AARP Highlights NC Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin in National Publication

AARP has just published an enlightening national article - at this link here - highlighting North Carolina's public financing of elections program, which currently involves three Council of State offices (including Insurance Commissioner) and statewide judicial races. The post focuses on two views of the program: one by Insurance Commissioner Wayne Goodwin, a proponent, and the other by State Senator Phil Berger, an opponent.(Photos by D.L. Anderson)
The AARP bulletin piece, authored by Sue Price Johnson, is entitled "State Leads Trend Toward Publicly Financed Campaigns: More candidates are discovering the benefits of not relying on special interests."

A "Wayne's World" Editorial: National Security Threatened By Supreme Court Decision?

I've been holding my tongue publicly about the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Citizens United, trying to find just the right words to express my outrage. No more am I mute.Though countless others have already analyzed and pontificated all sides of the main question, several questions bubble to the surface for me. Here are four interrogatories that came to mind right off the bat:

First, how is it that members of the Supreme Court majority in the Citizens United case - including Chief Justice Roberts - have preached "judicial restraint" and "honoring precedent" and "strict construction" of the Constitution for years and years, even testifying to Senate confirmation panels that such philosophy was their pole star, but in this case have become the activist court that they have heretofore demonized? Not only did the slim majority of the Court undo long-standing precedent going back 100 years to the days of Teddy (not Franklin) Roosevelt, but it ventured beyond the questions presented to it by the underlying Circuit Court. And I'm not the only one who noticed: Among millions of people were Steve Ford of the Raleigh News & Observer, who said:

Now, [Justice] Kennedy and his four like-minded colleagues had strained for reasons to disregard those precedents. That approach was the essence of over-the-top judicial activism - the bane of conservatives except when it serves their purposes.

Hypocrisy, thy name is collectively Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas.

(Coincidentally, the first letters of their surnames spells out exactly what type of Court opinion this was: It was a STARK contrast with precedent and judicial restraint.)

Second, how is it that Newt Gingrich and other conservative and ultra-conservative commentators, pundits, and Congressmen can say with a straight face, as they have already, that the Citizens United decision "levels the playing field" for citizens? Give me a break. The "citizens" they speak of are not individuals, but corporations. Yes, as an attorney, I know all the arguments and legalisms regarding corporate personhood, the 14th Amendment, et al. But levelling the playing field? No way. The vast super-majority of Americans cannot contribute the maximum to political campaigns. If and when they do contribute, it's most often in small amounts. Corporations, on the other hand, by virtue of this court decision, may dip into the millions and billions in their corporation treasury and engage in political activity with reckless abandon, and make unlimited contributions well above what the average John and Jane Q. Citizen could ever do.

And, on top of that, the decision presently leaves the door open for corporate executives to direct corporation monies to political campaigns with no input from shareholders. (And then there are the corporations that are not publicly traded, but privately held.) If anything, the Supreme Court didn't level the alleged "playing field" ... it tilted the field such that it resembles the Titanic, tip first, just before it sank into the Atlantic.

Third, what happened to the compelling state interest to prevent actual corruption or the appearance of corruption? A significant number of state attorneys general (including my Attorney General, Roy Cooper) addressed that very question in their joint amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case. The Supreme Court majority chose to ignore them and the fight against corruption. Picking up the Citizens United baton and carrying it further, like-minded conservative members of Congress feign concern by alluding to more instantaneous campaign finance reporting as the antiseptic to corruption. Even if you learn that your cause or candidate is being outspent $100 million to $1 by corporate cash (as opposed to contributions from individuals, live persons) and you learn about it instantly through online campaign reporting, what good will it do in stopping the appearance of corruption, of elections being bought and sold, particularly when those same corporations may very well own the news media which would normally be watchdogs for this sort of thing?

Fourth, why did the Roberts court and its Republican members make a decision that some persons say could threaten national security? By virtue of its broad decision, the Supreme Court's conservative majority may have very well opened the floodgates to foreign countries and foreign corporations - and terrorists? - attempting to buy American elections. (Why aren't there any conservative commentators frothing at the mouth on this? Speaking of froth, where's Dick Cheney?) Where are the folks who say national security and homeland security should be considered first and foremost? We've already seen companies and corporations go abroad and re-locate outside of the USA. But more than ever we've seen foreign interests come here and set up their own corporations. (Think China, for example.) The Court's decision, made in a way to upend the American political system in 2010 and 2012, may have put American elections up for sale to the enemy.

On a long ago post here at my Wayne's World blog I wondered what would Thomas Jefferson do if he surveyed America's political landscape today.

I suspect that if the Sage of Monticello knew about this Court's Citizens United decision, Jefferson would be quite angry.

# # #

(c) Wayne Goodwin. All rights reserved. Disclosure: Goodwin serves as President of the N.C. Center for Voter Education, a North Carolina nonprofit think-tank fighting for good government, an enlightened electorate, and fundamental fairness in campaigns.

Electing Council of State is the Right Thing to Do

With all due respect to my many good friends who may have a different view, in this day and age it is all the more vital that North Carolina continues to elect certain Council of State offices, if not all of them, as they are presently constituted.

Some well-intentioned opponents have stated that our Statewide ballot is too long. These same folks promote the concept of shortening the ballot; in other words, taking voters out of the equation and making most of the Council of State offices appointed rather than popularly elected. Of course, that conclusion does not appear to fit with the original premise prompting recent proposals – which was that it is a sad situation when such a low number of voters turned out for the 2008 runoff election for Labor Commissioner and at the cost of $5 million.

For the moment let's skip that original premise and go straight to what I perceive is the crux of my argument.

Why do I believe that we should maintain the election of our Council of State officers?

First, as I am wont to do, let's take a look back at history. Eighteenth century North Carolinians rejected the horrid treatment by the Royal governors from our pre-Revolutionary War days, and decided from that point forward, and moreso later in the 19th century, that never again would we allow a Governor to have unchecked, consolidated, unitary power. Tar Heel leaders then and through the present decided to apportion the authority of various State agencies among elected officials charged with leading their respective agency. Those officers include Secretary of State, State Treasurer, Attorney General, and Insurance Commissioner. In addition to serving as an agency head, these officers serve an additional Executive Branch role as members of the Council of State, deciding matters pertaining to State property and the like, and advising the Governor on various and sundry things. The theory – and the practice – was that democratization of State power would keep authority in check and protect the inalienable rights of our citizens. And it would preclude the rise of a dictatorial governor in the State. (Furthermore, one must also note how long it took our Governor to gain the right to veto legislation, again for the same historical reasons.) Tinkering with the current format would upset the balance among the three branches of government, and ultimately give any Governor too much authority. In my opinion, history bears out that North Carolina has done what was best for its people with the current formulation.



Second, why is appointment of all or most Council of State officials a bad idea? In addition to it being contrary to the direction of our State's Founding Fathers, appointment would mean one thing and one thing alone: an insider – a person wed and fed by the entities regulated by the agency – would be appointed. For example, if our Insurance Commissioner were an appointed position in North Carolina, then I'd bet my lunch from now until the Winter Olympics come to Fuquay-Varina that any future Governor would appoint – read "award" – an insurance industry insider with the post. Now don't get me wrong: Such an appointment is not illegal; it just smacks of cronyism and rewarding special interests who have most likely contributed heavily to the campaign of such hypothetical Governor. The power of special interests would be an overwhelming factor for any Governor as he or she considers whom to appoint to current Council of State positions. Appointment of these offices is a bad idea because it strips away the independence of these officials and almost certainly assures that in fact or in perception these officials will be beholden to some group other than the people at large.

Third, there is the issue of continuity. Think about it: Presently the people of North Carolina elect the Council of State and, if an official is doing a moderately good job, the voters re-elect that official. In the appointment process there will almost necessarily be a change in officials every four to eight years, and a change in the focus of the respective agency, depending upon if a Governor is re-elected or not. The great benefits we have had in continuity of leadership in the Department of Agriculture under the late Jim Graham, or in the Department of Insurance under Jim Long, or in the Secretary of State's office under Elaine Marshall, would never be. Making these offices appointed also means that a Governor could fire them at will, even if that officer is doing a great job and perhaps pointing out waste, fraud or errors in that Governor's administration.

One corollary to the issue of continuity is this: If Council of State offices are appointed instead of elected, and their tenure might be six months to eight years only (if that), then the unelected Department staff becomes all the more powerful. That would appear anathema to a representative democracy where we prefer having officials whom are accountable at the ballot box.

And even if you do have continuity in these offices among one or more Governors, do you think these officials – if appointed – would be free and independent to criticize another Department or the Governor's own administration, even if there is potential wrongdoing? Human nature is that appointed officials in this hypothetical scenario will be less likely to bite the hand that feeds them.

Fourth, would not conversion of these offices from elected posts to purely appointed posts essentially mean that the State is afraid of and not trusting of the people, and their power at the ballot box?

Fifth, some commentators have time and again stated that Tar Heel voters allegedly do not know enough about candidates to vote intelligently for these offices and, accordingly, the people should then have taken away from them the power to choose the holders of these offices. No matter how many voters do or do not turn out at the polls, or how many fail to vote further down the ballot in a given election, without question today's voters have much greater access to information about every candidate and the jurisdiction of the respective offices than ever before. We should not excise - we should not remove - the right to vote for these leaders just because some voters – even many of them – fail to use available resources to research the backgrounds and platforms of the respective candidates. Should we contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy by declaring that voters are dumb when, in fact, a large number are, at worst, either lazy or too busy with their lives and trying to make ends meet instead of studying up on candidates appearing on their ballot? Clearly I posit that the answer is "no." I respectfully contend that every voter should consider it her civic obligation to prepare before voting.

Now let's zero in for the moment on the office of Insurance Commissioner as part of this conversation.

Because every person, every family, every business, and every government is affected by the question of, the presence of, or the lack of insurance, as well as affordability of insurance, the ability to elect the Insurance Commissioner is all the more vital versus mere appointment.

In 2008, and for the foreseeable future, the Insurance Commissioner will conduct hearings that determine the ultimate maximum rate for automobile insurance for North Carolina drivers. The same Commissioner will necessarily be involved with the effort to address homeowners insurance on the coast, both its affordability and the presence of a competitive market. The Commissioner will also have an actual and a bully pulpit role on the question of health insurance. Do we truly want an UNELECTED official who is NOT independent of special interests serving as Insurance Commissioner as these duties are discharged? Is not it in our best interests to have an Insurance Commissioner that is behold to no one but the voters – the people – of North Carolina?

Again examining the question, in North Carolina any effort to appoint the Insurance Commissioner is dangerous, and would have many more negative effects for people and businesses alike than positive ones, most notably the almost certainty of higher insurance rates. Why might an appointed Insurance Commissioner allow rates to increase faster and/or higher? Because in that scenario she or he would not be checked by the voters but will act with carte blanche by responding to the special interests so long as it is within existing law.

So, in returning to the original problem, it would be the proverbial "throwing away the baby with the bathwater" if the proposed remedy to meager participation in runoff elections is removal of elections from the process. In North Carolina we believe in a strong representative democracy and in decentralized authority. To believe otherwise is to distrust the people and I, for one, trust an enlightened electorate every day over backroom appointments at the urging of special interests..

By promoting the abolition of elections for most Council of State offices, have not those persons fallen for what the special interests actually want – that is, hand-picked officials not beholden to the people?

In my opinion, the remedy is for the news media to join with me and countless non-profit organizations whose mission is voter education.

Let's promote both civic participation at the polls and representative democracy, and not consolidation of power in one elected office by abolishing election of Council of State officials. Voter education and voter empowerment would be the right way – the Carolina way, the Jeffersonian way, and the American way – to solve the problem at hand. In this instance, electing our Council of State must remain.

# # #

Governor Easley Signs Legislation of State Rep. Melanie Wade Goodwin

Governor Mike Easley signed a multitude of bills recently, some of which dealt with progressive ethics and campaign finance reforms. One lawmaker whose legislation received the Governor's pen and ink was State Representative Melanie Wade Goodwin, Democratic lawmaker in the Eighth Congressional District for Montgomery and Richmond Counties. She chairs the Election Laws and Campaign Finance Reform Committee and serves as Vice Chairwoman of the Judiciary 1 Committee in the House. With all that has occurred in the last year or so, these two committees have lived up to their reputations as "work-horse" committees. Congratulations, Rep. Goodwin!

Tackling the Myths Against NC's Electoral College reforms

Here are some points I shared with legislators this week as they considered whether to pass SB 353, the Presidential electors bill.

* * * * *

Good morning!

By now you have already received a barrage of emails and calls against this bill.

However, this is not one of them.

As a former lawmaker who introduced similar legislation in the past, and as a director of the NC Center for Voter Education, and, more importantly, as a voter who wants my vote and your vote for President to count, please VOTE YES on SB 353 today. In brief, here is why:

You have heard various points for and against the bill.

Many opponents of SB 353 want you to believe several outright misrepresentations (at best).

Myth/Misrepresentation #1: NC has always awarded its electors using a "winner take all" method.

Answer: FALSE. NC, like many states, did not use a "winner take all" method until well into the 19th century. My thorough, accurate research - including several published articles of mine over the years - detail this.

Myth/Misrepresentation #2: Adopting any presidential elector change like in SB 353 violates the US Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers.

Answer: FALSE. Anyone who says the above to you is either ignorant of the Constitution (and the the process that led to its creation) or purposely misleading you. A clear, direct reading of the relevant provisions of the Constitution says that how a State chooses its presidential electors is LEFT UP TO THE STATES. In fact, presidential electors - starting with the election of George Washington - were NOT awarded on a winner-take-all basis. It was a concept that did not catch on until the 1840s and then gradually began to emerge for decades. ... In fact, by supporting SB 353 you would be what is called a "strict constructionist" of the Constitution, a conservative position that even the John Roberts/Antonin Scalia U.S. Supreme Court could not oppose!

Myth/Misrepresentation #3: SB 353 is less democratic and harms the weight of each voter's ballot for President.

Answer: FALSE. Most people do not realize that the current system of "winner take all" is not about who gets a majority of votes in NC ... it actually is who gets a "plurality" - that is, the most votes, even if many more people actually oppose the vote-leader. In other words, a presidential candidate in NC, under the current system, could get ALL of the the State's electors even if that candidate received, for example, only 33% of the vote! This is not merely a hypothetical. As recently as 1992 in NC, the current system awarded ALL of its NC electors to incumbent President George H.W. Bush (father of the current President) even though he ONLY received 43% of the votes in NC. Clinton received 42% and Perot received the balance. Compare with the elections here in NC in 1948, 1968, and 1980. ... Equally compelling is this question: Is it fair if 49.9999% of the States' voters have no electors to represent their preference for President? ... If anything, adopting SB 353 will ensure that votes are not wasted and that the awarding of our State's electors better reflects the will of our State's voters by basing it mostly upon Congressional districts. SB 353 is a bold underscoring of what our "democratic republic", or representative, form of government is all about.

Myth/Misrepresentation #4: NC has not considered this bill in recent years.

Answer: FALSE. In the late 1980s/early 1990s, a similar bill passed the NC House of Representatives. In 2001, the bill I filed on the subject passed the House Election Laws Committee. That same year, the Senate passed its version (sponsored by former Senator Howard Lee) out of the Senate.

Myth/Misrepresentation #5: SB 353 is a bill only sought by Democrats.

Answer: FALSE. As recently as 2001 forward, countless Republicans have filed and pushed similar bills in States all around the country, as well as Democrats. By my count, at least 20 States have been considering this positive election law reform in recent years.

Myth/Misrepresentation #6: SB 353 will dilute our weaken our State's role in the presidential election contest.

Answer: FALSE: To the contrary, given that we are one of the 10 largest states, presidential candidates from the major parties will flock here more than ever to visit voters and not just come by to rake up campaign cash. If Republican and Democratic presidential candidates know that several Congressional districts - and their presidential electors - are in play in NC, then they will spend more time here. Another plus: NC will have an economic benefit, probably in the many millions of dollars, by the additional spending of campaigns and supporters of candidates here. It is high time that more of our presidential candidates pay attention to NC. If we can't move up our presidential primary, then SB 353 is a welcome alternative. And it is good for business.

* * * * *

Though there are many other misrepresentations being advocated by opponents, please consider the above and VOTE YES for SB 353.

It will be the best way to give voters more say in who NC actually supports for President.

Thank you for your consideration.

Wayne Goodwin
Former member, NC House of Representatives (1997-2004)