Category Archives: Network News/Events

Support up for public campaign financing

Posted on by

‘Hustle for money’ compromises officials, group says, and more N.C. voters see that.

By Jim Morrill
The Charlotte Observer

When the N.C. Voters for Clean Elections began a decade ago, only a few reformers championed the idea of publicly financing state political campaigns.

Since then, North Carolina has adopted public financing for the campaigns of appellate court judges, three Council of State offices and local officials in one town.

“Little by little, we’re demonstrating that publicly financed election processes are not only possible but work better for candidates and voters alike,” said Chase Foster, director of the reform coalition.

Last week, more than 50 people gathered at a downtown Raleigh cafe to celebrate the coalition’s 10th anniversary. Among them were legislators and at least two statewide elected officials.

Ten years ago, North Carolina still had a reputation for clean politics. Since then, voters have seen a former state House speaker, a congressman, an agriculture secretary and two legislators imprisoned for corruption. This fall, a special state prosecutor began to investigate a former governor.

All that helps fuel hopes for more changes. Advocates of publicly financed campaigns point to polls they say show growing public support.

An Elon University poll last month showed 87 percent of North Carolinians think campaign contributions influence elected state officials. And a statewide survey by Public Policy Polling in November found 65 percent say they’d support giving “a limited amount of public funds” to candidates.

“More people recognize that we’ve got to address the heart of the problem, and that’s the hustle for money that’s going on in big campaigns,” said Bob Hall, director of Democracy North Carolina, a watchdog group. “That is translating into support for public financing of campaigns.”

Public-finance advocates say the escalating costs of campaigning has forced candidates to rely heavily on political action committees and other special interests. They say 90 percent of campaign money in North Carolina comes from less than 1 percent of the population.

There are several proposals for further public financing in the General Assembly, and at least one in Congress.

All but a handful of the 120 co-sponsors of the federal Fair Elections Now Act are Democrats; one of the few Republicans behind it is Rep. Walter Jones, of Eastern N.C.’s 3rd district. Virtually all the sponsors of the state legislation are Democrats.

“It’s absurd,” state Republican Sen. Bob Rucho of Matthews said of public financing. “As far as I’m concerned, there’s still freedom of speech. You should be able to put the money you want to in a campaign and say what you want to say. The taxpayers shouldn’t be burdened with this cost.”

North Carolina’s judicial public financing program is funded by voluntary tax check-offs and by $50 fees on lawyer licenses. While some N.C. elections have been funded with tax money, that could change.

Plans to expand public financing in Council of State races would be funded entirely by assessments on those doing business with the particular agency or are regulated by it.

To qualify for public funding, candidates typically have to raise a number of small contributions and agree to spending limits.

Rep. Rick Glazier, D-Cumberland, said recent headlines about politicians in trouble adds momentum to the push for public financing.

“People are looking for ways this doesn’t spiral so far out of control,” he said, “that we lose the capacity of the public to really be the key factor in democracy.”

SC Blue Cross Blue Shield’s #1 Job: protecting profits

Posted on by

By Brett Bursey
Director, SC Progressive Network

Rep. Tim Scott (R Charleston) has introduced legislation that calls for a state constitutional amendment to protect your right to be screwed by the health insurance industry.

“Must Article I of the Constitution of this State, relating to the declaration of rights, be amended so as to add a new section preserving the freedom of South Carolinians with respect to the providing of health care services, by prohibiting any law, regulation, or rule to compel an individual, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system, by allowing individuals and employers to pay directly for lawful health care services without penalties or fines for these direct payments, by providing that the purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems must not be prohibited by law, regulation, or rule, by providing those incentives in which the rights provided by this section do not apply, and to provide appropriate definitions?”

A “Yes” vote on this question would prohibit South Carolinians from participating in a “public option” national health care system that requires individuals to participate. While the chances for the US to join the rest of the civilized world in considering health care a right, corporate defenders like Scott aren’t taking chances.

The bill, written by the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), with the assistance of Blue Cross Blue Shield, would make any federal mandate for participation in a national health plan against the law in SC.

The BCBS initiative to “protect your health care rights” has been introduced in 12 states. (See Think Progress for more information.)

Part of the reason the BCBS Association has claimed that it opposes the reform bill in its current form is because of what it perceives as a weak individual mandate. But the BCBS Association-supported ALEC campaign depicts the very notion of an individual mandate as “anti-freedom.” So either way the US Senate acts, BCBS will be able to trash the bill and try to kill reform.

The health industry has contributed $1.7 million to SC politicians since 2008, and BCBS accounted for $503,000 of the total.

Other legislative initiatives for 2010

S1011: Sen. Mike Rose (R-Charleston): Provides that a person with a special restricted driver’s license may drive unaccompanied between his home and his place of worship. As Sen. Rose can’t regulate religious preference, I guess this bill would allow those who worship beer to drive to their local bar to pray for eternal happy hour.

S902: Sen. Glenn McConnell (R-Charleston): This bill would repeal the state income tax and sales tax and replace them with a really big sales tax on the consumption of all goods and services excluding business to business sales. This regressive tax system would put the burden of maintaining the roads to the rich folks gated communities on the back of working people.

S1002: Sen. Mike Rose (R-Charleston): Constitutional amendment to permit the enactment of laws and Constitutional amendments by initiative petition. While the ballot initiative process in many states allow the citizens more direct control over their government (pro-gay, anti-gay and marijuana bills come to mind), there is a fear that SC might vote to bring back the Confederacy.

S947: Sen. Larry Grooms (R Berkeley): Amends the Constitution to provide procedures for recalling and removing from public office persons holding public offices of the state or its political subdivisions in the executive and legislative branches of state or local governments. This “Appalachian Trail” bill is intended to prevent disappearing governors. It may be the only way to get rid of politicians like Grooms, who bills himself as the “Tea Party Guy.” He is running for governor with the pledge to “take our nation and state back” from those who disbelieve in the primacy of white guys with guns.

S916: Sen. Phil Leventis (D-Sumter): A rare good bill that would include persons in a dating relationship – EVEN SAME SEX COUPLES – in the definition of a household hold member and to define “dating relationship” in the Protection From Domestic Abuse Act.

Atheists in office: Déjà vu all over again

Posted on by

This piece, written by SC Progressive Network member Herb Silverman, ran in The Washington Post.
By Herb Silverman
Founder and President of the Secular Coalition for America and Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry

I’m reminded of my South Carolina experience when I hear that some folks in Asheville, NC, want to remove Cecil Bothwell from City Council. What he and I have in common is not just that we are atheists, but that we are open about it. The constitutions of both North and South Carolina bar atheists from holding public office.

I first heard about the South Carolina exclusion in 1990. I’m no constitutional scholar, but I knew that Article 6 of our U.S. Constitution explicitly states that there may be no religious tests for public office. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1961 that this provision also applies to the states. So I assumed this was just an anachronism, and could easily be changed. I was wrong. I wound up to running for public office, first as a gubernatorial candidate and then as a notary public, in order to challenge this unconstitutional provision. It took eight years and a unanimous verdict of the South Carolina Supreme Court to state the obvious, that no religious test for public office may be applied, not even in South Carolina.

Our state wasted about $100,000 trying to keep me from becoming a notary public. None of the political leaders in South Carolina, and certainly not the lawyers advising them, believed they would prevail legally if I continued to pursue my case. Yet, those same politicians showed that they would rather waste time and money on a lost cause than risk the wrath and lose the votes of the state’s well-organized religious right. But South Carolina is known as a state that fights lost causes. Et tu, North Carolina?

Atheists are now eligible to run for any office in South Carolina, which means the provision against atheists is unenforceable. However, the South Carolina Constitution can only be amended by a referendum in which the majority of voters approve the change. This is not likely to happen anytime soon. It took a referendum in 1998 for South Carolina to remove its anti-miscegenation laws from the State Constitution. Even then, 38% of South Carolinians voted against allowing blacks and whites to marry, though the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that states could no longer prevent interracial marriage.

I noticed in recent newspaper articles that both Bothwell and I were called “avowed” atheists, though neither of us had taken vows. I once had a discussion with a public editor about why the local paper always put an adjective before “atheist,” but did not apply one to people of religious faiths. I was told it was unnecessary for those who belonged to communities of worship, but the newspaper had only the word of one person who says he or she is an atheist. I asked which is more likely, that a religious person in this country would pretend to be an atheist or that an atheist would pretend to be religious? The paper conceded I had a point, but it continues to “avow” me. Even worse, I’ve been introduced on radio as a “so-called atheist” or an “admitted atheist.” I wonder what the reaction would be were someone introduced as a “so-called Jew” or an “admitted Southern Baptist.”

What Bothwell and I also have in common is that some people judge us more by our beliefs than by our behavior. H.K. Edgerton, a North Carolina voter, is threatening a lawsuit to remove Bothwell from office. Here is one of his reasons: “I have problems with people who don’t believe in God.” Edgerton continued, “I’m not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man.” This reminds me of the time in 2003 I was invited to give an invocation at a Charleston, South Carolina, City Council meeting. As I got up to speak, half the council members walked out because they knew I was an atheist. Those who stayed to listen said my invocation was fine.

One councilman justified the walkout by quoting from Psalm 14: “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’ They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is not one who does good.” He then told me it was not personal. In other words, his religious beliefs compelled him to ignore or demonize an entire class of people he was elected to represent. Frankly, I would rather it had been personal.

That walkout vividly showed that we are still engaged in one of the last civil rights struggles in which blatant discrimination is viewed as acceptable behavior. Of course, bigotry exists everywhere, but it is especially lamentable when government officials defend public acts of intolerance at government functions. What would have been the reaction had city council members walked out because a Jew, a Muslim, or a Buddhist was giving an invocation?

Prior to 1990, I was apathetic about my atheism, feeling I had better things to do than talk about the nonexistence of gods. When I began to view atheism as a civil right issue, I helped found the Secular Coalition for America, whose mission is to increase the visibility of, and respect for, nontheistic viewpoints. The Secular Coalition held a contest for people to nominate the person they believed was the highest-ranking elected leader with no god beliefs. As a result, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) became the first in the history of Congress to publicly acknowledge he doesn’t believe in God. Does anyone think there aren’t scores more who feel the political need to remain in their atheist and agnostic closets? It is my hope that one day politicians like Cecil Bothwell and others will be judged on the content of their character and the issues they find important, rather than on their professed religious beliefs. That would be my idea of true religious freedom.

SC has more than nuclear power option

Posted on by

By Susan Corbett
Chair, SC Chapter, Sierra Club

During the recent 2010 gubernatorial debate, it seemed apparent the candidates have decided the energy future of South Carolina: nukes, nukes and more nukes.

Virtually every candidate spouted nuclear power as a “clean, green, homegrown” energy source that will be the solution to climate change and our energy needs. This characterization of nuclear as clean and homegrown is one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated by the nuclear industry since the demise of their first round of economic boondoggles. (64 reactors left unfinished in the 80’s, in various stages of construction).

I cannot for the life of me understand how these candidates perceive nuclear as “homegrown’. Uranium is not mined in South Carolina, and most U.S. uranium is very low grade, making it uneconomical.  High grade uranium comes from foreign sources, and in fact most of the uranium we use presently comes from: Russia. Strike One – another foreign fuel source.

But how about the manufacturing and construction of nuclear reactors, that’s homegrown, right?

Wrong. At the recent Public Service Commission hearing where SCE&G asked for the first of what we believe will be many deadline extensions, it was revealed that virtually all major components of nuclear power plants are purchased in foreign countries like Korea, Japan and Italy.

In fact, the United States doesn’t even have forges large enough to make the reactor vessels, steam generators and other large parts needed for reactors. We are totally dependent on these foreign companies and the one or two manufacturers, like the plant at Doosan, Korea, for our big reactor parts.  We must get in line and wait our turn to get these key components, and pay whatever fee these companies charge, with all the money going out of the U.S.   Strike Two: all major parts produced outside the U.S. by foreign companies.

Two weeks ago, the usually permissive Nuclear Regulatory Commission rejected a modified version of the AP1000 reactor, designed by Westinghouse Electric Co., citing concerns about structural integrity.

This new design includes a mega-ton water containment system that sits perched on top of the shield building, using gravity to allow water to flow down around the reactor as a cooling system. The NRC review questioned the design of the shield building as suspect in withstanding earthquakes, tornadoes, air plane strikes or even high winds.

In other words, the major building that contains the reactor and ultimately shields us, the citizens, from the release of deadly radiation in the case of an accident, could itself fail. Although SCE&G assured the PSC these details would all get worked out, one must wonder about other design flaws, in an untested, unproven prototype reactor, which will operate in our backyard. Oh, and Westinghouse?   It’s owned by Toshiba, a Japanese corporation. Strike Three: a foreign-owned corporation with untested, unproven reactor design with serious safety questions.

Here’s my idea of a homegrown energy source: Up in Greenville, we have a U.S. corporation, G.E., producing wind turbines. They are using American-made parts and American workers. We could take these turbines down to the coast, and using our excellent port facilities at Charleston, and our excellent port facility workers, construct large wind farms off our coast to tap into the 2-4 Gigawatts ( that’s a HUGE amount) of offshore wind we know is available. We could use free American fuel to power all our coastal cities and then some, and never send a dollar out of state. Then we could help build wind farms up and down the Atlantic coast using our own homegrown technology and expertise.

Couple offshore wind with solar and rigorous energy efficiency programs that also put S.C. citizens to work, and we have a roadmap to true homegrown energy independence for South Carolina.

Don’t miss “Rethink Afghanistan”

Posted on by

dvdcovernew2-1

Join us on Sunday, Dec. 6, at 2:30pm for a free screening of Rethink Afghanistan, an 80-minute documentary about the US role in Afghanistan. The screening will be held at the Nickelodeon Theater, 937 Main St., in downtown Columbia. A discussion will follow, led by Dr. Stephen Sheehi of the Department of Arabic Culture at the University of South Carolina. Free and open to the public. For details about the film, see the web site. Sponsored by the SC Progressive Network and Carolina Peace.

LGBT groups spearhead Charleston anti-discrimination victory

Posted on by

Because of the collaborative effort among LGBT groups — including SC Progressive Network member organizations AFFA and SC Equality — the city of Charleston now has proactive legislation protecting LGBT people in both housing and public accommodations.

Last week, the Charleston City Council passed ordinances expanding the city’s existing policy prohibiting discrimination in housing to include age, sexual orientation and gender identity The council also passed a public accommodations ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The ordinances were presented to the mayor’s office in August by AFFA, SC Stonewall Democrats, SC Log Cabin Republicans, American Civil Liberties Union and South Carolina Equality–who paved the way by successfully introducing similar ordinaces in Columbia, SC, last year.

Charleston is the second municipality in the state to pass comprehensive human rights ordinances in housing and public accommodations that include sexual orientation and gender identity. Council Member Gary White said, “It’s a step forward in the right direction in making sure that we are not discriminating against anyone.”

Read the ordinances here.

Abortion shouldn’t imperil health care reform

Posted on by

By Sloane Wheelen

S.C. field coordinator for Planned Parenthood Health Systems in Charleston, a member of the SC Progressivve Network

The House vote to establish near-universal health care coverage came at a steep cost to women. That cost, issued as an amendment by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), eliminates abortion coverage by private insurance companies even when women are paying for all or most of the premium with their own money.

Stupak’s amendment is a cynical attempt to push an anti-choice agenda that imperils badly needed reform. His amendment undermines the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion even if they pay for most of the premiums with their own money. This amendment reaches much further than the Hyde Amendment, which has prohibited public funding of abortion in most instances since 1977.

Before its introduction, health care reform measures in both the House and Senate contained agreed-upon language regarding abortion. Public funding would remain prohibited, and women with private health insurance would continue to receive the benefits they already have. Though this language satisfied neither side completely, it enabled health care reform to move forward without being derailed by abortion politics.

In addition to undermining the reform effort, the amendment would impact the more than one in four American women who have at least one abortion during their reproductive years. Tens of millions of women will be required to pay for health care coverage that expressly excludes one of their most commonly requested medical procedures.

The Stupak Amendment, like the Hyde Amendment, allows coverage of abortion only in cases of rape, incest and for medical complications that “place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed.” However, if the woman’s health is in jeopardy – if her pregnancy risks organ failure or infertility but not death – then there is no coverage for care. The woman’s health, no matter how substantial and irremediable, is placed at risk.

Women’s health care should not be sacrificed on the altar of reform. President Obama repeatedly stated that under health care reform, “no one will lose the benefits they currently have.” The House bill now embraces a lesser ideal: No man will lose the benefits he currently has.

Is this sexual discrimination or abortion politics? Frankly, the two are inseparable. The 11th-hour amendment is just the latest example of statutes, regulations, medical standards and corporate policies that have caused women to pay more, suffer more and receive less: Pharmacists refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. The FDA imposed unwarranted and unscientific age limits on over-the-counter access to emergency contraception. Health insurance companies demand higher premiums from women than from men.

Women pay nearly 68 percent more than men – much of it resulting from the uninsured expenses of reproductive health care.

The promise of reform was supposed to remedy all that. Health care reform sought not only to expand coverage but also to reduce gender discrimination.

No longer would women have to pay more than men for the same insurance policy. No longer could pregnancy or womanhood be treated as pre-existing conditions. No longer would women be denied affordable contraceptives. And all women’s health centers finally would be recognized as essential community providers no less than centers that cater to other segments of the population.

Because of Rep. Stupak, the House further entrenched a two-tiered health care system that limits access to care for women.

If Congress is capable of enacting health care reform, it is capable of treating women as equals who don’t have to settle for less. Already, members of the House and Senate pro-choice caucus are pledging to withhold their final votes unless the Stupak Amendment is removed.

Abortion politics should not scuttle health care reform. That is why the Stupak Amendment must be eliminated.

This piece originally ran in The State on Nov. 29, 2009.

When Catholic bishops control health care for all of us

Posted on by

This piece, written by SC Progressive Network member Herb Silverman, ran in The Washington Post.

By Herb Silverman
Founder and President of the Secular Coalition for America and Secular Humanists of the Lowcountry

Q: U.S. Catholic bishops are defending their direct involvement in congressional deliberations over health-care reform, saying that church leaders have a duty to raise moral concerns on any issue, including abortion rights and health care for the poor. Do you agree? What role should religious leaders have — or not have — in government policymaking?

I wouldn’t want to be on a plane with a pilot who had never before flown, nor would I seek sexual guidance from a Catholic bishop who, presumably, had never “flown.” I also think Catholic bishops should have no moral authority when it comes to matters involving sex. The Catholic faithful may choose to live their lives based on pronouncements by priests, bishops, and the pope, and I support their right to do so. But bishops have no right to impose their sectarian beliefs on the rest of us.

Catholic bishops have injected themselves into Congressional deliberations over health-care reform for one primary reason, their updated scarlet A–abortion. And abortion is, after all, first a matter of having sex–which Catholic clergy condemn when it is outside of marriage; when it is within marriage if birth control is used; when it is between homosexuals (whose marriage they would also condemn); and even when it is with oneself (masturbation). Reasons for having abortions vary greatly, and include pregnancy that threatens the mother’s health or life, pregnancy that comes from rape or incest, likelihood of seriously deformed or incurably ill baby, an inconvenient pregnancy, an inability to support and care for a child, a dislike of children. Catholic clergy ignore individual cases with their one-size-fits-all pronouncement about abortion. Americans should be allowed to make up their own minds about the need for and morality of abortion, and should not be denied on the basis of the Catholic theology of sin.

This is not to condemn those from either the left or the right whose faith motivates them to enter the political arena or engage in political issues. However, whatever the motivation, Congress needs to make sure their policies are backed for good secular reasons. That is why we have as law the Three Commandments: don’t steal, murder, or commit perjury. Most of the other seven are sectarian and deal with whom, how, and when to worship. These are properly left for individuals to decide.

Since there are good secular reasons for providing health care for the poor, I see nothing wrong with Catholic bishops and other religious people advocating for reform. Unfortunately, if the bishops don’t get their way on abortion, the signs are that they will try to scuttle health care reform for millions of Americans. The irony is that some women have abortions because they could not afford contraception and cannot afford to provide for a baby because of our inadequate health care system. As far as I can tell, the biblical Jesus said nothing about abortion, but had a lot to say about the poor. Perhaps some Catholic bishops should ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?”

Public financing needed to avoid AG conflicts

Posted on by

This op-ed appeared in The State today. It was written by John Crangle, a longtime member of the SC Progressive Network and advocate for our clean elections initiatives.

By John Crangle
Common Cause of South Carolina

The controversy over Attorney General Henry McMaster’s acceptance and later return of $32,000 of campaign contributions from lawyers he hired to represent the state of South Carolina in a lawsuit against drug companies is yet another episode in a continuing chronicle of attorneys general taking campaign money from lawyers and parties having legal business with the state.
The problem arose when Attorney General Travis Medlock was running for governor, when Attorney General Charlie Condon was running for governor and U.S. Senate and now with McMaster running for governor.

The danger of conflict of interest, favoritism, abuse of office and corruption ia very real for attorneys general, who have in their jurisdiction great discretionary power. The attorney general can decide which lawyers are retained to represent the state in multimillion-dollar lawsuits, which in some cases produce huge attorney fees. Furthermore, the attorney general is in a position to file civil suits and to favorably settle suits benefiting an adverse party. In criminal matters, the attorney general has the power to decide whether to seek an indictment, whether to prosecute, whether to plead a case down or even dismiss.

All of these decisions can have catastrophic or highly beneficial consequences to the lawyers and parties involved. Many lawyers and clients would pay dearly for favored treatment by the attorney general in such cases.

It is all too easy for campaign contributions to influence the decision-making of attorneys general, especially in close cases where great civil or prosecutorial discretion is in play. Given the extensive history of public corruption in South Carolina over the years, it is not far-fetched to envision a future attorney general trading favors for campaign contributions.

Public financing of races for attorney general would be the best cure for the problem of corrupting campaign contributions. As a member of Gov. Jim Hodges’ Commission on Campaign Finance Reform in 2000-01, I argued that the danger of pay-to-play corruption was most acute in the office of attorney general due to the great discretionary power of the office and the enormous stakes involved in major civil and criminal cases. It also seemed that the cost of public financing for the attorney general race would be modest since at the time candidates were spending relatively small sums

The big objection to public financing is always that the taxpayers should not have to pay for the cost of election campaigns. Of course, the taxpayers already pay many costs of elections, including the expense of the S.C Election Commission, the county election commissions and all of the related costs of providing polling places, buying multimillion-dollar voting equipment and hiring poll workers. In case of election appeals and litigation, the taxpayers pay much of these costs too.

My proposal is to have an unprecedented public financing system for attorneys general whereby the ordinary taxpayers pay nothing, but the necessary money would be raised by a tax on campaign contributions to political candidates. As candidates for state and local office raise well over $20 million every four years, a tax of 10 percent would generate enough money to provide candidates for attorney general with public funds sufficient to communicate their positions and qualifications to the voters.

Supreme Court rulings give candidates the right to raise money for their own campaigns, so the state can only offer to give them public financing in exchange for voluntarily not raising money. So public financing alone wouldn’t accomplish our goals. But if we retain the existing laws that limit campaign contributions by source, amount and use, ban contributions from special counsel as suggested in a recent editorial column by Cindi Ross Scoppe and also add my proposal for public financing, we could deter conflicts of interest and abuse of office and inhibit corruption in the position of attorney general.

Finally, an especially and difficult manifestation of the problem is incumbent attorneys general raising funds for another office such as Congress or governor. Although we can’t prohibit an attorney general from raising money, for re-election or election to another office, we can prohibit an incumbent from transferring funds from an attorney general account to a campaign for another office. And we should.

Public financing for the attorney general’s race can serve as a pilot project. If voters and legislators conclude after a trial run that public financing has worked well for attorney general candidates, then public financing could next be tried for another office, such as governor or treasurer.