“Republican candidates who win independents will take the oath of office — period.”¹ — Glen Bolger and Neil Newhouse, Public Opinion Strategies

I am stunned. How is it possible that the fortunes of the Democratic Party could plummet so far so fast? One year ago they were enjoying the spoils of victory after riding the crest of an anti-establishment wave created by the Bush administration’s low approval ratings and the inspirational candidacy of Barack Obama and his message of “change we can believe in.” For the first time in 40 years, they claimed the state’s top three political prizes in the same election year, President, U.S. Senator and Governor, and held a majority in both houses of the legislature.

Now, it’s the Democrats flailing about in a stormy sea of angry voters and in danger of losing many of the partisan advantages they gained in 2008. It’s the Democratic brand that’s tarnished.

Last Friday was the filing deadline for candidates. This report summarizes the state Senate filing results in the context of the turnabout in partisan political fortunes, and examines two tripwires that could thwart the Republican Party’s quest for the majority. Here are some key numbers:

Table Footnotes

GOP Tripwire #1: Favorable Generic Ballot Not Driven by Party-Related Motivations

For the first time in years, NC voters favor Republicans over Democrats in both congressional and state legislative generic races by a margin of 44% to 41%.²  However, only 32% of NC voters have a favorable opinion of the GOP, with 48% having a negative opinion. The favorable opinion of Democrats is a bit higher (38%), but so is the negative opinion of Democrats (51%).

Independent voters are behind the generic ballot results favoring the GOP, and they are driven by an anti-establishment mood, not a pro-Republican mood. The tripwire for Republicans is thinking that independent voters are turning to their candidates for any reason other than they have lost confidence in the Democrats to solve the most important problems of the day: jobs, the economy and spending. If spending were producing jobs, independents would be for it.

Public Opinion Strategies was the polling firm for the recent big GOP wins in Virginia and Massachusetts. Both Virginia’s Gov. Bob McDonnell and Massachusetts’ Sen. Scott Brown won independents by a 2-to-1 margin. According to pollsters Glen Bolger and Neil Newhouse, “McDonnell’s campaign targeted independents, particularly in Northern Virginia, who responded to messages about jobs and fiscal responsibility. Brown, meanwhile, ran as an independent-minded candidate and a ‘Scott Brown Republican,’ as he called himself.”³

Tripwire #2: It’s Not About Abortion, Slick City Lawyers, Homosexuals and African Americans

Two weeks ago, Virginia State Delegate Bob Marshall, a Manassas Republican, asserted during a press conference that children with disabilities are “a special punishment” from God for women who aborted their first pregnancy.⁴ Last week, North Carolina State Senator Jim Forrester, a Stanly Republican, was quoted in the Statesville Record & Landmark as saying, “Slick city lawyers and homosexual lobbies and African-American lobbies are running Raleigh.”⁵

After considerable effort, I cannot find any poll with more than 1% saying that issues related to homosexuals, African-Americans, slick city lawyers or abortions are the most important issues of the day. In a News and Observer/ABC 11 Eyewitness News poll conducted in mid-February, 55% of North Carolinians said the most important issue was “Economy/Jobs.”⁶  ”Health care” was a distant second at 14%, followed by “Government spending/deficit/taxes” named by 12%. All other issues were a single digit number, all the way down to the following issues that were named by only 1% of the voters combined: “Social issues/abortion/gays in the military.”

If Republicans can avoid the tripwire of social issues, they will win over independent voters with their message on jobs, the economy and spending. If they win the independent voters, they will win the majority of the seats in the NC Senate. Pollsters Glen Bolger and Neil Newhouse said it best in their Washington Post op-ed piece, Lessons from Virginia and Massachusetts, “Republican candidates who win independents will take the oath of office — period.”

References

1. Washington Post, Sunday, January 24, 2010; Lessons from Virginia and Massachusetts
2. http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/02/gop-mandate.html
3. Washington Post, Sunday, January 24, 2010; Lessons from Virginia and Massachusetts
4. http://www.newsleader.com/article/20100222/NEWS01/2220318
5. http://www.wsoctv.com/news/22677348/detail.html
6. The News & Observer, Sunday, Feb. 21, 2010; Distress over economy rules N.C. voters’ mood, Pg. 1A

Citizens United Seminar Speakers Lead the Way for Corporations and Trade Associations

“Today, the days of Alice in Wonderland budgeting in Trenton end.”
–Chris Christie, newly elected GOP Governor of New Jersey, Joint Session of Legislature, Feb. 11, 2010

The Highest Risk Option for Business in 2010 is Unilateral Political Disarmament

Leveling NC’s Political Playing Field: How to Use New Business Free Speech Rights, was the topic for a seminar hosted on Monday by Longistics. Four experts addressed the legal and practical application of the new rights to corporate-funded independent expenditure ads, recently granted by the U.S. Supreme Court. Speaking to the law were attorneys Robert S. LaBrant, Sr. VP, Political Affairs & General Counsel, Michigan Chamber, and Stephen B. Long, a partner with Williams Mullen, Raleigh. Speaking to the practical application of the law were political consultants Chris Sinclair, Cornerstone Solutions, and Neal Rhoades, Southeast Strategies.

Many businesses and their trade associations are weighing the risks of using corporate-funded independent political ads. This report offers suggestions from our speakers for low, medium and high risk options for your consideration. First, I would like to present the highest risk option: unilateral disarmament. This is what business has been doing. It’s why we have so few allies.

Last Thursday, Chris Christie, newly elected GOP Governor of New Jersey, said to a Joint Session of the Legislature, “Today, we come to terms with the fact that we cannot spend money on everything we want. Today, the days of Alice in Wonderland budgeting in Trenton end.”

If you like Christie’s statement, then work to elect lawmakers who think like that. Use all of the political tools at your disposal, including your PAC and the new right to corporate-funded independent expenditure ads. It’s time to stop the high risk politics of unilateral disarmament.

New Laws from the Citizens United U.S. Supreme Court Decision

• Corporations and unions may not be restricted in making independent expenditures from their general treasury funds on behalf of candidates for political office.
• Corporations and unions may now engage in express advocacy (calling for the election or defeat of a candidate) through independent expenditures, throughout the campaign.
• Trade associations organized under IRC § 501 (c) 6 and other groups organized under IRC § 501 (c) 4 may receive corporate and union funds to engage in express advocacy.
• Corporations may now send express advocacy communications to all employees, calling for the election or defeat of a candidate, in federal races (previously only state races).

What Did NOT Change

• Corporations and unions still may not make direct contributions to candidates and political parties (22 states, where 60% of Americans reside, allow direct corporate and labor union contributions to candidates. North Carolina is not one of them).
• Trade associations organized under IRC § 501 (c) 6 and tax exempt groups organized under IRC § 501 (c) 4 still may not devote half or more of their time and resources to political activity. Almost half, 49.9% of your time and resources is permissible.
• Charities, churches and other organizations exempt from taxation under IRC § 501 (c) 3 still may not engage in political campaign activity.
• Ad disclaimer rules and disclosure laws under the North Carolina State Board of Elections are still in place.
• The MOST IMPORTANT LAW that did not change is that you still cannot coordinate your independent expenditure ads with candidates or political parties.

How To

• Working with your association, form a committee to create a IRC § 527 independent expenditure account. Include your attorney, tax accountant and a political pro.
• Present the strategy, plan and budget for formal approval by the board of directors.
• Ask the State Board of Elections to review your plan so that everyone in your organization will be confident that all “T’s” have been crossed.
• If you would prefer to organize a completely independent group with like-minded individuals or other groups, form a IRC § 501 (c) 4 tax exempt organization. It must be founded on a social welfare issue like “Keeping North Carolina business friendly.”
• File with the IRS for exempt status under IRC § 501 (c) 4.
• Remember, a IRC § 501 (c) 4 or 6 group can only devote 49.9% its budget for political activity. The remaining 50.1% must be spent on activities tied to its tax exempt purpose.
• Open a segregated bank account, raise money and work your plan.

Low Risk/Medium Risk & No Risk Options for Independent Ads

• You do not have to run negative ads. There is great value in ads that help the voting public appreciate what select representatives are doing for them in Raleigh.
• You can create an IRC § 527 issue advocacy account and stick to issues and stay away from express advocacy like calling for the election or defeat of a candidate. Note: All donors of $200 or more to an IRC § 527 are disclosed on the IRS web site.
• Keep your PAC well-funded and active throughout 2010. There are many OPEN SEAT races that do not involve an incumbent. Only support your allies in these races.
• Think niche, niche, niche: just do drive time radio; just do airplane banners.
• Don’t go it alone. Team up with like-minded groups to form your IRC § 501 (c) 4.

Seek Expert Advice: Legal, Tax and Political

With the Citizens United ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court has freed you to make independent expenditures from your general treasury on behalf of candidates for political office. The only thing that remains is your decision to use this new political tool.

If you decide to avoid the high-risk option of unilateral disarmament and to get into independent expenditure political activity, you are strongly urged to seek legal, tax and political advice. The professionals at Monday’s Citizens United seminar are among the best:

• For keynoter or legal advice on the law of Citizens United contact Steven B. Long, partner with Williams Mullen, Raleigh: slong@williamsmullen.com
• For keynoter or political advice/contract work on Independent Expenditure Ads contact Chris Sinclair, Cornerstone Solutions, Raleigh: chris@cornerstonesolutionsteam.com
• For keynoter or political advice/contract work on Independent Expenditure Ads contact Neal Rhoades, Southeast Strategies, Raleigh: neal@southeaststrategies.com

What to Expect … and What Not to Expect in 2010

You can expect more political money invested in 2010 than ever before. Everyone will be making sure that the other guys are not gaining on them by taking advantage of the new law created by the Citizens United decision. Political Action Committees and 527 Issue Advocacy Campaigns will be more important than ever to those who are beginning to realize that they are fast losing what little advantage they have left to outside groups like SEANC and SEIU, who invested $2,054,271 in North Carolina politics in 2008. They, along with fellow public employee unions NEA and the NCAE, invested $1,846,219 to help Beverly Perdue win the governor’s race in 2008.

If you would like for the days of Alice in Wonderland budgeting in Raleigh to end, then use all of the political tools at your disposal, including the new right to corporate-funded independent political ads. It’s time to stop the high risk politics of doing nothing; of unilateral disarmament.

“… said John Davis, a pro-business Republican.” –Rob Christensen, Political Reporter, News & Observer, February 4, 2010

A Letter to Rob Christensen, Political Reporter, The News & Observer

Note: Today’s N&O carried a front page story titled, Perdue: SEANC speaks for state workers. In the story, political reporter Rob Christensen quoted me in writing, “Very clearly this state is moving toward unionization of public employees and collective bargaining rights,” said Davis, a pro-business Republican. What follows is my reply to Rob, a seasoned political writer who I respect very much, correcting his characterization of me as a “pro-business Republican,” followed by a defense of radical moderation, and the need for a balanced, two-party state.

Dear Rob: I appreciate being included in your story in today’s News & Observer titled, Perdue: SEANC speaks for state workers.¹ However, I would like to correct your characterization of me as a, “pro-business Republican.”

I am a life-long Independent, registered Unaffiliated, and consider myself a radical moderate. Both parties have good ideas and good people; both parties have bad ideas and bad apples. I appreciate the value of a two-party state and nation, especially the role that partisan competition plays as a means of checks-and-balances to guarantee that no one becomes too powerful; as a means to ensure that all good people and good ideas are heard.

Having said that, I would like to submit that the Democratic Party in North Carolina is a classic example of the corrupting and destructive nature of unilateral governance. Another classic example is the Republican congressional majority that was ousted in 2006. They, like North Carolina Democrats, were so powerful that many of their leaders thought they were above the law. They ruined their party’s good name and reputation and lost the trust of the people.

In the book, “The New Politics of North Carolina,” Christopher Cooper and Gibbs Knotts make the case that it’s time we reevaluated the notion that North Carolina is a progressive state by using additional dimensions including party competition. They argue that competition among political parties can, “… foster new ideas, enhance debate, and lead to innovative policy solutions.” They concluded by saying, “By and large, a progressive state is a two-party state.”²

I included the sensible argument by Cooper and Knotts for the value of a two-party state in my John Davis Political Report, December 14, 2009, titled, Liberal Insurgents End Sen. Basnight’s Historic Era of Power. I wrote: “So, for all of you enlightened business progressives out there concerned about fiscal irresponsibility and the rampant corruption resulting from the unilateral policy making authority of the Democrats, perhaps it’s time that you consider doing something really progressive: vote Republican.”³

The argument that it’s time to “vote Republican” is an argument for ending the corrupting and destructive nature of unilateral governance in North Carolina, an objective that can only be achieved by checking and balancing the power of Democrats with the election of a Republican majority to either the North Carolina House or Senate. If the Republicans had unchecked power in North Carolina, my December report would have ended with, “It’s time to vote Democratic.”

Although I do confess to being unapologetically “pro-business,” a Republican I am not; neither am I a Democrat. Granted, over the years I have experienced the provincial perspective of many Democratic Party leaders in North Carolina who see Independent voters as Republicans, much like provincial conservative Republicans see moderates as liberals. Nonetheless, I, along with many North Carolinians, am an Independent moderate who believes that a two-party state and nation is our best means to ensure that all good people and good ideas are heard.

I suspect that many loyal Democrats around the state are regretting that they wished for all of the power in North Carolina as they see one after another of their leaders hauled off to court and the good name and reputation of the state tarnished. I know many loyal Republicans throughout America saw the destructiveness of having all of the power when they joined Democrats and Independents in 2006 and 2008 and threw the GOP majority out of the US Congress.

I also suspect that many loyal Democrats will be splitting their tickets this year and joining Republicans and Independents in voting to end the unchecked and unbalanced power of North Carolina Democrats. I know many of us Independent, Unaffiliated radical moderates will be.

References

1. The News & Observer, Perdue: SEANC speaks for state workers, Thursday, February 04, 2010; Page 1A
2. The New Politics of North Carolina, North Carolina Press, 2008, Editors: Cooper and Knotts.
3. John Davis Political Report, Vol. II, No. 8, December 14, 2009; www.johndavisconsulting.com

“[Executive Order 45] means that we can discuss the terms and conditions of our employment.”¹
–Dana Cope, Executive Director, SEANC (SEIU Local 2008), Jan. 25, 2010

The State of the Union Money in North Carolina Politics

In last Sunday‟s News and Observer, the editorial page carried a misleading op-ed piece written by Gene Nichol, a law Professor at UNC-Chapel Hill. Professor Nichol was spitting mad about last week‟s US Supreme Court decision that gave unlimited independent political free speech rights to corporations and unions. “I find no words to convey adequate outrage over Friday’s US Supreme Court decision, in the Citizens United case, to radically untether corporate spending in our electoral politics,” fumed Professor Nichol, “It is bizarrely anti-democratic.”²

Why misleading? If Professor Nichol had taken the time to read the decision before regurgitating his sanctimonious ire, he would have discovered that the ruling applies to both corporations and unions. Yet, not once in his editorial, titled Supreme corporations, did Professor Nichol include “unions” as he decried the corrupting influence of money. The Citizens United case can be found on the US Supreme Court‟s web site.³ The phrase “corporations and unions” appears 26 times in the opinion. Everything corporations can now do, so can unions.

While Nichol assails corporate political spending, he fails to mention that unions contributed over $5 million in 2008 to North Carolina politicians; 98% of their money going to Democrats.

Unrestrained Spending by Public Employee Unions

Perhaps the reason Professor Nichol, a public employee, overlooks big union money in North Carolina politics is because almost all of the union money comes from public employee unions. Of the $5,032,908 spent by unions in 2008 on North Carolina candidates, $4,532,540 was spent by public employee unions and their affiliated unions. Here are the facts:⁴

• SEANC (State Employees Assn. of NC) contributed $243,706 to NC candidates
• Democratic candidates received $218,956 of SEANC money, or 90%
• Republican candidates received $24,750 of SEANC money, or 10%

• SEANC is Local #2008, affiliated with SEIU (Service Employees Int‟l Union)
• SEIU invested $1,810,566 in NC candidates in 2008
• Democrats enjoyed $1,760,556 of SEIU‟s money, or 97%; Republicans 3%
• SEIU gave the North Carolina Democratic Party over $1 million

• NCAE (NC Association of Educators) contributed $265,330 to 200 NC candidates
• Democratic candidates received $245,980 of NCAE money, or 93%

• NEA (National Education Association) invested $2,212,936 in NC candidates
• 100% of NEA‟s $2,212,936 went to help Democrats; Republicans 0%
• NEA ran a $1.7 million independent expenditure campaign for Bev Perdue

Additional union funds invested in 2008 and conveniently overlooked by Professor Nichol:

• United Auto Workers union gave the North Carolina Democratic Party over $100,000
• DRIVE, the Teamsters union, contributed $361,617 to NC Democrats
• IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) gave $36,500 to Democrats
• UFCE (United Food and Commercial Workers) contributed over $100,000 to the Democratic Party of North Carolina

UNC law Professor Gene Nichol writes, “A system of government in which those who seek certain policies are allowed to spend unrestrained sums on behalf of those who make the policies can be called many things. „Democratic‟ and „fair‟ are not among them.” Why is Nichol only including corporate “unrestrained sums?” What‟s “fair” about excluding unions?

If UNC law Professor Gene Nichol would go to the website, www.opensecrets.org, and do a search on the largest political independent expenditure groups, he would discover that SEIU is #1 on the list of the Top 100 all-time biggest spenders.⁵ In 2008, SEIU spent $85 million to influence the outcome of elections, and was rewarded by President Obama with support for the Employee Free Choice Act legislation and top White House jobs including political director, and positions on the National Labor Relations Board and the president‟s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.⁶

In 2006, SEIU spent $635,000 in North Carolina elections on TV and radio ads, mailings, opinion polls, and Get-Out-The-Vote phone banks – more than ANY BUSINESS PAC in NC. SEIU also contributed more than 10% of the total budget of FairJudges.net to run ads statewide for NC Supreme Court candidates in 2006. In 2004, SEIU spent $650,000 just on NC legislative races.
Perhaps it was just an oversight. Surely Professor Nichol intended to include unions among those who have rendered our system of government undemocratic and unfair because of their unrestrained spending. And surely he intended to include the UNC-Chapel Hill PAC.

According to Democracy North Carolina, the state’s leading campaign finance watchdog, “A group of UNC-Chapel Hill boosters called Citizens for Higher Education gave $479,000 to legislative candidates during the 2008 election, more money than any other PAC.”⁷ Oh well, just another one of Nichols‟ inadvertent exclusions from those who have rendered our system of government undemocratic and unfair because of their unrestrained spending.

Governor Bev Perdue‟s Executive Order #45

On May 3, 2008, the State Employees Association of North Carolina (SEANC) voted to officially affiliate with Service Employees International Union (SEIU). SEANC is now known as SEIU Local 2008, and is the South‟s leading state employee association with its 55,000 members.

During the 2008 election cycle, SEANC and SEIU invested $2,054,271 in North Carolina politics. They, along with fellow public employee unions NEA and the NCAE, invested $1,846,219 to help Beverly Perdue win the governor‟s race in 2008.

Last Friday, Governor Perdue signed Executive Order #45, a move characterized by The Insider on Tuesday this way: “Gov. Beverly Perdue has issued an executive order that pushes state employees a little closer to collective bargaining rights.”⁸ Dana Cope, Executive Director of SEANC, SEIU Local 2008, sees it similarly. “[Executive Order 45] means that we can discuss the terms and conditions of our employment.”⁹

UNC law Professor Gene Nichol writes, “A system of government in which those who seek certain policies are allowed to spend unrestrained sums on behalf of those who make the policies can be called many things. „Democratic‟ and „fair‟ are not among them.” Like it or not, as of last Friday’s US Supreme Court decision, in the Citizens United case, unrestrained independent expenditures by corporations and unions is the law.

UNC law Professor Gene Nichols‟ diatribe in last Sunday‟s News and Observer described untethered corporate spending in our electoral politics as, “bizarrely anti-democratic.” He said that he could not find words to adequately convey his outrage. Not including unions in his op-ed piece is bizarrely anti-accurate. Perhaps the next time he needs to try to find words that adequately interpret the law.

References

1. http://www.seanc.org/news/homepagenews.aspx
2. http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columnists_blogs/other_views/story/299567.html
3. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
4. Union contributions and independent expenditures database provided by Civitas Institute
5. http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/indexp.php
6. The Wall Street Journal, SEIU Campaign Spending Pays Political Dividends, May 16, 2009
7. Democracy North Carolina, Press Release: Friday, June 26, 2009; Special-Interest PACs Guard Tax Loopholes
8. http://www.governor.state.nc.us/NewsItems/ExecutiveOrderDetail.aspx?newsItemID=884
9. http://www.seanc.org/news/homepagenews.aspx

“They’re the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam. Tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of … of being war criminals. With nothing to gain for themselves, they have come forward to talk about the John Kerry they know.”¹ Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, TV ad excerpt, September 2004

Below you will find a memo written by Patton Boggs, one of the leading campaign finance law firms in America, summarizing the implications of the new U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down on January 20, 2010, freeing corporations from campaign spending limits on independent expenditure advertising. Here are some of the highlights:

• Before last week’s ruling, corporate funds could not be used to fund independent ads that expressly called for the election or defeat of a political candidate. Now they can.
• Before the ruling, corporate funds could not be used to fund independent issue advocacy ads within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of the general election. Now they can.

Example: The famous Swift Boat Veterans ads never called for the election of George Bush or the defeat of John Kerry. Those ads merely disclosed questions about John Kerry’s war record. Corporations could have helped fund those ads up to 30 days before the primary and 60 days before the general election. However, as those ads were developed after the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and run only in September and October, within the 60 days before the general election, none of the $26 million raised to fund the ads was from corporate funds. Today, corporate money CAN be used to pay for the Swift Boat Veterans type ads all the way up to Election Day, and, you CAN call for the election or defeat of a candidate.

—————————

MEMORANDUM

To: Interested Parties
From: Benjamin L. Ginsberg, William McGinley, Glenn Willard, Kathryn E. Biber and John Hilton
Date: January 21, 2010
Subject: Citizens United v. FEC – Opportunities for Participation Grow

American campaigns and elections will change dramatically as a result of today’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The opinion provides new opportunities for many players in the process, but includes some large pitfalls for candidates and the political parties.

The most immediate and basic implication of the decision is that corporations and unions may now pay for unlimited independent expenditures directly from their general treasuries. And by invalidating a key portion of the McCain-Feingold law that barred such expenditures within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary, all entities will be able to directly advocate the election or defeat of specific federal candidates right through Election Day.

This affirmation of corporate and union First Amendment rights will also apply to state and local laws currently restricting corporations and unions from engaging in independent expenditures. Whether these provisions are in state law or in state constitutions, they are now unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

The Court left in place the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to candidates, as well as the current disclaimer and disclosure requirements on communications (although the precise level of reporting detail that will be required for corporate or union independent advocacy, including through 501c4 social welfare organizations and 501c6 trade associations is unclear).

The decision will drastically alter the landscape for candidates and political parties. While the limits and prohibitions on contributions to them remain in place, much more spending by outside groups throughout the election cycle specifically praising or criticizing candidates should be expected. There is no language in the opinion suggesting support on the Court for overturning the ban on the political parties raising non-federal funds, so parties, too, stand to be considerably outspent.

That means there will be extensive pressure in Congress to revisit those limits and prohibitions legislatively so that candidates are not drowned out in their campaigns and the public debate.

Here’s a quick analysis of what the decision means for key players in the political process:

Candidates: The limits placed on the size of contributions to candidates places them at a significant disadvantage compared to corporations and unions that will now be able to spend unlimited amounts on express advocacy right through Election Day. Controlling the issues they want to run on will become a real challenge, as will having sufficient funds to portray their positions and images.

Political Parties: Unless the laws change, the political party as we know it is threatened with extinction. The parties do several things for their candidates and supporters – raise money and conduct independent expenditures, conduct voter contact programs and describe the party’s position on issues, often through issue advocacy. With the limits on the amounts and sources of funds they can accept, the parties will be bit players compared to outside groups that can now conduct those core functions with unlimited funds from any source.

Corporations and Unions: Freed from their First Amendment shackles, corporations and unions can now engage fully in the political process. The reality of what this means is sure to be hotly debated depending on the speaker’s outlook. Republicans see a coordinated and extremely well-funded union effort that gives over 98 percent of its funds to Democrats, while corporations’ political giving tends to incumbent heavy and more evenly divided. Democrats see the size of corporate treasuries compared to unions and believe they are about to get swamped.

501c4s and 501c6s: Likely to emerge as the biggest players in the 2010 and 2012 elections, ideological groups and trade associations also have been granted the ability to engage much more robustly in the political process. Meager disclosure requirements of their donors will make them a favorite repository of funds for independent expenditures.

Wealthy Individuals: Ever since the 2004 elections when McCain-Feingold took effect, wealthy individuals have engaged in considerable spending. The Court’s opinion has significantly loosened what they may say. The decision, combined with the D.C. Circuit’s Emily’s List opinion of last fall, also eliminates the chances of Federal Election Commission enforcement actions that harassed many conservative donors off the playing field in the last two cycles. See Ginsberg, Politico op-ed from Jan. 21. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31669.html The decision will also lead to a number of new outlets who can carry the messages that these donors have wanted carried.

527s: This vehicle of choice for many outside, independent communications in the last three cycles has been rendered obsolete for this purpose by the Court’s decision.

Vendors: The opinion should drastically increase the number of voices singing in the First Amendment choir. This is very good news for those who assist those efforts.

References

1. http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=Ads

“Governments at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often, bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities.”¹ — U.S. Senator Barack Obama, 2006

Hu-bris (hyoo’bris) n. Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.

In his book, The Audacity to Win, President Obama’s campaign manager David Plouffe writes about Obama’s “significant self-confidence.” What Plouffe calls significant self-confidence is also hubris, excessive pride or arrogance; the trait most responsible for Obama’s failed first year.

The year was 2003. Plouffe was meeting with Obama in Chicago for the first time to talk about his 2004 race for U.S. Senate. He was trying to persuade Obama of the importance of allowing campaign professionals to run the campaign. “You just have to let go and trust,” Plouffe told him. “I understand that intellectually,” said Obama, “but this is my life and career. And I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it.”²

Sound familiar? President Obama’s big mistake was assuming that his historic election was a mandate to do as he pleased … putting healthcare reform ahead of concerns about jobs with a dismissive attitude as to fears about costs, deficits and taxes associated with healthcare reform. President Obama and the Imperials, the Democratic Congressional leaders, need to think about Scott Brown’s now-famous answer to David Gergen’s question about responsibility for the maintenance of “Ted Kennedy’s seat.” “Not Kennedy’s seat,” Brown replied, “the people’s seat.”

It’s not Obama’s “big bang agenda” that’s important to Americans struggling to deal with the worst economy in 70 years, it’s the “people’s agenda.” And who are these people? Well, 8 out of 10 voters in America are either conservative or moderate.³ It’s no wonder that a liberal president leading a liberal congress is having trouble getting his legislation supported.

Thomas Edsall, Political Editor of the liberal-bent Huffington Post, noted this week that The Pew Center polling found that during Obama’s first year the percentage of voters saying he listens to liberals in his party more than moderates grew by 9 points, from 34 percent to 43 percent. “And, so now a Democratic Party that seemed poised for electoral greatness has reverted back to the debilitating political condition that ailed it during the 1970s and 1980s,” said Edsall, “It is increasingly perceived as too liberal.”⁴

Obama has run the healthcare debate behind closed doors, bribing senators to get their support with outrageous deals worth hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, even though he promised eight times during 2008 that the healthcare reform debate would be on C-Span. That’s hubris.

Obama expects the American people to sit idly by until after the bill becomes law, at which time, according to the President, you will “suddenly learn this bill does things you like.”

Thus far, Obama has ignored the early signs of trouble. It’s no wonder that the Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll conducted last week shows that only 39% of Americans would vote to re-elect the President to a 2nd term, and only 23% say they definitely would do so.⁵

David Plouffe concludes his book saying, “Obama is a chess player in a city of checkers players.” That much may be true in Washington, DC among his fellow Democrats. But out here among regular folks, in states like Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts, Obama’s hubris problem has made him look like a checkers player in a nation of chess players.

Obama’s Hubris Disenfranchises the Majority and Taints Democratic Brand in States

“When there’s trouble in Massachusetts, rest assured, there’s trouble everywhere,” said Scott Brown, GOP winner of Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. Brown said that the healthcare bill was being “forced on the American people” and was “not being debated openly and fairly.”⁶

Thus far, the anti-incumbency vengeance has been directed exclusively at Democrats … further evidence that the Democratic brand has been tainted from the top. It is playing out in the form of angry in-your-face voters like those who crowded last summer’s congressional town hall meetings; it’s seen in the about-face independent voters in November 2009 in Virginia and New Jersey, and in liberal, Democratic Massachusetts on Tuesday. The disenfranchised majority is tired of being ignored and is taking back political authority. Incumbents are in trouble, especially Democrats who put all of their political eggs in President Obama’s basket.

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a Democrat up for reelection this year, fears that under Obama the party has moved too far to the left. “If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call, there’s no hope of waking up,” he told ABC News. ⁷ “It’s why moderates and independents even in a state as Democratic as Massachusetts just aren’t buying our message,” he said.
America’s disenfranchised majority has now been heard loud and clear.

Is Obama’s Hubris Problem a Solution for North Carolina Republicans?

Here in North Carolina, Democrats face the politically devastating prospects of corruption scandals multiplying as a result of the federal grand jury investigations into allegations of illegal activity by former Gov. Mike Easley, as well as scandals associated with allegations of insider trading by state Sen. Tony Rand and assault charges against Sen. R.C. Soles, Permanent Chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus. To what extent scandal will impact the Democratic Party leadership and their fundraising organization is anyone’s guess.

While the Democrats’ world has been shaken, Republicans appear to be pulling together for the first time in recent memory. GOP State Chairman Tom Fetzer brings a unique set of skills to the Republican Party that gives him greater potential than recent predecessors. Fetzer was a three term mayor of Raleigh; an experience that taught him how to manage disparate factions. That experience also made him a seasoned candidate and established his extraordinary skills as a fundraiser. Throughout his first year as party chairman, news stories have surfaced time and again showing Fetzer, State Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger, and State House Minority Leader Paul Stam, traveling the state as a team, issuing press releases as a team, setting the example on the importance of unity for Republicans and their allies throughout the state.

Will Democrats recover in time for the November elections? President Obama earned the body blows to the ego he took in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts. But, early signs are that he is in denial (hubris) and is blaming those election losses on the residual anger of the American public left over from the Bush/Cheney Administration. If that attitude continues, Democrats in North Carolina will suffer. Cooler heads in the Democratic Party, like former Gov. Jim Hunt, need to step in and help Obama manage his agenda and style while there is still time.

Meanwhile, there is a book Obama needs to read. It’s called, The Audacity of Hope, written by a newcomer to the U.S. Senate from Illinois in 2006. The author wrote:

“Governments at every level had become too cavalier about spending taxpayer money. Too often, bureaucracies were oblivious to the cost of their mandates. A lot of liberal rhetoric did seem to value rights and entitlements over duties and responsibilities.”⁸

Obama’s hubris cost him Kennedy’s seat and may destroy his entire reform legacy. Perhaps the author of The Audacity of Hope can help him get back on track. If he doesn’t, Republicans are going to have a big year in North Carolina and elsewhere and he is going to continue to look like a checkers player in a nation of chess players.

References

1. The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, Three Rivers Press, Pg. 31.
2. The Audacity to Win, by David Plouffe, Campaign Manager for Obama for America, Viking Press, Pg. 8.
3. Gallup Poll, Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group, January 7, 2010; www.gallup.com
4. The Huffington Post, Ghost Story by Thomas Edsall, 1/20/10
5. Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll conducted by Financial Dynamics, Jan. 3-7, 2010
6. Scott Brown, Republican winner of U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat, campaign victory speech 1/19/2010
7. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31703_Page2.html#ixzz0dBnQJQTK
8. The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, Three Rivers Press, 2006, Pg. 31.

Politics, Rain Dances and Comets

Timing has a lot to do with the outcome of political races, just like timing has a lot to do with the outcome of a rain dance … or the return of a comet.

President Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign for the White House reminds me of Halley’s Comet: a spectacular event, brilliant and inspiring, that comes along once every 76 years. Using his skills honed as an inner city community organizer in Chicago, he won the race with 7 million more popular votes than any candidate in the history of presidential politics, raising a staggering $782 million, and employing 6,000 staffers who managed an all-volunteer army of 13 million.

David Plouffe, President Obama’s campaign manager, revealed the campaign secrets in his book The Audacity to Win, published last month. He proudly tells the story of how their rag tag militia defeated the dream teams of both the Democratic and Republican parties with a once-in-a-lifetime-candidate, a single powerful message, and a web site used to organize and communicate with staff and volunteers … and raise money like it had never been raised before.

In September 2008 alone, the Obama campaign raised $150 million; $100 million of that had been raised online as a result of 10 fund-raising e-mails. “There were times when we were raising $250,000, $300,000, even $500,000 an hour.”¹ Why did that matter here in North Carolina? “Every additional dime was being funneled into battleground states,” said Plouffe.

Halley’s Comet: a spectacular event, brilliant and inspiring, returns in 2061. That’s about when we will likely see another candidacy like that of Barack Obama in 2008. As to 2010, read on.

Throwing Long

Obama insisted on three things at the outset of his campaign. One was that he alone would establish the message and that it would not be negotiable; two, that his campaign would win with a grassroots organization targeting unconventional voters; three, that they would have the courage to take risks, a campaign quality that David Plouffe describes as “throwing long.”

The message from day one was change. “Change versus a broken status quo; people versus the special interests; a politics that would lift people and the country up; and a president who would not forget the middle-class.”² The campaign strategy from day one was to gain the advantage over Hillary Clinton and her high-roller backed campaign of Manifest Destiny with a grassroots ground game funded by small contributors. It worked in Iowa; the first major electoral event of the presidential nominating process. Clinton snubbed Iowa while the Obama staff and volunteers pulled off an upset victory by getting their supporters to leave their homes on a frigid, February day and go to a caucus meeting to cast a vote for Obama.

Throughout the primary, the Obama campaign defied conventional wisdom by targeting those least likely to vote like younger white voters, independents, newly registered African-American voters, and African-American voters who had voted sporadically in the past. They invested heavily in early turnout of these non-habitual voters with radio ads and Internet ads pushing early voting; they sent e-mail and text messages to tens of thousands of North Carolinians urging early voting, called tens of thousands more and sent volunteers door-to-door to urge early voting.

Traces of the Strategic Design

On May 6, 2008, Primary Election Day exit polling here in North Carolina was so conclusive that the moment the polls closed the national networks declared Obama the winner over Clinton. Plouffe recalls the 14-point blowout in his book this way: “As the returns came in, we could see the traces of our strategy’s design: by registering over 100,000 new voters, producing strong turnout among African-Americans and young voters, and winning college-educated whites thanks to our stand against the gas tax, we made ourselves unbeatable in North Carolina.”³

The unconventional strategy of targeting atypical voters in unlikely places like North Carolina continued throughout the fall. Obama knew he could not defeat a Republican presidential nominee in the Old North State with TV ads, no matter how much money he spent. His only hope was a massive ground game, registering and turning out non-traditional voters.

When the dust settled and the numbers were tallied in North Carolina following the November elections, 967,804 new voters had been registered during the year, with nearly 8 in 10 registering either as Democrats or Unaffiliated, pushing our state to over 6 million registered voters for the first time ever. New African-American voters totaled over 304,708. New voters in the 18 to 24 year-old age group totaled 317,584.

The Obama campaign had 47 headquarters in our state, with over 400 paid staff in the twenty-something age group. These junior operatives were responsible for record early voting totaling 2.6 million (only 984,000 voted early in 2004), more voters than on Election Day. Seven out of 10 of the early voters were either Democrats (51%) or Unaffiliated (19%). African Americans comprised 28% of early voters, as compared to only 19% of the 2004 general election early vote.

Obama won North Carolina by defying conventional wisdom, by using a non-negotiable message of change and a grassroots organization. He won because he was willing to throw long.

The Honeymoon is Over; and You are Not Who I Married!

It has been said that marriage is when two become one, and then they spend the rest of their lives arguing about which one. The biggest difference between the magical Obama “marriage” of 2008 and the post-honeymoon relationship of 2010 is that now, after a year’s worth of leadership, his supporters are beginning to doubt his commitment to promises made at the altar.

The clearest example of a weakening Obama base can be seen in the low turnout of young adults in Virginia and New Jersey last year despite numerous pleas from the president during personal visits. Only 8% of the 18 to 24 year old voters turned out in New Jersey (17% in 2008), with only 10% turning out in Virginia (21% in 2008). Republicans won both governors’ races.

Obama won in 2008 in great part because of young and enthusiastic, anti-war idealists who worked tirelessly registering and turning out other young, enthusiastic, anti-war idealists. When those same voters opened their laptops yesterday to read the news, they were probably astounded by an AP story titled, Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year.⁴ The article notes that the record amount will be used in Iraq and to expand the unpopular war in Afghanistan, and points out that the request will be a difficult sell to Democratic Party leaders in the Congress. Those young anti-war Obama idealists are less likely to retool for other Democrats in 2010.

The tables are now turned. They are now Obama’s wars; it’s now Obama’s economy. He gets the credit for the good and the bad, and it’s beginning to show in the national polls:

According to the Gallop polling organization January 13, 2010:⁵

• Obama’s job approval is 50%, down from a first-year high of 69%
• Only 40% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of the economy (lowest ever)
• Only 37% of Americans approve of Obama’s handling of health care reform (lowest ever)
• Looking only at the all-important Independent voters, only 31% approve of Obama’s handling of the economy and of health care reform
• Conservatives outnumber both moderates and liberals for the first time since 2004
• Fewer than half of Americans call themselves Democrats (a first since 2005)

President Barack Obama’s campaign for the White House was a spectacular event, like Halley’s Comet, brilliant and inspiring, a game-changer in many North Carolina races in 2008. But as to whether it will drive our 2010 elections … ummmmmm, well, Halley’s Comet returns in 2061.

References

1. The Audacity to Win, by David Plouffe, Campaign Manager for Obama for America, page 327.
2. The Audacity to Win, page 32.
3. The Audacity to Win, page 229.
4. AP, January 13, 2010, by Anne Gearan and Anne Flaherty
5. Gallup, January 13, 2010. See: www.gallup.com

There was a drowning man, 50 feet from shore. A 50 foot rope lay on the beach. A Republican came along and seeing the man struggling threw him 25 feet of rope and said, “If you’ll swim half way I’ll pull you on in.” A Democrat came along and seeing the man struggling threw him 50 feet of rope, then dropped the rope and went off to do another good deed. The man drowned.

As we begin the 2010 election year, all indicators are pointing favorably towards Republicans. We saw in Virginia and New Jersey last year that President Obama’s base is a mile wide and an inch deep. They didn’t vote. Obama’s liberal notions are beginning to raise doubts about his leadership in a nation where 8 out of 10 voters are either conservative or moderate.¹ In our state, Democrats are rocked by scandal, a budget crisis and the fall of the Basnight/Rand Empire.

However, when the dust settles after the 2010 elections, if all NC Republicans have to offer voters is, “We’re not the other guys … those corrupt tax and spend liberal Democrats,” they will not win either chamber of the NC General Assembly. Our problems are too great. Our fears are grounded in too many stories of family, friends and neighbors struggling to manage a catastrophic loss of wealth, income, jobs, homes, and financial security.

Karl Rove, architect of the two successful campaigns of former President George W. Bush, had some sage advice for Republicans in his New Year’s Resolutions for Washington published in the Wall Street Journal. “It won’t be enough to surf voter dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and Democrats,” he wrote, “Voters will want to know what Republican candidates would do.”²

Implications of the Fall of the Basnight/Rand Empire

The fall of the Basnight/Rand Empire implies three things:

1. Less money for Senate Democrats and more money for Republicans;
2. Disruptiveness of a leadership shakeup;
3. An estrangement with Progressive Businesses threatened by an era of liberal dominance in the NC Senate.

Truth be told, the Basnight/Rand Empire fell to a palace coup led by liberal urban lawyers.3 The divisive issue before the Senate Democratic caucus was the Racial Justice Act, legislation intended to ensure that the race of a defendant in a death penalty case is never a factor in determining guilt or punishment.

A half-dozen or so senate leaders were opposed to the bill, including Senators Basnight and Rand. The majority of the Senate Democrats favored the bill, especially the African-American members. The caucus majority, led by Sen. Martin Nesbitt (D-Buncombe) and Sen. Dan Blue (D-Wake), issued an ultimatum to the leadership: support the Racial Justice Act or else. As with all who rule with autocratic arrogance, the day came when their subjects refused to be pushed around anymore. Thus, the coup succeeded and the Basnight/Rand Empire fell.

Rand, humiliated in defeat, quit. Ironically, Rand began his service in a new role as Chairman of the state Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission this week even as he faces possible criminal investigations involving insider trading at his high-tech security equipment company, Law Enforcement Associates (LEA) — a company that did business with the state without competitive bids.⁴

The days of Senate Democrats outspending Senate Republicans five to one are over. Sen. Nesbitt, elected Majority Leader after Rand’s departure, will not be able to raise nearly the money that his predecessor raised. Granted, there will be many gestures of appreciation for his new-found influence … but the gestures won’t be in the amounts that Rand received. Additionally, there will be many gestures of appreciation for the new-found potential of Republicans. Republicans will receive more financial support this year as state and federal polls and pundits tout their likely success in races throughout the nation as voters shift to the right.

Are Liberal Democrats Forcing Business Progressives to Coalesce with Republicans?

Upon Rand’s departure, Sen. Nesbitt was elected Majority Leader. Who will likely be the new President Pro Tempore when Basnight decides to hang it up? A likely choice is Sen. Dan Blue.

Progressive is one thing; liberal is another. The coalition of Democrats and Business Progressives in North Carolina, a unique paring that has distinguished us from the rest of the South for decades, will begin to unravel this election cycle as the threat of insurgent liberal Democrats in Washington and Raleigh push business to coalesce with Republicans.

The only political option Democrats are offering business is: Liberal leadership of the North Carolina Senate and House, backed by a liberal majority in their caucuses, with a liberal President in the White House, backed by a liberal US Congress. If for no other reason than survival, business must help Republicans win at least one chamber in Washington and Raleigh.

The best hope for long-term political stability for the North Carolina business community is a commitment to work together to maintain a base of business owners and managers in both caucuses. They must be about the business of recruiting and helping elect business people … Democratic business people in Democratic districts, Republican business people in Republican districts, and African American business people in majority-minority districts.

Why Has Business Been So Reluctant to Coalesce with Republicans?

But why has business been so reluctant to coalesce with Republicans? I discovered the answer to that question in 1986 following my first statewide tour of regional briefings as head of NCFREE.

I had initiated the conducting of straw polls at NCFREE regional political briefings, using the time honored secret ballot, just to see where everyone stood on candidates to back in each legislative race. In half a dozen cases that first year, Republicans with solid business support records received very low support on the straw poll ballots from local business leaders. It made no sense. I was certain that we had made a tabulation error.

After checking and double checking and re-tabulating the ballots, the low scores for those half dozen business-friendly Republicans kept coming up correctly. Following the tour, I shared the confounding straw poll results with several long-time political insiders. That’s when I learned that the common denominator among those business-friendly Republicans with lousy straw poll scores was their preoccupation with a right-wing religious and/or socially conservative agenda.

Over the next 20 years, it became very apparent that although North Carolina business people do not have a personal problem with religion or social conservatism, with many supporting that agenda privately, they simply believe that the primary responsibility of elected officials is to run the government as efficiently and effectively as possible, addressing the fundamental needs of the state. In the mind of many North Carolina business people, there is a disconnect between effective governmental leadership and a preoccupation with a social agenda.

As I said at the outset, when the dust settles after the 2010 elections, if all NC Republicans have to offer is, “We’re not the other guys … those corrupt tax and spend liberal Democrats,” they will not win either chamber of the NC General Assembly. Our problems are too great.

If I am out of work, living on unemployment, can’t afford health insurance, can’t afford to keep my kids in college, can’t afford to buy my family Christmas gifts … don’t come to my door asking for my vote based on your position on abortion. If my wife is sick and I can’t afford to take her to a doctor, and my daughter lost her job and I can’t afford to help her pay her rent … don’t come to my door asking for my vote based on your position on same-sex marriage.

Karl Rove is right. “It won’t be enough to surf voter dissatisfaction with Mr. Obama and Democrats. Voters will want to know what Republican candidates would do.”

References

1. Gallup Poll, Conservatives Finish 2009 as No. 1 Ideological Group, January 7, 2010; www.gallup.com
2. Wall Street Journal, Dec. 30, 2009, Op-ed by Karl Rove
3. See John Davis Political Report, Vol 2, No. 8, Liberal Insurgents End Sen. Basnight’s Historic Era of Power
4. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/story/1117098.html

“For the good of his district and the integrity of the N.C. Senate, such as it is, he [Sen. R.C. Soles, Permanent Senate Democratic Caucus Chair] should throw in the towel while he has a chance to leave on his own terms.” — Wilmington Star-News Editorial, December 12, 2009¹

While reading the Wilmington Star-News editorial this past Saturday, calling for the resignation of Sen. R.C. Soles, Permanent Chair of the Democratic Caucus, after a Columbus County grand jury requested an indictment for assault with a deadly weapon, I was struck by the characterization of the integrity of the North Carolina Senate with the phrase, “such as it is.”

“Soles’ reputation – always a little suspect since his first indictment in the Colcor investigation of corruption in his home county – has been tarnished to the point that he can no longer represent his constituents effectively or with honor. He turns 75 this month. For the good of his district and the integrity of the N.C. Senate, such as it is, he should throw in the towel while he has a chance to leave on his own terms.”

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.² Most of the corrupting influence of power is legal, like the disregard for ethical conduct. A great example is the decision of the Senate to keep Sen. R.C. Soles on as Permanent Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus despite years of questionable behavior, the kind of behavior that would have led to the immediate firing of the chair of any other board or committee, public or private. Another example is the “no bid” deals between state agencies and Sen. Tony Rand‟s company Law Enforcement Associates.

The “integrity of the NC Senate, such as it is,” has been corrupted by the disregard for ethical conduct by its leaders. But is character all that important? Is it more important than caring?

No doubt, Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight has had a remarkable 17-year run as the leader of the Senate, arguably accomplishing more than any other Senator in state history. No one will ever be able to deny that he and his loyal inner circle, including R.C. Soles and Tony Rand, have done a whole lot of good for a whole lot of people. They care deeply about the Senate, the state and its people … especially Basnight. Basnight personifies the servant leader of the Methodist tradition. He always wants to know what he can do for you. However …

Crabtree Fever Epidemic in the N.C. Senate

Somewhere along the way the Senate Democratic leadership became stricken with a fatal case of Crabtree fever. Crabtree fever is like Potomac fever, caused by elected officials who let their power go to their heads. The only difference between Potomac fever and Crabtree fever is that one is named for a river that flows through the nation‟s capitol and the other is named for a creek that flows through Raleigh.

The biggest symptom of Crabtree fever is an unsightly rash … of bad decisions. Crabtree fever distorts your perception of how immune you are. It causes lawmakers to throw their weight around and run over anyone who gets in their way; a fever that can be easily diagnosed by the degree of hubris of those afflicted. Crabtree fever turns otherwise decent leaders into bullies, bullies who are so intimidating that even the most powerful corporate leaders, like the CEOs of public utilities and insurance companies, cower like 90-pound weaklings; abandoning the greater good of small and medium-sized businesses just to ensure that they don‟t upset the bullies.

Sadly, Crabtree fever also makes leaders think that they are above the law. Yesterday, a second former official of Sen. Tony Rand‟s security gear company LEA said that Rand tried to talk him into a scheme to manipulate the company‟s stock. The FBI and the Securities and Exchange Commission are now investigating the allegations of insider trading. When you are so powerful, like Senate Rules Committee Chair Tony Rand, that you think it‟s OK to peddle stock in a company where you serve as chairman of the board to state agency heads, and then to have those same agencies buy equipment from that company via no-bid contracts, you have a fatal case of Crabtree fever.

Sen. R.C. Soles, Permanent Chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus, continues to enjoy the support of the Senate leadership despite 40 emergency calls to Soles’ Tabor City home and law office in the past four years involving a shooting, attempted burglary, assaults, breaking and entering, young men high on drugs stalking Soles, loud cursing, screaming, and shots being fired.³ A house Soles purchased for a teenage boy was burned by an arsonist. Soles‟ teenage friend with the burned house was caught driving without a license and was arrested for fleeing police in a high-speed chase in the Corvette Soles bought for him. Soles, 74 years-old, also bought the 17-year-old a pair of four-wheelers and provided him with a generous allowance.

The teenager‟s sister told a reporter for WWAY, the ABC News affiliate in Wilmington, “He‟s [Soles] threatened his life many times.”⁴ Soles beat charges of conspiracy, vote-buying and perjury in back in 1983. Perhaps, with the help of a good criminal defense attorney, he will beat these charges too. What he cannot beat is the stain he has made on the integrity of the Senate.

Kharakter Found to Cure Crabtree Fever Epidemic

According to Safire‟s Political Dictionary, the word character comes from the ancient Greek word “kharakter,” the word used thousands of years ago for „engraving tool.‟ Over the centuries its meaning has been extended to include the mark a person makes to distinguish themselves.⁵

Character education is now a mandated curriculum in public schools throughout the nation. In 1993, the Wake County Public School System decided to teach character traits. The controversial issues associated with character education at the time were “which character traits do you teach” and “who decides.” Wake County did something really smart. They turned to the parents of public school children for advice, using an opinion survey. A total of 28,198 surveys were returned by parents. The character trait that got the highest percent recommendation from parents was Respect, followed by Kindness (caring), Responsibility, Courage, Good Judgment, Integrity, Self-Discipline, and Perseverance. Those eight character traits are still taught today.

The great lesson to learn from character education is that all of the traits are important. That‟s the lesson that our political leaders need to dwell on … national and state, Democrats and Republicans. However, no one can deny the good accomplished by Sen. Marc Basnight. He does care about the state and its people. So, what‟s more important, his character or his caring?

In 1996, when U.S. Sen. Bob Dole was the Republican nominee running against President Bill Clinton, ABC News conducted a national poll that examined the importance of character and caring. The question was asked, “Who has the greatest strength of personal character?” Bob Dole won on the issue of character by a 2-to-1 margin. The next question was, “Who cares more about people like you?” Bill Clinton won on the issue of caring by a 2-to-1 margin. The final question was, “What’s more important, character or caring?” Caring won by a 2-to-1 margin.

The great political danger for Republicans in North Carolina is that they too will catch a fatal case of Crabtree fever by thinking that the voters will choose them to lead just because the Democrats have character problems. For those throughout this state struggling with the hardships brought on by this economy, there is no greater character problem than the lack of caring. Perhaps the leaders of both parties need a refresher course in character education.

References

1. http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20091212/ARTICLES/912119961/1108/OPINION?Title=Editorial-Soles-has-met-his-term-limit
2. Lord Acton, 1834-1902, British historian, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887.
3. StarNews ONLINE, “Teen with ties to Sen. R.C. Soles back in jail,” Sept. 15, 2009, by Shelby Sebens
4. http://www.wwaytv3.com/node/17411
5. Safire’s Political Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2008

“I can’t control my caucus anymore.” — Marc Basnight, NC Senate President Pro Tempore

On November 17, 2009, with the unanimous election of Sen. Martin Nesbitt (D-Buncombe) as Majority Leader of the North Carolina Senate following the suspicious resignation of long-time Majority Leader and Rules Chairman Sen. Tony Rand (D-Cumberland), the historic era of unparalleled power of Senate President Pro Tempore Marc Basnight came to an end. A new era of Senate and House legislative leadership is beginning, an era led by seasoned urban lawyers with unquestionable liberal credentials.

The latest signal of change came yesterday, when Sen. David Hoyle (D-Gaston), Vice Chair of Finance and the highest rated ally of business, announced that he would retire after this session. The Senate, for decades a safe harbor for North Carolina business, has gone the way of the House and is now in the hands of liberal lawyers. You can count the number of business owners among Senate Democrats on one hand.

Who are these savvy urban liberal political insurgents? They include three very smart lawyers who were elected to the House for the first time nearly three decades ago: Senators Nesbitt and Dan Blue (D-Wake), and House Speaker Joe Hackney (D-Orange), along with fellow attorney and elder statesman Rep. Mickey Michaux (D-Durham), and new rising stars with law degrees like Rep. Jennifer Weiss (D-Wake), Rep. Deborah Ross (D-Wake), and Sen. Dan Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg). Thus, the new demographic profile of emerging leaders in the North Carolina legislature is liberal urban lawyers.

Legislative leaders are like powerful magnets; the other legislators are like metal filings. Wherever the leaders are along the sliding philosophical scale, from the political left to the political right, all metal filings are drawn in that direction. It’s the nature of magnetic force … the nature of political power.

Marc Basnight, Tony Rand and David Hoyle are three of the most dynamic legislative magnets in state history. They wielded their power over the Senate with ruthless efficiency, consolidating power so effectively that they became the most influential political force in the state. However, the little known fact outside the Raleigh beltline is that they were slowly becoming a minority in their majority caucus.

Basnight and his inner circle were business owners who fit the classic mold that distinguished North Carolina from the rest of the South; they were business progressives. Their fatal flaw was the failure to see the value in maintaining their base of business allies by recruiting and helping elect other business Democrats. And so, imperceptibly over time, a liberal coalition of Democrats grew in number and coalesced to create its own magnetic force, a force now greater than that of the leaders.

When Basnight began his service as President Pro Tempore, over half of the Senate Democratic Caucus members were from business backgrounds. They included bankers, road builders, tobacco warehousemen, farmers, insurance agents, developers, retail merchants, pork producers, truckers and manufacturers. Today, there are only six members of the Senate Democratic Caucus from business backgrounds. Three of those six have retired or plan to retire: David Weinstein (D-Robeson) resigned earlier this year, Tony Rand resigned in November, and David Hoyle who is leaving after this term.

A business scorecard released last month by the North Carolina FreeEnterprise Foundation (NCFEF), a business-sponsored political research offshoot of the now defunct NCFREE, clearly shows that Basnight, Rand and Hoyle are outnumbered.¹ Only 10% of the Senate Democrats are ranked in the highest business “Base” friends category, with 60% in the lowest “Occasional Friends” category. Among Republican Senators, 90% are in the business “Base” friends category.

Overall, because of the dramatic decline in business people in the Senate Democratic Caucus, only 42% of all Senators are business friends, with 36% in the lowest “Occasional Friends” category, for a net business advantage of only 6 points. The greatest business advantage was in 1995, when the Democrats had a slim majority of 26 to 24. A whopping 68% of the Senators were business “Base” friends, with only 18% in the lowest, “Occasional Friends” category, for a net business advantage of 50 points.

As to what we can expect from the new urban lawyer leaders: Martin Nesbitt’s lifetime business rating was 51% during his two decades in the House,² and only 39% on the 2009 Senate Business Ratings conducted last month by NCFEF. Dan Blue’s lifetime business rating was 50% over his two decades in the House and 47% on the recent Senate Business Ratings. Newcomer to the ranks of Senate leadership is Finance Committee co-chair Sen. Dan Clodfelter (D-Mecklenburg), with a score of 62% on the latest business test, considerably higher than fellow lawyers Nesbitt or Blue, but only 30th overall in the Senate.

However, compare those business scores with other Senate leaders from business occupations: Hoyle’s business score is 91%, the highest in the Senate including all Republican scores. Appropriations Committee co-chair A.B. Swindell (D-Nash) has a 75% score, the second highest among the Democrats; Appropriations Committee co-chair Linda Garrou (D-Forsyth), has a 67%, the 7th highest Democrat; and Finance Committee co-chair Clark Jenkins (D-Edgecombe) has a 74% score, the 3rd highest Democrat.

Bottom Line: The Senate is no longer a safe harbor for business. Business, like Basnight, is simply outnumbered. Business has also met its match in building relationships with legislators with campaign contributions. Labor unions dumped over $5 million into North Carolina campaigns in 2008. Now you know why Basnight is beginning to tell his friends, “I can’t control my caucus anymore.”

On the House side, urban lawyer Speaker Joe Hackney’s lifetime business rating is only 34% during his nearly three decades in the House,³ and 42% on the North Carolina FreeEnterprise Foundation 2009 Senate Business Ratings.⁴ By way of comparison, businessman House Speaker Jim Black (D-Mecklenburg) had a lifetime business rating of 76% during his two decades in the House.⁵ His predecessor in the Speaker’s chair, businessman Harold Brubaker (R-Randolph), has a lifetime business rating of 90%, and 85% on the new NCFEF 2009 Senate Business Ratings. Brubaker’s lifetime commitment to the state’s business community is uniquely significant as he is in his 17th term.

Although Black is no longer serving (in the legislature), the group of liberal urban lawyers from the House class of 1981 including Senators Nesbitt and Blue, and Representatives Hackney and Michaux, are well positioned to seize the strings to the state purse. Just how tight is this group? Well, when Dan Blue served as Speaker in 1991, Nesbitt was Appropriations Committee chair, Hackney was Finance Committee chair, and Michaux along with Hackney served on the Rules Committee. In 1993, following Blue’s election to a second term as speaker, Nesbitt, Hackney and Michaux continued in those same powerful leadership roles. Their roots are deep; their bonds are tight.

Other rising stars in the House leadership include Paul Luebke (D-Durham), who began serving on the Finance Committee in 1999 and is now the Senior Chair under Speaker Hackney, along with co-chairs Pryor Gibson (D-Anson), William Wainwright (D-Craven) and Jennifer Weiss (D-Wake). Luebke has a 22% rating on the North Carolina FreeEnterprise Foundation 2009 House Business Ratings, ranking him 119th out of 120 House members. Wainwright has a business rating of 52%, with Weiss rated 23%, ranking her 118th out of 120 House members. Gibson, a businessman, is the only solid business ally leading the Finance Committee with a rating of 72%, the ninth highest rated Democrat.

The House Appropriations Committee, led by Michaux as the Senior Chair, has only one solid business ally among the co-chair in businessman Jim Crawford (D-Granville), the #1 highest ranked Democrat in the House with a business rating of 83%, ranking him 10th overall out of 120 House members. Only 13% of the House Democrats are ranked in the highest business “Base” friends category, with 63% in the lowest “Occasional Friends” category. Among Republican Representatives, 96% are in the business “Base” friends category.

Today, overall, only 49% of the 120 members of the House of Representatives are business friends, with 36% in the lowest “Occasional Friends” category, for a net business advantage of only 13 points. In 1995, when the Republicans had the majority, 64% of the Representatives were business “Base” friends, with only 25% in the lowest, “Occasional Friends” category, for a net business advantage of 39 points.

In the conclusion to the book, “The New Politics of North Carolina,” editors Christopher Cooper and Gibbs Knotts make the case that it’s time we reevaluated the notion that North Carolina is a progressive state using six additional dimensions including party competition.⁶ Cooper and Knotts argue that competition among political parties can, “… foster new ideas, enhance debate, and lead to innovative policy solutions. By and large, a progressive state is a two-party state.”

So, for all of you enlightened business progressives out there concerned about fiscal irresponsibility and the rampant corruption resulting from the unilateral policy making authority of the Democrats, perhaps it’s time that you consider doing something really progressive: vote Republican.

References

1. http://ncfef.org/Home_files/2009%20NCFEF%20Business%20Ratings%20Final.pdf
2. Almanac of North Carolina Politics, General Election 2002 Supplemental Volume 1, #3, Pg 114.
3. Almanac of North Carolina Politics, Fall 2007 Edition, Pg. 294.
4. http://ncfef.org/Home_files/2009%20NCFEF%20Business%20Ratings%20Final.pdf
5. Almanac of North Carolina Politics, Fall 2005 Edition, Pg. 750.
6. The New Politics of North Carolina, North Carolina Press, 2008, Editors: Cooper and Knotts.