Damon Circosta at the NC Center for Voter Education recently responded to my Raleigh News & Observer op-ed on the impact of the Davis v. FEC case on taxpayer financing of elections in NC.

I’m not sure Mr. Circosta actually read my op-ed however.

He argues:

“The Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (a court viewed as skeptical
of campaign regulation) recently found our judicial public financing
program to be constitutionally sound. The U.S. Supreme Court chose not
to review the Fourth Circuit decision, all but ending the case.”

Here’s what I wrote in the op-ed:

1)
“Since Davis, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals decision related to matching funds. Fourth
Circuit decisions affect North Carolina. That opinion, issued before
Davis, found that the state’s matching fund system for judicial races
was constitutional.”

Let me stress: The Fourth Circuit opinion was issued before the Davis case.

2) I also wrote: “Some taxpayer financing proponents incorrectly
point to the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case as a
vindication of the matching fund system. However, there’s absolutely
nothing that can be read into the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear
the case. The court hears only 80 cases a year, out of the 8,000 or so
requests it receives.”

Mr. Circosta apparently is one of those proponents that don’t know that
nothing can be read into the Court not reviewing a case.  In fact,
the Court likely didn’t take the case because the Davis case is clear
on how it should be applied to taxpayer financing systems.  Once
various appellate courts consider these systems in light of Davis,
there no longer will be an issue.

I’ll address one other “point” he made:

“The courts must have surmised what North Carolinians already know:
Corruption or even the appearance of corruption is detrimental to our
democracy.”

Actually, in the Davis case, the court rejected this argument
regarding the law in question.  The “appearance of corruption
justification” has only been used by the Supreme Court in relation to
limits on campaign contributions.  The Court has looked
unfavorably upon restrictions on unlimited speech–it is highly
doubtful that the corruption issue would be a factor.

In fact, an Arizona federal district court in recently reviewing a
taxpayer financing system, argued that the taxpayer financing systems
themselves create an appearance of corruption because of the
possibility of gaming the system (e.g. PACs can run ineffective ads for
the candidate they oppose in order to trigger funds for the candidate
they support).

My recommendation: Read the op-ed before writing a letter to the editor.