News
Surprise GOP campaign finance bill proposal sparks Democratic senators strike • NC Newsline
This story has been updated.
In a surprising move that caught most Legislative Building observers off guard, Republican lawmakers on Thursday unveiled legislation that would make significant changes to state campaign finance law. The sudden change caused all 20 Senate Democrats to walk out of the chamber in protest as the bill was quickly brought to a vote. It was approved 28-0 by Republicans who remained on the Senate floor. The Chamber is expected to approve the measure next week.
The proposed changes to the law, which were attached to the a conference committee report about a controversial and hotly debated bill dealing with the punishment of illegal protests and the wearing of masks (see box below), would make it easier for big-dollar donors to funnel large sums of money in relative anonymity to support North Carolina political candidates.
Republicans said the proposal was only designed to “level the playing field” with Democrats in response to a 2020 advisory opinion from the State Board of Elections which they said benefited the Democratic Governors Association, but Democratic legislators and good government groups criticized both the substance of the proposal and the process used to present it.
Complex but important changes
According to veteran campaign finance watcher Bob Hall, former longtime executive director of the group Democracy North Carolina, the changes are complex but their impact will likely be significant.
Hall told NC Newsline that the proposed changes would provide wealthy individuals with new ways to donate tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of dollars to support a North Carolina candidate without their name being identified on the donation. The change would allow them to contribute to a national “527 committee” like the Republican Governors Association or the Democratic Governors Association, which could then donate the money on their behalf to a party committee or “affiliated party committee” controlled by a state candidate without revealing his true source.
Hall said the change will encourage politicians from both parties to create more front groups that launder large donations to a committee controlled by the politician. Meanwhile, Hall noted, the true source of the money will be buried in hundreds of pages of a PDF report and will not be filed with the North Carolina State Board of Elections until “weeks and weeks after the fact.”
The legislation contains additional changes that will limit disclosure requirements and make it more difficult for the State Board of Elections to review questionable contributions by repealing a provision of current law that requires federal committees to designate a “state resident assistant or deputy treasurer.” [who] shall be authorized to produce any records reflecting political activity in North Carolina that the State Board of Elections deems necessary.
Critics like Melissa Price Kromm of the advocacy group North Carolina For the People were quick to note what they saw as the irony in the proposal attached to a bill dealing with masks, given that as Kromm put it in X“the changes place a bigger MASK on the flow of money into North Carolina politics.”
Hall also described Berger’s claim about leveling the playing field as “flat wrong.” Hall said “the advisory opinion from the State Board of Elections reiterated previous guidance from a Republican-controlled board. Blocks, rather than authorizes, a new way for federal committees to donate money to a candidate or state party committee. Berger is blowing smoke to further confuse what is happening.”
Democratic strike
Following his departure from the Senate chamber, Democratic senators gathered in front of the Legislative Building to address the media and criticized the legislation as an effort to help funnel campaign contributions to the Republican Party’s gubernatorial candidate, Mark Robinson.
Senate Democratic leader Jay Chaudhuri of Wake County said the way the legislation came about — it was revealed Thursday morning, never heard in committee and as part of a conference committee report, could not be changed – was indicative of its failures. He called it “a last-minute change.”
“Senate Democrats walked out today because this election bill literally allows convicted felons and millionaires to buy our next elections,” he said. “We leave today because it is essential that we illuminate a hasty process in the darkness of night that will undermine our democratic process.”
“It is no coincidence,” Chaudhuri said, “that such a rule change was approved just two days after ads about Mark Robinson’s extreme stance on abortion began airing.”
When asked about Berger’s claim that the changes only correct an imbalance in the current law, Chaudhuri again pointed to the lack of process and discussion.
“I mean, the process was rushed. We did not have the opportunity to read this advisory opinion. And certainly, our understanding is that this allows for more undue influence from millionaires and convicted felons to give money to their candidates.”
Sen. Michael Garrett of Guilford County agreed with Chaudhuri’s assessment.
“I think the process says a lot,” he said. “If we are really trying to strengthen and strengthen campaign finance and increase transparency here in the General Assembly, we have a process that bills follow.”
Although the Senate did not allow the proposal to be publicly reviewed by a committee, the House forwarded the conference report to the House Rules Committee, where it is expected to be reviewed early next week.
In a statement, House Democratic leader Robert Reives made clear that his members would oppose the change.
“This new campaign finance legislation has never been seen before, but Republicans attached it to an unrelated conference report that cannot be changed,” Reives said. “This eliminates individual campaign finance limits and allows out-of-state billionaires to funnel unlimited money to a committee. They’re changing the rules in the middle of an election that’s already underway in an attempt to buy the governor’s mansion in North Carolina.”
Click here to read the official UNC School of Government summaries of House Bill 237.
[Note: This post has been updated to more accurately characterize Bob Hall’s analysis of the legislation.]
A mask pledge?
In addition to last-minute changes to campaign finance law, the conference committee report for House Bill 237 includes what sponsors describe as a compromise on wearing masks in public.
Last month, the North Carolina House rejected controversial Senate amendments to the bill that would have, among other things, banned the wearing of masks in public, even for health reasons.
New language revealed Thursday allows people to only wear “medical or surgical grade masks” to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. This exemption is narrower than the current broad COVID-era exemption in state law.
The proposal also allows law enforcement to ask people to remove their masks for identification purposes. Owners may also ask people to temporarily remove masks for identification.
While welcoming the change that eliminated the provision that would have completely banned the wearing of masks in public, critics of the bill, such as the ACLU of North Carolina, still oppose several other provisions. In a statement to Newsline, Liz Barber, the group’s Director of Policy and Advocacy, said:
“Even though a health exception was added back in, H237 would allow law enforcement officers to prevent anyone from wearing a mask for any reason – or no reason at all – raising serious 4th Amendment concerns,” said Liz Barber, Director of Policy and Advocacy . This bill will further target Black and brown communities by giving law enforcement the ability to stop anyone from wearing a mask. This bill is part of a national, anti-democratic trend to silence protests.”
The project comes in the wake of protests that broke out on university campuses across the country in response to the Israel-Hamas conflict.