins of a free, middle class society and among modern America’s greatest accomplishments. Together, they make the market economy work and provide civilized society with the tools and rules to intentionally and directly address human suffering and shortcomings (and build and spread wealth) on a large scale.

Obviously, there are scores of variables and limitations. But generally, when we pull together, invest more and pay more attention, we get better results. When we fend only for ourselves, invest less and neglect we get poorer results.”

Put simply, we know what to do; while we can’t simply ordain the development of healthy and wealthy communities, we can build the framework upon which such communities will grow. By planning and intentionally constructing and nurturing a vibrant public infrastructure, we can construct the skeleton around which a healthy economy and thriving communities will develop.

The importance of public transit

With the exception of public schools, for urban and soon-to-be-urban communities, there’s likely no more important component of such an infrastructure than public transit. Public transit helps control destructive sprawl, expands the pool of available workers and highway space for business, helps keep air and water pollution in check, preserves open space, promotes social, economic and racial integration, attracts a class of younger urban professionals and entrepreneurs, enhances civic and regional pride and just generally conveys a message to the world of a forward-looking, “can-do” community.

Right now, of course, the flashpoint in the debate over public transit is in the Triangle region. It is here – in the fast-expanding home to North Carolina’s capital city and county – that advocates are pushing for a comprehensive and forward-looking plan. It is also, of course, the place where backward-looking naysayers and conspiracy theorists are doing everything within their power to block such progress.

Fortunately, the proponents of progress and planning seem to have momentum and facts on their side. Last fall, voters in Durham approved transit funding referendum (that would implement a half-cent sales tax) by a wide margin. Now, efforts are underway to give Wake and Orange County residents the same opportunity to vote.

Here are some of the compelling arguments that the pro-referendum forces are advancing in favor of the effort:

Transit is critical for planning for future growth.

• The population of Wake County alone is projected to reach 1.5 million by 2030. Every town in the region is sure to be affected.
• In fact, the Raleigh Metro region is likely to be fastest growing area in the entire nation over the next decade.
• As it is currently conceived, the proposed transit plan is designed to accommodate this growth while still preserving the character of the area’s smaller towns and rural communities.
• Bottom line: Transit is one of the best ways to assure the Triangle doesn’t become another, out-of-control, soulless place like Houston or Atlanta.

Transit brings jobs and economic development – As noted above, this one is pretty obvious.

• Not only will is a multi-modal transit system (i.e. light rail and expanded bus service) attract businesses bringing new and modern jobs,
• It will also create lots of jobs in the near term to build and maintain the new transit systems.  

Transit investments save lots of money in the long run for individuals and communities.

• The cost of owning, maintaining and driving a car is already as high as $8,000 to 9,000 per year and heading upward.
• With the recovering world economy and political uncertainty in the Middle East, petroleum prices are on the rise again. Gasoline is now well into the $4 per gallon range.
• The new businesses attracted to the Triangle will expand the tax base – especially in the urban centers. This will, in turn, generate additional revenue for infrastructure.

Transit provides choice, dignity and mobility for our aging and disabled populations – this is a much under-appreciated benefit.

• Our population is graying at an increasing rate. Thirty percent of Triangle region residents are already 45 years or older.
• From 2000-2007, the Raleigh-Cary metro area experienced a 31.6% growth rate of persons aged 55-64, one of the highest rates of any metro area in the country.
• Nationally, seniors have doubled their use of transit where rail exists.
• Right now, persons with physical disabilities struggle mightily in the automobile-addicted Triangle region.

Transit ridership will also increase with the ongoing influx of young professionals and Hispanics

• You don’t have to be a planning expert to look around and see that the so-called “Millennial Generation” is attracted to working and living in urban areas with transit. This is obviously a growing trend.
• Given its critically important role as a source of innovation and new job growth, Triangle communities would be foolish not to respond to this group’s evolving lifestyle by providing real transit options.
• The area’s Hispanic population has doubled in past 10 years and will continue to do so. Studies confirm that this demographic group uses and supports transit.

Transit protects the environment and public health - this seems like another “no brainer,” but it’s worth reiterating the following:

• Reducing the number of cars on the road produces better air quality which, in turn, means less asthma and other health problems in children, seniors and other vulnerable populations.
• Reducing the demand for more and more pavement to handle automobiles means less road runoff which, in turn, protects our watershed and agriculture from pollution.
• Charlotte transit riders have actually lost weight because they walk more!

The current plan is a good one; it was developed from years of research, analysis of alternatives and input from local officials and the public at-large

• The “enhanced transit” proposal on the table would, for instance, provide service to every town in Wake County.
• It would improve service to riders who need transit and attract riders with the freedom to choose.
• It would double the number of bus hours in Wake County.
• Adding commuter rail connects the region, thus enabling Triangle residents to have a broader market for jobs.
• The financial plan is extremely conservative. The cost to average resident will be on the order of about $3.50 per month in increased sales tax payments.

Going forward

Are the plans perfect? Probably not. Like any such efforts, they include compromises and nods to political and physical realities. But it’s also a sure thing that nothing better is coming along anytime soon. And given the nature of transit, the time it takes to get a system fully up and running and the explosive growth overtaking the Triangle, it’s clear that there’s no time to waste.

Let’s hope the powers that be in Wake and Orange Counties follow the lead of their peers in Durham to place a referendum on the ballot so that voters can have their say as soon as possible.

For more information be sure to explore the website of the group Capital Area Friend of Transit.

New report on county health outcomes gets to the heart of the ideological debate

At the most basic level, it’s beyond debate that one’s location can have an enormous impact on one’s health and wellbeing. If you have any doubts about this, ask the people who live near the Fukushima disaster, in the Gaza Strip or in Port au Prince, Haiti.

Human intellect, drive and initiative can make a huge difference for people in just about any place or set of circumstances, but at some point, reality sets in; if you live in an impoverished or unhealthy place, it just stands to reason that your odds of leading a safe, healthy, high-quality life are a lot longer than if you’re comfortably ensconced in Greenwich, Connecticut, the Kensington section of London or even any number of pleasant neighborhoods in Wake County, North Carolina. Again, you may be able to overcome those odds – people do it occasionally – but you may win the lottery too.

New report on North Carolina counties

Looking for even more concrete evidence? Then check out this new report released this week by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) and the University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute that includes data on every county in the United States.

Here, not surprisingly, is what they found:

“The County Health Rankings show us that much of what influences our health happens outside of the doctor’s office. In fact, where we live, learn, work and play has a big role in determining how healthy we are and how long we live,” said Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., M.B.A., president and CEO of RWJF.

Here are some equally unsurprising details on the findings in North Carolina as reported by Tom Breen of AP:

“The North Carolina counties where people are healthiest tend to be urban and affluent, while poor, rural counties struggle the most with bad health, according to a study released Tuesday.

Wake, Orange, Union, Mecklenburg and Dare counties lead the state in measurements of health outcomes, which include factors like how long people live and their quality of life…. Ranking last in health outcomes is Columbus County, followed by Robeson, Halifax, Bladen and Edgecombe counties. All five are designated “Tier 1″ counties by the state Department of Commerce, meaning they are among the counties with the highest levels of economic distress in North Carolina. Four of the five healthiest counties are “Tier 3,” meaning they are among the least economically troubled, with Dare being designated a “Tier 2″ county.”

The debate over causes and effects

So, armed with these facts, what do we do? While to most caring and thoughtful people the answer may seem obvious (i.e. “Do something!!”), for many, amazingly enough, it is not.

For some ideologues on the political right these sobering county-by-county statistics are indicative of little more than that the inhabitants of the troubled areas are making poor choices. Check out, for instance, the following comments that accompany the story on WRAL.com:

“I see a lot of poor people smoking and eating junk food for dinner. There is nothing news worthy here. Just more class warfare.”

“I thought people in rural areas could grow food, especially if they are unemployed…buy some seeds like we did when I was a kid.”

“What a crock. The government gives them everything they need. They have welfare with which to buy food, it’s their own fault if they don’t buy healthy foods. They have access to healthcare, it’s their own fault if they don’t utilize it. The media loves to portray the poor as victims of society when, in fact, most are in the lower income bracket because of personal choices.”

“because the poor lazy people prefer to buy mcdonalds and fast food for meals than to spend an hour in the kitchen cooking. Has nothing to do with money and everything to do with values.”

Got that? According to these bitter and troubled people, the problems in North Carolina’s poorer counties and presumably, any number of other struggling places in the world, are simply a matter of bad decisions by shiftless people who know (or ought to know) better!

Cruel and extreme as this may seem, the above comments are not all that remarkable or surprising. Though usually somewhat more polished, such absurd statements are, in fact, the daily stock in trade of the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks of the world as well as the inhabitants of the conservative “think tanks” like the John Locke Foundation and the Pope Civitas Institute.

Their message to the people of places like Columbus and Robeson Counties is this:

“Move somewhere else. Either that or work harder to pull yourselves up by your own bootstraps. Public systems and structures can do you no good. What your community needs to do is to sell off its schools, roads and public health departments to private corporations and get rid of business regulations.”

Meanwhile, back in the real world…

In any sane debate, of course, North Carolinians would have long ago moved well past the bizarre claims of extremists pushing survival-of-the-fittest market fundamentalism. Unfortunately, 2012 is frequently not a year of sane debates. Despite several decades (centuries, really) of compelling evidence that intentional public solutions can and often do make life dramatically better for communities and nations, sometimes a reminder is in order.

So here goes:

Public education works; so do public health programs, public roads, environmental protection laws, consumer protection and safety rules and dozens of other public structures and systems. Despite all of their many human imperfections, these structures and systems are the lynchpins of a free, middle class society and among modern America’s greatest accomplishments. Together, they make the market economy work and provide civilized society with the tools and rules to intentionally and directly address human suffering and shortcomings (and build and spread wealth) on a large scale.

Obviously, there are scores of variables and limitations. But generally, when we pull together, invest more and pay more attention, we get better results. When we fend only for ourselves, invest less and neglect we get poorer results. The proof can be seen wherever one turns. Can it really be seriously suggested that the problems of the Third World or of the impoverished communities of the North Carolina will be better served with more official neglect and fewer of the public structures and systems that bind us together?

Apparently, it can be seriously suggested – see the comments above and the numerous websites of the Pope Empire. Happily, though, this doesn’t mean caring and thinking people have to take such suggestions seriously.

As the release accompanying yesterday’s report noted:

“The good news is that businesses, health care providers, government, consumers and community leaders are already joining forces in communities across the nation to change some of the gaps that the Rankings highlight.”

This brief story on American Public Media’s Marketplace radio show provides even more confirmation.

In other words, Americans know in general what to do about the poor counties with terrible health outcomes. All that’s needed is the data to pinpoint the problems and the political will to act. The new report provides the former. Let’s hope we can overcome the roadblocks thrown up by our confused friends on the far right to muster the latter.

Hint: The answer may surprise you

Here is a typical reaction that a lot of people voice when the folks here at NC Policy Watch continue to report on and produce negative commentaries about the North Carolina “Education” Lottery: “Come on guys, give it up! That’s one genie that’s not going back in the bottle – time to move on to other battles.”

Many Democrats, in particular, who share a general philosophical connection with NC Policy Watch, find it particularly vexing that we seem to spend so much time beating up on an entity so closely associated with the last two Democratic Governors.

It’s an understandable reaction. It’s been seven years now since the lottery was passed into law. Most North Carolinians are used to it at this point. A lot of good and well-meaning people support it. Some are even employed by it. And, of course, it brings in a lot of money to public coffers to support important causes. During this time of profound budget crisis, how could anyone – especially folks who believe so strongly in public solutions to public problems – seriously suggest doing away with it?

To get a feel for the answer to this last question, readers would do well to review the video of the latest Policy Watch Crucial Conversation luncheon that took place this week in Raleigh – we will have it up on our website shortly. In it, you’ll get to watch the presentations of two very smart and thoughtful experts on the subject of the lottery and state-sponsored gambling generally: Les Bernal of the Stop Predatory Gambling Foundation and Prof. Charles Clotfelter of Duke University.

Undermining public faith in government

For those who lack the time to review the entire luncheon at this time, however, here is the thumbnail version of what the two men conveyed to an attentive and engaged audience:

There are many reasons to be gravely concerned about the lottery and state-sponsored gambling – the human carnage, the corrupting influence of giant predatory corporations, the regressive nature of the tax involved, the way in which lottery revenues have supplanted rather than supplemented other, fairer tax revenues – but ultimately, it really boils down to one critically important and overarching issue: The lottery is slowly but surely altering the relationship between government and the citizenry.

Think about this for a moment: What is the the single most visible and regular way in which North Carolina government communicates with the citizenry it exists to serve? The lottery, of course.

The commercials are literally everywhere – on TV, radio, computer screens, cell phones, Twitter, Facebook, and even live, big-time sporting events at which gambling is ordinarily avoided like The Plague. No other public institution even comes close to communicating with North Carolinians on such a frequent basis.

Now, think for a moment about the essence of that message: Is it a positive and healthy message? The kind of message that would be delivered by an institution that works for its intended recipients?

Of course not. It’s a slick, cynical, adversarial message. “Get rich quick!” “Come and spend your money on a one-in-a-million chance!” “Play today! Play every day!”

In short, it’s the kind of message that turns government’s traditional role on its head. Rather than acting as the source of democratic, intentional public solutions, government is transformed into an exploitative, PT Barnum-like huckster – selling “fun” and “entertainment” while shaking down suckers for every last dime.

“Ah,” but lottery defenders (and even some agnostics) say, “surely, that’s an exaggeration.”

Sadly, it’s not. Sure, in-the-know people who think about government regularly– Raleigh insiders – know that government is much more than sleazy TV ads. But for average North Carolinians outside the Raleigh beltline, this is frequently not the case. Especially for young people raised on the ads, the lottery IS state government.

Perhaps this is why, as Bernal noted at yesterday’s luncheon, more than one-in-five Americans view the lottery as the best available route to riches in the American economy. Educated and informed people can pooh-pooh such polling results as aberrations or flukes, but even a casual look in many of our state’s poorer communities tells us that this result is all too accurate.

As N.C. Policy Watch reporter Sarah Ovaska has reported periodically in recent months, lottery play in low-income North Carolina communities can be downright shocking. Not only do poor counties have higher rates of per capita lottery spending, many are also home to grievously addicted individuals. Especially with the growing availability of “scratch off” tickets priced as high as $20 a piece, thousands of individuals are spending thousands of dollars per year on the lottery. This helps explain another of Bernal’s remarkable statistics – namely that, as a general rule, 80% of lottery revenues come from 20% of the players.

The existence of such sobering facts and statistics can’t help but lead to and help cement the following hard fact: Popular as the lottery might be, it is slowly but surely transforming how citizens view their government. Government is no longer seen as a trusted and respected friend and watchdog for the common good; it is an adversary like any other giant corporation that must be bargained with and dealt with warily.

Implications of this change

So, assuming it’s really underway (and the evidence is pretty darned compelling) what does this gradual, lottery-abetted shift in the relationship between government and citizens portend?

In modern politics the implications are there for all to see. One need only look at both the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements. On both left and right, Americans have become disillusioned with their government. Though often doing so from widely differing perspectives, they increasingly see the government as a “them” rather than and “us” – a rigged game that favors the wealthy and the connected.

For the market fundamentalist, anti-government right, this is, of course, a welcome phenomenon. “See we told you so,” they say. “Government can never be trusted. That’s why we need to do away with public education and sell off our public institutions. Better to turn everything over to the dog-eat-dog competition of the market than pretend we can do better.”

For progressives, however, this is an especially worrisome development. As a movement based in large measure on the central idea that the combination of intentional public solutions and shared sacrifice are the best hope for the health and survival of our democracy, a poisoned relationship between government and the people is terrible news.

Put bluntly, how do you go about convincing people to support public education, health care, transit and environmental protection when the most visible arm of government we have is trying to rip them off?

So, what to do?

Turning back the tide on the lottery – or even just slowing down the state’s headlong expansion into the widespread legalization of machine and casino gambling – will not be easy. Highly sophisticated, multi-billion dollar corporations stand perched at the trough with fleets of lobbyists and barrels full of campaign cash.

But slowly and steadily, more and more people on both sides of the political spectrum are standing up and starting to push back. As the speakers at yesterday’s luncheon made clear, it will not be an easy contest and will likely take decades, but it can be won.

And, notwithstanding the lottery experiment, North Carolina has done a better job than most states of keeping the predatory gambling interests at bay. The tools and talents are there to retake the initiative in this contest.

Especially, if you believe in the critical importance of public solutions to public problems in safeguarding our democracy and middle class society, you owe it to yourself and your children to join the effort.

Next week’s gambling luncheon is about an unholy alliance between corporations and government

Gambling can be an awkward subject for progressives. As with the subject of frequently safe drugs like alcohol and marijuana and even unhealthy foods, there is ample reason for caring and thoughtful people to take what might be described as a libertarian approach toward it. As “March Madness” and the millions of NCAA basketball brackets completed throughout the country in recent days make patently clear, it’s entirely possible for gambling to take place as a type of fun and essentially harmless entertainment.

Perhaps it’s for this reason that many progressives are slow to get too worked up about gambling. Millions of us have participated in sports pools, played poker with friends and have probably even visited casinos on occasion. Like social drinkers and fast food users who can usually control their use of potentially harmful products, we see that we can partake without disastrous results and figure most other people can do likewise.

But what if you couldn’t? What if for a variety of reasons –social, situational and maybe even genetic– gambling was a real problem for you or a loved one? What if access to gambling had caused horrific damage to your family or that of a close friend? What then? How would you feel about its legality and availability?

More to the point, how would you feel if you knew that large, multinational corporations ran gambling in such a way so as to target the most vulnerable people and extract every last dime from them that they could? And, perhaps even more importantly, how would you feel if you knew that your government was a full partner in the enterprise – even the most direct and pernicious forms of exploitation?

Pulling back the curtains

These last two questions in particular highlight some key reasons that North Carolinians need to have more conversations about gambling. While the lottery is obviously in effect and likely here to stay for the foreseeable future, there are dozens of other issues related to gambling that demand our attention. Here are just a few:

• What’s the deal with video poker? Are we going to permit it or not? Is there really some kind of legitimate constitutional argument that prohibits the state from banning or regulating it?
• What about the lottery? Are we happy with it? Should the people charged with overseeing it be pushing hard for further expansions, new games, glitzier prizes etc…? Does North Carolina want to go down the road followed by some states of introducing an addictive game like keno into the lottery mix?
• And what about casinos? Do we want them? What has been the impact in the growing number of states to welcome them? What is the nature of North Carolina’s relationship with and authority vis a vis the Indian tribes like the Cherokees?

Next week on March 27 at noon in downtown Raleigh, NC Policy Watch will explore these questions and others with a pair of knowledgeable observers (and skeptics) of our nation’s growing infatuation with gambling: Les Bernal of the Stop Predatory Gambling Foundation and Prof. Charles Clotfelter of Duke University. The occasion is a Crucial Conversation luncheon to which all members of the public are cordially invited. Click here for more details.

Sources of skepticism

There are, of course, many reasons that people voice skepticism about gambling in modern America. For many here in the Bible Belt, it’s simply a matter of morality. These opponents see gambling as a sin – case closed.

For most people, however, the questions are grayer and more complex. And without presuming to speak for Bernal and Clotfelter (or even forecast what they will say), two potentially troubling matters of this kind in particular would seem to demand out attention and exploration – namely, the ones alluded to above: the role of corporations and the role of government.

Strangely, it seems that matter #1 – the role of corporations – seldom occurs to average citizens. Perhaps it’s the glamorous treatment afforded gambling in various mob movies, books and TV shows through the years or maybe it’s just the skillful way in which the “gaming” industry melds its products so seamlessly into the worlds of entertainment, sports and tourism, but whatever it is, one seldom, if ever, thinks of the need for consumer advocacy when it comes to gambling.

Why is this? Consumer advocates confront large corporations – banks, utilities, computer companies, and of course alcohol and tobacco – all the time. And average consumers take it as a given that such industries must be policed to guard against abuse and exploitation.

But when it comes to gambling – an industry dominated by huge (and hugely profitable) corporations – it’s as if Americans turn into sheep. Maybe it’s the mystery of the whole enterprise or just a cynical sense that one has to be foolish to expect any fair treatment by such an industry, but whatever it is, the absence of public outrage or even much scrutiny is startling – especially when the human carnage of those destroyed by gambling is so ubiquitous.

And matter # 2 – government’s involvement – that’s the real $64 gazillion issue. In modern America, one can’t talk about gambling and its ongoing explosive growth without discussing government. Not only is government necessary to make gambling legal, in almost all cases where it has taken such action, government has done so as a partner of the industry. Whether it’s running a state lottery, integrating casino gambling into a state’s tourism pitches or just making gambling a bigger and bigger source of tax revenue, many state governments are virtual adjuncts of the gambling industry.

Bernal’s group even highlighted a study by Bloomberg News last week that rated all of the nation’s state lotteries on a “sucker index” – i.e. how egregiously the lotteries were taking advantage of the state’s citizenry.

Think about how this differs from other potentially harmful industries – high cost loans, tobacco, drugs, alcohol and even food – in which government frequently plays the role of consumer watchdog rather than promoter. Now think about how different gambling might look if government treated it as an adult product that needs stiff regulation to minimize abuse and exploitation rather than as a partner upon whom it was increasingly integrated and dependent.

Going forward

So what should North Carolina do about gambling? Assuming prohibition is an unrealistic and undesirable outcome, it’s clear that there are dozens of important questions with which the state must wrestle in the months and years to come if it’s going to respect individual freedom and prevent corporate and government-sponsored exploitation.

Please join us next week as we seek to help jumpstart the examination process.