Chapel Hill's voter-owned elections program likely to end

Tuesday’s elections might have marked the last time Chapel Hill candidates could use taxpayer dollars to finance campaigns.

The town’s voter-owned elections program allows candidates to receive public campaign funding if they follow specific fundraising restrictions.

The program, a pilot enacted in 2009 and limited to Chapel Hill in the state, was to be evaluated based on the 2009 and 2011 elections when it comes up for renewal at the state level in 2012.

But regardless of its success or failure, officials say outside factors might herald its end.

Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland, said it could be months until discussion starts, but he believes the legislature’s new Republican majority will likely cut the program.

Program history, logistics

Glazier was one of the primary sponsors of the legislation for Chapel Hill’s voter-owned elections program, which the Democrat-controlled N.C. General Assembly approved in 2007. Chapel Hill Town Council approved it in 2008.

To qualify for public funds, council candidates must raise a minimum of $838 through at least 83 separate donations, limited to $20 each. Mayoral candidates must raise $1,676 from at least 165 contributors to receive public funds.

The idea is that by collecting those funds, candidates show they have wide support. The program is meant to limit campaign spending and counter corruption.

In the 2009 elections, Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and town council member Penny Rich were the first to participate in the program and both won.

Donna Bell and Jason Baker were the only two town council candidates who met the requirements to participate this year, and each received an additional $3,351 for campaigning.

Bell was elected to town council, but Baker lost.

Bell said she chose to participate because she values candidate accessibility, and she values the program.

“I am very proud to be a VOE candidate,” she said.

*A bleak future *

After two election cycles, Chapel Hill’s program remains controversial, even as publicly funded campaigns have been challenged at a national level.

The Supreme Court in June struck down a similar law in Arizona as a violation of First Amendment rights. The Court ruled that the program might prevent people from raising money to fund speech in fear of triggering counter speech funded by the government.

The Arizona law gave candidates who limited fundraising an initial grant, and extra funds as opponents spent more.

Chapel Hill’s program also offered extra funds for candidates out-raised by 140 percent, but unlike in Arizona, the funds came in one set amount. In September, the national debate prompted the state board of elections to halt that provision.

And some say other parts of the town’s program are flawed.

“I think there is a better use of taxpayer dollars than for candidates to promote themselves.”

But Glazier said he thinks the program has met its goals.

“The program creates the opportunity for experiments in democracy by allowing people of all economic backgrounds to seriously run for election.”

Contact the City Editor at city@dailytarheel.com.