RALEIGH — In what looks like a repeat from the scandal that brought down then-Speaker Jim Black, the General Assembly is being compelled by another criminal investigation to work in between sessions to fashion clean-government legislation.
Lawmakers passed historic lobbying and ethics legislation in 2006 as a federal probe intensified that ultimately sent Black and a former state lottery commissioner to prison.
Following a year of investigations linked to former Democratic Gov. Mike Easley and his campaign, legislative leaders again feel the weight from the public and reform advocates. There have been concealed airplane flights and allegations that government officials benefited financially from coastal developments and large campaign donations helped grease permitting. Federal and state investigations aren’t over.
“It puts more pressure on somebody to do something,” said Senate Majority Leader Martin Nesbitt, D-Buncombe, who has assembled a working group of fellow Democrats to discuss what should be considered when the Legislature reconvenes in May. “We owe it to them to give them an honest effort.”
But unlike 2006, the changes probably won’t be as sweeping.
Democratic and Republican legislative leaders point out bribery, money laundering and other crimes highlighted in last month’s indictment of ex-Easley aide Ruffin Poole have been illegal for decades. Ideas that would require millions of dollars to implement or regulate will be avoided during another difficult budget year.
Lawmakers also will be wary about making significant campaign fundraising changes during an election year without knowing the effect of a U.S. Supreme Court decision freeing corporations to spend directly to support or oppose candidates. So efforts by some to expand voluntary public financing or to curb the unlimited donations state parties can take in or give may have to wait until 2011.
“We have to be careful in how we react to (the ruling) and how we can channel what energy that decision may create in politics, and that is a tricky task,” said former Democratic Lt. Gov. Dennis Wicker, now a Raleigh lobbyist. Still, public servants “feel an obligation to tighten up on the flow of money that comes into political coffers to run campaigns.”
Last spring, the House overwhelmingly passed three bills that had bipartisan sponsors.
The legislation would delay more executive branch and University of North Carolina leaders from lobbying government until six months after leaving state employment; ban state contractors from giving to elected officials who approve contracts that benefit the vendor; and require board and commission appointees to report campaign donations and fundraising for elected officials who appointed them.
The votes came as the first details of the Easley probe began to surface. Since then, Easley’s campaign was fined $100,000 by the State Board of Elections for failing to report dozens of flights piloted by his political ally and a grand jury indicted Poole on 51 counts.
“All the stuff that’s happened since this fall is mostly people breaking laws that were already in place,” said House Minority Leader Paul Stam, R-Wake, a co-sponsor of the three House bills, but “these are three laws that need to be done.”
The bills, which now sit in the Senate judiciary committee, are designed in part to avoid the perception of “pay-to-play” — the idea that donors have to give to incumbents so they can be heard on legislation or be placed in positions of power.
Requirements for appointees are considered important because testimony and documents have shown businessmen politically connected to Easley gave money to his campaign or the Democratic Party while projects were being scrutinized by regulators.
Other legislative leaders, including Speaker Joe Hackney, and Gov. Beverly Perdue’s office also have been discussing what else might be feasible, said Rep. Deborah Ross, D-Wake, another co-sponsor of the three House bills. Perdue has been talking about expanding the gift ban to more state employees.
“There’s definitely a commitment to do some robust ethics work,” Ross said.
The investigations have renewed interest by some in limiting how much money political parties can give to and receive from individuals or candidates.
There’s no cap on how much money donors and campaign committees can give to a party, which then can give unlimited amounts to other candidates. Critics call it a loophole to avoid the $4,000-per-election giving limit by individuals. Easley donors testified to the elections board in October they gave money to the Democratic Party because they were told it would wind up helping the governor’s campaign.
“It’s just the way to circumvent the contribution limits,” said Jane Pinsky with the bipartisan North Carolina Coalition for Lobbying and Government Reform, which wants limits like 30 other states have. Nesbitt said the issue is likely beyond the scope of legislation this year.
Republican leaders are likely to join Democrats in approving ethics and campaign finance changes that are perceived neither as benefiting only one party nor as overkill. Pinsky said lawmakers of either party can’t afford to ignore the public’s dissatisfaction with the legal problems of its current and former officials.
“People have to believe that government works,” she said.
