(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."
Showing posts with label Public financing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public financing. Show all posts
Saturday, October 2, 2010
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."
(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."
Friday, January 29, 2010
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:
(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.
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.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Chris Heagarty: From Advocate Frying Pan Into the Legislative Fire
It is an unusual set of recent circumstances for my good friend, Chris Heagarty of Raleigh.
For many years he has been a citizen leader advocating for campaign finance reforms and election law changes.
As Executive Director of the North Carolina Center of Voter Education (also known as "The Center" or "NCCVE") for seven years, Chris played a large role in advocating for and recommending substantial improvements to the state's election laws. Unlike some folks currently involved on those subjects, his efforts predate and were bolstered by the various scandals involving Meg Scott Phipps, Jim Black, Frank Ballance, and Thomas Wright.
Among the changes Chris advocated for were:
- greater transparency in campaign reporting
- State-published voter guides mailed to households statewide
- an emphasis on legislative and candidate ethics
as well as
- the nationally-recognized and much-lauded public finance system option for judicial elections and several Council of State posts, experiments that have proven successful, by the way.
To accomplish these feats he was a daily fixture among the Honorables down on Jones Street and sometimes in other settings such as in the courts or speaking at rallies or in press conferences.
Every waking day Chris focused his energy and zeal toward educating voters and encouraging more citizens to be active and engaged in the political process, no matter their party preference.
Chris also focused on voter registration and establishing a partnership with UNC-TV public television so that candidate fora could be broadcast statewide and greater links to information for voters about issues and campaigns could be created.
After taking an almost three year sabbatical in law school, Chris witnessed yet another lawmaker and public official ousted by a serious pattern of major campaign finance violations. This time, though, it was his own State Representative in the North Carolina General Assembly and it was personal.
Chris decided to put theory into practice -- to walk the walk and not just talk the talk: He decided to throw his own hat into the ring for the seat.
After a deftly-organized and successful campaign effort among those persons authorized to select and recommend a replacement in the House seat, Governor Bev Perdue appointed Heagarty to the post last week.Chris joins the legislature at an awkward time in some respects. It's between sessions, he has to file for election almost immediately, and he is in a swing district that could make the difference in whether the Democrats retain the majority in the House or not. And, on top of that, we're in the midst of the worst economy in 70 years.
But he also faces some high expectations: Chris, as the knight who fought many a battle royale on the outside for clean elections and public financing and good government, is now on the inside and is expected to continue his crusade.
I trust he will prevail, and am very proud of my friend who has chosen this new means of engaging civic participation.
After all, I've personally had the benefit of watching him in action before,
during and after my own years as State Representative. Chris is well-respected
by legislators and folks all across party lines, and is a trusted, hard-working, ready-to-serve advocate well-versed in constituent service and the bedrock
principles of the Democratic Party. In my opinion, he will be an immediately
effective legislator for District 41.
Congratulations, Representative Chris Heagarty!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Public financing of statewide campaigns continues to make the news
Readers of "Wayne's World" may be interested in three columns about optional public financing as a campaign finance reform that also referenced my 2008 Insurance Commissioner race.
One of them is an op-ed piece I authored that ran in multiple newspapers statewide, including The Pilot of Southern Pines. For a presentation of my essay that includes video commentary and supporting links, go to this specific Voter Update link here, sponsored by the N.C. Center for Voter Education.
The other is by Chase Foster of N.C. Voters for Clean Elections that appeared in multiple formats, including here at this link. The full version of his article is at this separate link.
And the third is a national column by the organization Public Campaign. The profile piece provides the nuts and bolts difference between my traditional statewide campaign of 2004 and my grassroots, publicly-financed statewide campaign in 2008.
For background on previous coverage and blog posts of this subject, check out these additional links here and here.
All the above is especially relevant in view of pending legislation in the General Assembly to include additional Council of State offices in this voluntary program.
Editor's Note: Blogpost was updated to include recent national column by Public Campaign and the relevant link.
One of them is an op-ed piece I authored that ran in multiple newspapers statewide, including The Pilot of Southern Pines. For a presentation of my essay that includes video commentary and supporting links, go to this specific Voter Update link here, sponsored by the N.C. Center for Voter Education.
The other is by Chase Foster of N.C. Voters for Clean Elections that appeared in multiple formats, including here at this link. The full version of his article is at this separate link.
And the third is a national column by the organization Public Campaign. The profile piece provides the nuts and bolts difference between my traditional statewide campaign of 2004 and my grassroots, publicly-financed statewide campaign in 2008.
For background on previous coverage and blog posts of this subject, check out these additional links here and here.
All the above is especially relevant in view of pending legislation in the General Assembly to include additional Council of State offices in this voluntary program.
Editor's Note: Blogpost was updated to include recent national column by Public Campaign and the relevant link.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
A Post-Election Primer on the Successful Public Financing of the NC Insurance Commissioner race: Crossposted Interview with Wayne Goodwin
Betsy Muse, one of my BlueNC blogger friends, today posted her interview about my views on the public financing of my Insurance Commissioner campaign.
Reading it as objectively as I can when one is also the interviewee, her interview is certainly an informative piece about the pilot program and how it affected the 2008 Insurance Commissioner's race. To read it yourself and Betsy's on-target questions, merely click right here and you'll be magically transported to it.
Coincidentally, today editors of the Raleigh News & Observer published its primary editorial in support of public financing of political campaigns. In essence, they wrote that such programs are "proving their worth" and specifically cited how well the program functioned in the Insurance Commissioner's race. Read the full editorial by clicking this link here.
Your comments on this subject are welcome both at Wayne's World and at BlueNC.
Reading it as objectively as I can when one is also the interviewee, her interview is certainly an informative piece about the pilot program and how it affected the 2008 Insurance Commissioner's race. To read it yourself and Betsy's on-target questions, merely click right here and you'll be magically transported to it.
Coincidentally, today editors of the Raleigh News & Observer published its primary editorial in support of public financing of political campaigns. In essence, they wrote that such programs are "proving their worth" and specifically cited how well the program functioned in the Insurance Commissioner's race. Read the full editorial by clicking this link here.
Your comments on this subject are welcome both at Wayne's World and at BlueNC.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Wayne Goodwin's Insurance Commissioner Campaign Receives Contributions from Alamance to Yancey: Certified as Publicly-Financed Candidate
Goodwin Leads Republican in Recent Statewide Poll
In the pilot public financing program for Council of State offices, the State Board of Elections has certified that Wayne Goodwin has met the qualifications for public financing as the Democratic Party's nominee.
With only eight weeks to accomplish the feat, the Goodwin campaign secured small-dollar, qualifying contributions of $10 to $200 from approximately 1,200 registered voters from Alamance to Yancey Counties. He also refused both contributions from out-of-state and PAC contributions.
Goodwin blew the minimum threshold in contributors and money raised "out of the water." The 2007 Voter-Owned Elections program required only 750 registered voters. Goodwin is estimated to have raised approximately three times the amount of the minimum monetary threshold.
"I am also pleased to report that a significant number of Republican and Unaffiliated voters also contributed to my campaign, in addition to the majority of Democrats. In their comments these voters all across the political spectrum stated loud and clear that North Carolina's next Insurance Commissioner must have the competence and the experience to serve in the office," said Goodwin.
Dick Barnes, campaign manager for the Goodwin campaign and a former State Senator, had this to say: "This strong show of support is further proof that Wayne Goodwin, already leading in the polls, is in the best position to win in November and to serve the best interests of every consumer and every small business in North Carolina."
He also asserted that when it comes to who is most competent and experienced to serve as Insurance Commissioner, Democratic Party nominee Wayne Goodwin beats the Republican nominee "hands down."
"Only Wayne Goodwin has a proven record of fighting to keep insurance rates low, reasonable, and fair," says Barnes. "Goodwin is also the only candidate who will continue the progress of legendary Insurance Commissioner Jim Long, who saved $4.3 Billion for consumers. Jim Long, by the way, has strongly endorsed Goodwin from Day One."
Goodwin was the first Insurance Commissioner candidate to refuse money from special interests. He will spend the rest of the 2008 campaign only meeting with and listening to North Carolina voters, and not fundraising.
# # #
In the pilot public financing program for Council of State offices, the State Board of Elections has certified that Wayne Goodwin has met the qualifications for public financing as the Democratic Party's nominee.
With only eight weeks to accomplish the feat, the Goodwin campaign secured small-dollar, qualifying contributions of $10 to $200 from approximately 1,200 registered voters from Alamance to Yancey Counties. He also refused both contributions from out-of-state and PAC contributions.
Goodwin blew the minimum threshold in contributors and money raised "out of the water." The 2007 Voter-Owned Elections program required only 750 registered voters. Goodwin is estimated to have raised approximately three times the amount of the minimum monetary threshold.
"I am also pleased to report that a significant number of Republican and Unaffiliated voters also contributed to my campaign, in addition to the majority of Democrats. In their comments these voters all across the political spectrum stated loud and clear that North Carolina's next Insurance Commissioner must have the competence and the experience to serve in the office," said Goodwin.
Dick Barnes, campaign manager for the Goodwin campaign and a former State Senator, had this to say: "This strong show of support is further proof that Wayne Goodwin, already leading in the polls, is in the best position to win in November and to serve the best interests of every consumer and every small business in North Carolina."
He also asserted that when it comes to who is most competent and experienced to serve as Insurance Commissioner, Democratic Party nominee Wayne Goodwin beats the Republican nominee "hands down."
"Only Wayne Goodwin has a proven record of fighting to keep insurance rates low, reasonable, and fair," says Barnes. "Goodwin is also the only candidate who will continue the progress of legendary Insurance Commissioner Jim Long, who saved $4.3 Billion for consumers. Jim Long, by the way, has strongly endorsed Goodwin from Day One."
Goodwin was the first Insurance Commissioner candidate to refuse money from special interests. He will spend the rest of the 2008 campaign only meeting with and listening to North Carolina voters, and not fundraising.
# # #
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Thank you to everyone on the Goodwin Team in my campaign for NC Insurance Commissioner!
Mere words cannot fully express my deep felt appreciation for your vital efforts in my Insurance Commissioner campaign!
In a very short period of time we were able to stress how the 2008 Democratic Primary was a stark choice between polar opposite candidates. I am:
- the candidate who will work day in and day out to maintain the legacy of Jim Long ... always striving to protect the consumer while ensuring a competitive insurance market that allows insurance companies a reasonable profit.
- the candidate with proven experience leading within the Department of Insurance and with extensive experience as a State-level elected official.
- the candidate who understands that the Insurance Commissioner and the Department have a special relationship with the State's 44,000 fire and rescue personnel.
And,
- the candidate who has clean hands, truly independent and free from the insurance industry and other special interests.
And with your personal role in my campaign, we were able to get out that message above and win 56% of the Statewide vote!
By all accounts, we surprised folks with the depth, breadth, and diversity of not only the endorsements of this campaign but, more importantly, of our campaign team. This campaign team was very blessed to have many, many persons chipping in to post signs, speak as surrogates, deliver materials, coordinate multiple mailings, and successfully conduct a multitude of in-person meetings with key leaders in the State.
With your help I was also able to surpass the mandatory minimum thresholds for public financing – both by comfortable buffers or margins. Given the short period of time between when I learned of my candidacy and the May 6th election, I was joyfully amazed with the sheer volume of work so many of you did to interest folks in making "qualifying" contributions pursuant the pilot public financing program. It was no easy task, but with every one doing their part this campaign was the first to meet the thresholds.
I could go on further, but do know this: Working together, we will duplicate our success in the November election and prove to the State that our best years are still yet to come.
Again, thank you for everything you did to make our team's victory happen!
- Wayne
P.S. I would have posted very late on Election Night or even yesterday, but my obligation to take care of my 5-day-old newborn son, Jackson Wade Goodwin, and my wife, Melanie, took highest priority. I'm sure you understand! Attached to this message are two photos of North Carolina's newest Democrat (and one not-so-new Democrat)! ... I hope that everyone who checked in here at "Wayne's World" - a massive, record number for hits to this site, by the way - will have the opportunity to check back in for this post of appreciation.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Want a Sneak Preview of Wayne Goodwin's Campaign Ad for Insurance Commissioner?
Then all you have to do is visit my website, www.waynegoodwin.org and click on the link that says "Watch Wayne's New TV Ad!"
Afterward, let me know what you think about it.
And while you're there on the campaign website, be sure to read why I believe I'm your best choice for Insurance Commissioner of North Carolina in 2008 ... as well as how broad and deep my support is around the State.
My endorsements include Insurance Commissioner Jim Long, the NC Association of Educators (NCAE), NC State AFL-CIO, the Black Political Caucus of Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Durham mayor Bill Bell, leaders of the NC State Firemen's Association and NC Rescue and EMS Association, Hoke County Firefighters, the Richmond County Daily Journal, NC Academy of Trial Lawyers, and countless legislators, local officials, firefighters, first responders, small business owners, etc. ... And then there are the 500+ individuals who have already donated small-dollar qualifying contributions of $10 or more as part of my decision to be a publicly-financed candidate! (I need just a handful more to cross the statutory threshold, so fans of “Wayne’s World”: I need your help ...)
If you're interested in how you can further help me become our next Insurance Commissioner of North Carolina, then please email me directly at gwaynegoodwin@gmail.com.
Meanwhile, your contribution of only between $10 and $200 does two essential things: It will help ensure that my TV ad runs as much as possible on TV across the State and that I qualify for public funding for the General Election. If you'd like to help me with this specific task, then send your personal check or money order to The Goodwin Committee, P.O. Box 1654, Hamlet NC 28345 TODAY. Put "TV ad" on the memo section of your check.
And above all else, remember that I ask for your vote and for your support in the 2008 Democratic primary election. I'm counting on a strong 8th District turnout to win!
Thank you!
- Wayne
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Wayne Goodwin Became First 2008 Insurance Commissioner Candidate to Refuse Special Interest Money: Challenges Dem, GOP Opponents To Do the Same
For Immediate Release
March 4, 2008
Wayne Goodwin Today (March 4th) Becomes First 2008 Insurance Commissioner Candidate to Refuse Special Interest Money: Challenges Dem, GOP Opponents To Do the Same
(Raleigh) – Wayne Goodwin, Democratic candidate for North Carolina Insurance Commissioner, is the first candidate for the post to notify the State Board of Elections that he will opt into the newly-established Voter-Owned Election Program. In other words, Goodwin is refusing PAC money, large dollar contributors, and special interest money as he begins his publicly-financed campaign.
“I have been a longtime proponent of elections where the emphasis is on ideas, character and ability, and not on money and special interests,” said Goodwin. “My record is proof-positive of that.”
Goodwin filed for Insurance Commissioner on Friday, February 29, and quickly raised the initial funds allowed in phase one of the pilot program established by the legislature.
In the late afternoon of Tuesday, March 4th, only two business days since filing for office, Goodwin personally submitted his official “Declaration of Intent” form to Kim Westbrook Strach, Deputy Director of Campaign Reporting at the State Board of Elections. He also presented a check from his campaign made out to the State Board due to his having raised more contributions than necessary.
Goodwin will now seek to become a certified publicly-financed candidate. That will require a minimum of 750 registered North Carolina voters to make small-dollar contributions of between $10 and $200 (personal checks or money orders only) that exceed a total of $29,000 and no more than $238,000. Participating candidates must complete their fundraising for the entire 2008 campaign by May 6.
“I challenge my fellow candidates to opt into this program. I challenge them to show that they are not beholden to special interests and the insurance industry,” said Goodwin.
Goodwin is presently the Assistant Commissioner of Insurance – which regulates the insurance industry - and a former 4-term member of the House of Representatives.
“We need an Insurance Commissioner focused on keeping insurance rates reasonably low, as well as ensuring a competitive insurance market here in North Carolina,” he said. “The voters are not well-served if candidates spend their whole year fundraising instead of meeting and hearing from voters across the State.”
# # #
Contact: (910) 997-1301; or, gwaynegoodwin@gmail.com
The Goodwin Committee, P.O. Box 1654, Hamlet NC 28345
March 4, 2008
Wayne Goodwin Today (March 4th) Becomes First 2008 Insurance Commissioner Candidate to Refuse Special Interest Money: Challenges Dem, GOP Opponents To Do the Same
(Raleigh) – Wayne Goodwin, Democratic candidate for North Carolina Insurance Commissioner, is the first candidate for the post to notify the State Board of Elections that he will opt into the newly-established Voter-Owned Election Program. In other words, Goodwin is refusing PAC money, large dollar contributors, and special interest money as he begins his publicly-financed campaign.
“I have been a longtime proponent of elections where the emphasis is on ideas, character and ability, and not on money and special interests,” said Goodwin. “My record is proof-positive of that.”
Goodwin filed for Insurance Commissioner on Friday, February 29, and quickly raised the initial funds allowed in phase one of the pilot program established by the legislature.
In the late afternoon of Tuesday, March 4th, only two business days since filing for office, Goodwin personally submitted his official “Declaration of Intent” form to Kim Westbrook Strach, Deputy Director of Campaign Reporting at the State Board of Elections. He also presented a check from his campaign made out to the State Board due to his having raised more contributions than necessary.
Goodwin will now seek to become a certified publicly-financed candidate. That will require a minimum of 750 registered North Carolina voters to make small-dollar contributions of between $10 and $200 (personal checks or money orders only) that exceed a total of $29,000 and no more than $238,000. Participating candidates must complete their fundraising for the entire 2008 campaign by May 6.
“I challenge my fellow candidates to opt into this program. I challenge them to show that they are not beholden to special interests and the insurance industry,” said Goodwin.
Goodwin is presently the Assistant Commissioner of Insurance – which regulates the insurance industry - and a former 4-term member of the House of Representatives.
“We need an Insurance Commissioner focused on keeping insurance rates reasonably low, as well as ensuring a competitive insurance market here in North Carolina,” he said. “The voters are not well-served if candidates spend their whole year fundraising instead of meeting and hearing from voters across the State.”
# # #
Contact: (910) 997-1301; or, gwaynegoodwin@gmail.com
The Goodwin Committee, P.O. Box 1654, Hamlet NC 28345
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Eddie Davis, Candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction, Visits Richmond County
Eddie Davis
Eddie Davis, NCAE President and candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction, visited Richmond County on November 8th for the 2nd Annual Morrison-Deane-Goodman Democratic Dinner & Rally.
Preceding his appearance at the podium and in true educator form, Eddie gave a pop quiz to attendees about Hamlet and Richmond County history. Eddie was especially fond of how Hamlet is the true birthplace of jazz giant John Coltrane. The candidate also spoke about his credentials and his plan for the Department of Public Instruction if elected. In spirited form Eddie rallied the audience of 200+ Democrats by reminding them that Democratic legislators have pushed through legislation that reduced class size, raised teacher pay and added accountability in the classroom, and helped make North Carolina a model for education reform, and how he would work for even greater resources and improvements for Tar Heel schools.
Eddie has taught in both elementary and high schools, and served on the State Board of Education (appointed by then-Governor Jim Hunt) where he focused on school accountability, closing the minority achievement gap, and student discipline.
His slogan is “Standing Tall for Public Education.”
He has chosen to participate in the State’s newly-enacted public financing program for this campaign.
To date, I am not aware of a campaign website or campaign blog for this candidate. This entry will be revised upon notification of an official site.
# # #
Note to Reader: This is one in a series of synoptic posts about Statewide candidates who attended the Richmond County 2nd Annual Morrison-Deane-Goodman Democratic Dinner & Rally in Hamlet on November 8. Given that I serve as chair of the 8th Congressional District Democratic Executive Committee and am prohibited from endorsing in a primary, these posts are not and must not be interpreted as endorsements of any kind other than for Democratic candidates generally. I post these for information only, and encourage friends and supporters (and candidates themselves) who are willing to feel free to post their own comments to this entry.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
Public Financing of Campaigns Preserves Campaigns By, Of, For the People
Public Financing of Campaigns Preserves Power for the People
By Wayne Goodwin
July 2, 2007
So why do we elect so many statewide officials?
Back in the 1700s, fear of King-picked Royal Governors and their great powers helped sow strong sentiments against strong State executives. Those seeds sprouted into many revisions of our State constitution, guaranteeing a weak governor and a State government with decentralized executive authority.
As our state grew, responsibility for important policy areas such as agriculture, education, labor policy, and the regulation of insurance was divided among independently-elected constitutional offices, together called the Council of State.
Because of this division, each Council of State officer is continuously and increasingly bombarded by special interests who want to influence these policy areas. The bombardment reaches fever pitch leading up to elections, when special interests ratchet up their pitch with campaign contributions or promises of contributions to candidates they approach.
Witness recent scandals involving disgraced former Agriculture Commissioner Meg Scott Phipps, House Speaker Jim Black, and others during the last few years. What have these scandals done to public trust in government? It is vastly important for such officials to remain free from actual or perceived undue influence. That is why campaign reforms for these offices, and others, is so badly needed.
This is not merely academic for me: It is real. As an eight-year State Representative and a candidate for Labor Commissioner in 2004, I witnessed first-hand what our candidates for Statewide office endure. While it used to be that a candidate would visit all the county seats and the respective Sheriff in each courthouse, and call on a few people in each county while enjoying an RC Cola at a country store or humpteen BBQs, today campaigning is about the money chase and spending every waking hour raising campaign contributions. Why? Because campaigns today cost more and involve expensive TV ads, countless polls, and consultants in a world where fewer and fewer folks pay attention to elections. In my own 2004 race, like other candidates, I had to lock myself in a cubicle – a campaign War Room – and spend up to 12 hours daily, 6 days weekly, on the phone between 6 and 12 months. Frankly, asking people you know – and those you don't know - to each donate up to thousands of dollars is awkward … but a necessary component of the current system. Asking someone to donate to a charitable cause or a church or a scholarship program is one thing, but making 200 calls daily for your personal campaign's benefit decimates what a candidate should be doing: Spending time with voters.
To accumulate the amount of cash most campaigns are told they need these days, they choose to focus more often on donors of larger sums.
It should also be no surprise that many persons who donate to Council of State offices are often persons directly or indirectly regulated by those very offices, a situation which is potentially fraught with all sorts of problems. Big donors sometimes use their influence to seek tax breaks, weak regulations, or favors that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.
In 2007 legislators have filed a bill that's a first step toward solving this problem. House Bill 1517 would create a voluntary public financing option for certain Council of State candidates. Lawmakers, current and former Council of State leaders, and thousands of North Carolinians believe it is a good idea because it gives candidates a chance to forego the dreadful money chase in exchange for limited public money to run their campaigns. In exchange for participating, candidates waive their right to seek contributions from big donors and from political action committees (PACs). If the General Assembly passes this pilot program, then in 2008 we will take a gigantic step towards cleaning up the campaign process. We will increase the number of qualified candidates willing to run and interaction between them and the voters.
North Carolina has a history that recognizes the value of a government based on power sharing and not powerful State executives. Public financing of campaigns is a voluntary method that helps ensure this power-sharing continues. Let's keep North Carolina elections voter-owned. We all win when the public knows our politicians are not beholden to powerful special interests, but only beholden to us.
# # #
Wayne Goodwin is a Director and Secretary of the N.C. Center for Voter Education. A native of Hamlet, he represented Richmond, Scotland, Stanly, and Montgomery Counties in the N.C. House of Representatives for eight years. He was co-sponsor of the original judicial public financing legislation. Today he is the Assistant Commissioner of Insurance. His spouse, State Representative Melanie Wade Goodwin, chairs the House Election Laws and Campaign Finance Reform Committee.
By Wayne Goodwin
July 2, 2007
So why do we elect so many statewide officials?
Back in the 1700s, fear of King-picked Royal Governors and their great powers helped sow strong sentiments against strong State executives. Those seeds sprouted into many revisions of our State constitution, guaranteeing a weak governor and a State government with decentralized executive authority.
As our state grew, responsibility for important policy areas such as agriculture, education, labor policy, and the regulation of insurance was divided among independently-elected constitutional offices, together called the Council of State.
Because of this division, each Council of State officer is continuously and increasingly bombarded by special interests who want to influence these policy areas. The bombardment reaches fever pitch leading up to elections, when special interests ratchet up their pitch with campaign contributions or promises of contributions to candidates they approach.
Witness recent scandals involving disgraced former Agriculture Commissioner Meg Scott Phipps, House Speaker Jim Black, and others during the last few years. What have these scandals done to public trust in government? It is vastly important for such officials to remain free from actual or perceived undue influence. That is why campaign reforms for these offices, and others, is so badly needed.
This is not merely academic for me: It is real. As an eight-year State Representative and a candidate for Labor Commissioner in 2004, I witnessed first-hand what our candidates for Statewide office endure. While it used to be that a candidate would visit all the county seats and the respective Sheriff in each courthouse, and call on a few people in each county while enjoying an RC Cola at a country store or humpteen BBQs, today campaigning is about the money chase and spending every waking hour raising campaign contributions. Why? Because campaigns today cost more and involve expensive TV ads, countless polls, and consultants in a world where fewer and fewer folks pay attention to elections. In my own 2004 race, like other candidates, I had to lock myself in a cubicle – a campaign War Room – and spend up to 12 hours daily, 6 days weekly, on the phone between 6 and 12 months. Frankly, asking people you know – and those you don't know - to each donate up to thousands of dollars is awkward … but a necessary component of the current system. Asking someone to donate to a charitable cause or a church or a scholarship program is one thing, but making 200 calls daily for your personal campaign's benefit decimates what a candidate should be doing: Spending time with voters.
To accumulate the amount of cash most campaigns are told they need these days, they choose to focus more often on donors of larger sums.
It should also be no surprise that many persons who donate to Council of State offices are often persons directly or indirectly regulated by those very offices, a situation which is potentially fraught with all sorts of problems. Big donors sometimes use their influence to seek tax breaks, weak regulations, or favors that cost the taxpayers millions of dollars.
In 2007 legislators have filed a bill that's a first step toward solving this problem. House Bill 1517 would create a voluntary public financing option for certain Council of State candidates. Lawmakers, current and former Council of State leaders, and thousands of North Carolinians believe it is a good idea because it gives candidates a chance to forego the dreadful money chase in exchange for limited public money to run their campaigns. In exchange for participating, candidates waive their right to seek contributions from big donors and from political action committees (PACs). If the General Assembly passes this pilot program, then in 2008 we will take a gigantic step towards cleaning up the campaign process. We will increase the number of qualified candidates willing to run and interaction between them and the voters.
North Carolina has a history that recognizes the value of a government based on power sharing and not powerful State executives. Public financing of campaigns is a voluntary method that helps ensure this power-sharing continues. Let's keep North Carolina elections voter-owned. We all win when the public knows our politicians are not beholden to powerful special interests, but only beholden to us.
# # #
Wayne Goodwin is a Director and Secretary of the N.C. Center for Voter Education. A native of Hamlet, he represented Richmond, Scotland, Stanly, and Montgomery Counties in the N.C. House of Representatives for eight years. He was co-sponsor of the original judicial public financing legislation. Today he is the Assistant Commissioner of Insurance. His spouse, State Representative Melanie Wade Goodwin, chairs the House Election Laws and Campaign Finance Reform Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
