Category Archives: Elections

Campaign, ChapelHill, Elections, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

CitizenWill is Certifiable

March 13, 2007 WillR Leave a comment

As some of the more “critical” of you readers have noted elsewhere, CitizenWill is certifiable – and here’s the proof.

I zipped down yesterday to Raleigh for the 2 hour campaign treasurer training session to comply with the new NC election statutes. Though I’ve been filing reports since 2005, and a lot of the material was old hat, the session, held at the tucked away State Board of Elections (SBOE) was still interesting.

Here’s a few observations.

Of the 24 folks attending, PACs and candidates were equally represented. I sat next to Linda Stevens treasurer. Time-Warner’s PAC was there. Some very spiffy dressed folks – election newbies – helping run Rocky Mount’s mayoral and sheriff elections attended.

Only one other candidate, former or otherwise, came – a man running for Zebulon council and his wife. He said that election campaign rules were being prolifically broken in Zebulon.

As a side note, Mike Nelson told me I was foolish to be my own treasurer – which, given all the “complex” contributions he received in 2006 😉 – I can appreciate. He also said he didn’t review the reports, something I think is a bit foolish. Mike’s pushing for some reforms at the county level – non-partisan elections, unfortunately, is not one of them.

A long lead up to mentioning that the training I received will be online and available in May.

I suggest every candidate – even those like Mike with the luxury of a campaign treasurers – go through the self-paced tutorial. In the end, the buck stops with the candidate.

Some confusion was introduced by the SBOE this year as the reports are now based on an election cycle – which starts the day after the election – instead of current method, which tracks the years. The gap between Nov. 8th to Dec 31st has to be handled differently. Several PAC folks whinged on about the delta.

In the toothless election law reforms department, county party executive committees can give unlimited funds and receive unlimited funds. Chapel Hill municipal elections are non-partisan (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) so this wide open avenue to funding doesn’t pertain but what a major gap.

Also in the toothless vein, folks can give $50 per day in cash up to $4000. Why toothless? Cash is fungible and hard to track – like a check. Bundling contributions appears to be a problem.

Business contributions, which are illegal, continue to be an issue.

Lots of time spent talking about in-kind from folks who are self-employed – are they acting as an individual or a business? For those folks, if you receive a check on their business letterhead, a “business statement” must be filed by the campaign asserting that the individual commingles personal/business funds and only has a single account for everything…

Using administrative staff or even your business phone for campaign activities is verbotten.

The trainer underlined that contributions from out-of-state require all info be reported (too bad the same couldn’t be said for out-of-county).

That said, records of all contributions must contain complete info though complete reports are only necessary if the aggregate contributions are over $50.

In-kind contributions require a receipt – including candidate in-kinds. Receipts are not reported.

Another common mistake: loan proceeds plus contributions from an individual cannot exceed $4000 per individual unless one of the excepted groups – (candidate, spouse, party committee). My total campaign was a little more than $3300…

Any amount of postage can be paid in cash.

Expenditures. Vendor expenses must be itemized. I’ve seen local reports that didn’t itemize.

Designation of Committee Funds form needs to be filled out to dictate
the fund transfer if you should die/etc. Leaving funds to a 501c3 allowed.

NCS: 163-278.16B “Use of contributions for certain purposes.” [PDF] was the biggy.

(a) A candidate or candidate campaign committee may use contributions only for the following purposes:
(1) Expenditures resulting from the campaign for public office by the candidate or candidate’s campaign committee.
(2) Expenditures resulting from holding public office.
(3) Contributions to an organization described in section 170(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C. Â§ 170(c)), provided that the candidate or the candidate’s spouse, children, parents, brothers, or sisters are not employed by the organization.
(4) Contributions to a national, State, or district or county committee of a political party or a caucus of the political party.
(5) Contributions to another candidate or candidate’s campaign committee.
(6) To return all or a portion of a contribution to the contributor.
(7) Payment of any penalties against the candidate or candidate’s campaign committee for violation of this Article imposed by a board of elections or a court of competent jurisdiction.
(8) Payment to the Escheat Fund established by Chapter 116B of the General Statutes.
(b) As used in this section, the term “candidate campaign committee” means the same as in G.S. 163-278.38Z(3).
(c) Contributions made to a candidate or candidate campaign committee do not become a part of the personal estate of the individual candidate. A candidate or the candidate who directs the candidate campaign committee may file with the board a written designation of those funds that directs to which of the permitted uses in subsection (a) of this section they shall be paid in the event of the death or incapacity of the candidate. After the payment of permitted outstanding debts of the account, the candidate’s filed written designation shall control. If the candidate files no such written designation, the funds after payment of permitted outstanding debts shall be distributed in accordance with subdivision (a)(8) of this section. (2006-161, s. 1.)

The update of this statute was prompted by the Speaker Black debacle.

Interesting point raised on the fashion front. Under the new regulations a candidate can’t purchase a new suit to campaign in and pay for it with campaign funds. Since the suit has a lifetime beyond the campaign, it’s considered a personal expenditure.

Websites and email are not addressed in media regulations. Personal website can be used for campaign purposes without a disclaimer if no new costs associated otherwise it might possibly be considered an in-kind. The law is silent on “new media”.

Another major problem (that the crew over at BlueNC are well aware of), independent media buys with a “Not Authorized by…” can be bought in unlimited amounts. That is, if someone, like Anglico’s Puppetmaster, wants to purchase unlimited media for a candidate and states “This ad is not authorized by my toady to be…”, then it’s alright.

I was astonished by this loophole and had the trainer clarify my understanding. Amazing!

Printed disclosures no less than 12pts, for newspaper 28pts. I threw one of the SBOE staff a curve when I pointed out that different fonts have different sizes at 12 pts.

Interestingly , in television, if you mention opposition candidate the candidate must speak the disclaimer. Not sure about radio.

youTube is not covered.

Over and over, the SBOE emphasized yo need to keep records of every contribution no matter how small. And look for edge cases. Example – sell $20 t-shirt + $30 contribution, you trigger the $50 reporting limit.

Any committee can use the SBOE’s software for managing reports.

That’s about it. I’m now a qualified campaign treasurer for the next 4 years.

If anyone needs a hand forming their committee, I’ll be happy to help: campaign AT willraymond.org

ChapelHill, Elections, Government, LocalPolitics, Technology

Proprietary Public Policy: Chapel Hill Streaming Video Goes Live?

February 26, 2007 WillR Leave a comment

In reviewing this evening’s notes on increasing the Town’s election contribution limits ($200 to $250) and lowering the standards of disclosure ($25 instead of $20), I noticed that Internet video is now available.

The Town’s proprietary Windows Media-based solution from Granicus was opposed by a number of members of the since dissolved Town Technology Advisory Board.

Here’s an overview of their system.

Sure, the Macromedia (now Adobe) Flash player used with the content I’ve posted on youTube and Google Video is proprietary, but, unlike the Granicus system, both give you a download option.

UPDATE:
The media player was not honoring the “no autoplay” directive. For the sanity of my readers, I’ve put in this direct link.
DIRECT LINK

I hope this issue is resolved before final deployment.

BTW, I think the current $200/$20 thresholds should stand until contested. Further, rather than fiddling with the limits we should be pushing for public financing – which, luckily, is on tonight’s agenda [#13]. The Council is asking the State permission to trial public financing.

Of course, asking is a lot easier than doing. Hopefully this won’t die on the vine after election 2007.

ChapelHill, Community, Downtown, Elections, environment

Godzilla vs. Bambi::RAM Development and Chapel Hill

February 12, 2007 WillR Leave a comment

If I worked for RAM Development, I’d be dancing quite a jig this evening.

Not only have they negotiated the sweetest of deals – their own publicly underwritten Downtown tower of wealth – they’ve gotten the friendliest of non-reviews by the majority of Council.

Maybe folks will like “rah rah” growth RAM Development style. If so, they’ll be pleased to see that they’re geared up for Phase III:

CHAPEL HILL – Ram Development Co. is moving forward with two projects at the intersection of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Weaver Dairy Road.

On Feb. 21, Ram will go before the town’s Community Design Commission with plans totaling about 130,000 square feet on either side of MLK Boulevard.

The first project, called MLK at Westminster, proposes 48 condos, two banks and a 22,000-square-foot office and retail building on the west side of MLK at the edge of the Northwoods neighborhood.

The second project would include a 16,000-square-foot Walgreen’s drug store and a 22,000-square-foot office and retail building on the east side of MLK near Timberlyne Shopping Center.

N&O Feb. 9th, 2007

Is it really “MLK at Westminster”? That surely sounds, ummm, bland? Safe? White?

What happened to Phase II?

That’s Hillsborough 425 – the 335 pricey condos replacing the existing 111 affordable apartments.

So, for those keeping score, RAM Development now has 4 on-going projects before the current Council.

ChapelHill, Elections, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Election 2007, Already? Who’s the West-End Business Candidate?

November 28, 2006 WillR 1 Comment

Robert Poitras, representing the West-End business community announce this evening at the Downtown Partnership forum that the West End business community plans to field a “business candidate” for Council in 2007.

Interesting.

Has election 2007 already begun?

Carrboro, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, Elections, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Signs, Signs Everywhere Fewer Signs?

November 9, 2006 WillR 2 Comments

Made a quick 18 mile cycle through the major municipal precincts, along major roads, ramps and intersections last night to pick up some signs for a few candidates plus my Honest Abe NO on the referendum.

Baddour’s supporters, considering the incredible number of his signs, seemed to have done an excellent first pass. Continue reading Signs, Signs Everywhere Fewer Signs? →

Carrboro, ChapelHill, Chatham, CitizenWill, CivilLiberties, Community, Elections, Government, Hillsborough, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Sign, Sign Everywhere a Sign…

November 7, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

This time last year I was catching 14 winks in preparation for election day.

Earlier in the evening I had made the rounds collecting my outlying signs for redeployment. About 3 hours from now, I was leaping out of bed to fill some balloons, say a hasty goodbye to the family and rush to pick up local activist Tom Jensen ( thanks again Tom for kindly assisting with the last round of sign deployments at every municipal polling station).

It was the start of one of the longest days in my life. Exhilerating, enjoyable, extraordinary, engaging – the hospitality and good cheer of the citizens of Chapel Hill made the long hours fly by.

The beautiful fall weather was an incredible bonus.
Continue reading Sign, Sign Everywhere a Sign… →

Chatham, CivilLiberties, Elections, environment, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Election Signs 2006, Care And Feeding

November 6, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

Maintaining election signs feels like an art form.

During the 2005 election season, I plotted various energy saving routes to “care and feed” for my signs as I drove around town on regular errands. Two birds with one stone, so to speak.

I didn’t just fix my own signs. Heck, at one point I’d repaired or reset more of Ed Harrison’s signs than mine and every other candidates combined! Why? While to some the signs are just so much roadside rubbish, to me they represent not only a major campaign investment ($2-$8 per sign) but a valuable, if limited, form of communication.

Folks gained name recognition from my catchy slogan, read various intended and unintended meanings into my “daisy” design and followed my website URL ( now campaign.willraymond.org ) to find out more about my positions (and to get a real-time report on my finances).

Election 2005

Every candidate, as long as they follow the generally reasonable rules of signage, deserves the courtesy of publishing that limited message without interference. Sure, the “message” is sometimes lost due to poor implementation – like Ed’s short-staked slanted signs that easily tilted and wilted and fell under the merest of pressure – but, unfortunately, the weather doesn’t account for all sign damage.

While focusing on sites with Judge Baddour’s and Anderson’s signs, I’ve continued to repair all candidates’ signs – whether I support them – like Ellie Kinnaird – or don’t – like Steve Acuff. Baddour’s signs, some up for the whole duration, have weathered well. To date, my worst problem has been keeping ones up both on the corner of Estes/MLK and at the end of Mt. Bolus Rd. Those signs, unlike others I find in the woods or ditches, vanish. Anderson’s have done fairly well, though the cardboard they’re made of seems to get awful droopy in the wet.

Continue reading Election Signs 2006, Care And Feeding →

Carrboro, ChapelHill, CitizenWill, CivilLiberties, Elections, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Vote No on Orange County Districting Referendum, Another No from Katz

November 4, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

A resounding NO from former Orange County Democratic Party chair Barry Katz in his Oct. 28th LTE to the Chapel Hill News:

I will vote no on the ballot referendum to restructure the Orange County commissioners.

First, there hasn’t been enough public debate on the merits of change, and I oppose change without voters’ understanding its consequences. Second, since the mid-1930s, The Chapel Hill News has reported countywide contests between candidates in favor of funding schools, health clinics, etc., and candidates who oppose raising taxes to fund such services. Most years the pro-funding candidates win and they do it with support from all parts of the county, albeit with greater support in southern Orange. So this is an old story.

Third, my six years on the county Planning Board suggests to me that underlying the push to change how county commissioners are elected are residents who are concerned about “restrictive” land-use planning and the rights of landowners to do what they want with their land. I joined the board as a skeptic regarding land-use planning and left a confirmed proponent of strategic land-use planning. We have only to look at Wake County to see how unregulated growth leads to urban sprawl, a lack of public transportation and too little public open space.

Orange County has been in a decades-long urban-suburbanizing transition that will continue past my lifetime. Agriculture now accounts for about 1 percent of the county’s economy, but the value of agricultural land has skyrocketed in recent decades due to residential housing demand. “Recent residents,” i.e., people whose grandparents weren’t born in Orange County, constitute a strong majority of voters and now determine the outcome of local elections, as is only proper. Not only would new and future Orange residents benefit from planning, but agricultural landowners would enjoy sustained maximum land values if the quality of life stays high in the county, as would occur under a thoughtful land use plan.

I hope landowners recognize the practical truth in this notion. — Barry Katz, Chapel Hill

CivilLiberties, Elections, Government, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Vote No on Orange County Districting Referendum

November 3, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

Thank you Orange County League of Women Voters for sponsoring tonight’s forum.

There were 15-20 folks in the audience this evening, including former BOCC candidate Artie Franklin, current BOCC candidate Jamie Daniel and Superior Court District 15B candidate Chuck Anderson.

Fright-night, referendum style, came a day late as Moses Carey pretty much reprized his earlier “debate” performance pulling out the legislature as bogeyman. In Moses’ scenario, the legislative demons will swoop in if the referendum dies, reject the voters will and steal our ability to choose alternatives.

Backing off an earlier claim that independent runs would be easier, tonight he just claimed it would be slightly easier. It won’t be. Technically it’ll take %5 of 88944 registered voter signatures to even get on the ballot. Strangely enough, that’s more signatures than it would’ve taken to win a District 2 spot in this year’s primary.

Once again, he asserted the best way to unite the county is to divide it, contrary to the lunacy our southern neighbors in Chatham county are going through…

Though he acknowledged helping craft a 1993 recommendation to use this alternative voting method, he characterized my claim that cumulative voting opens doors to minority voices as pure speculation. Further, he rejected my claim, once again saying it was pure speculation, that evidence to the contrary and in spite of wide usage throughout the world – our country – in corporate governance, the method is better than districting in apportioning representation.

He did recant and admit that the expansion of the board and districting could be voted on separately.

He also agreed that the “1 person, 1 vote” didn’t accurately capture the real exercise of voting power – a side-effect which allows fewer voters in District 2 to elect a candidate than candidates in District 1 (this given that winning the Democratic primary is “de facto” winning the general election).

Moses did surprise me with his suggestion that Orange County citizens weren’t up to understanding cumulative voting – that it was too confusing – and that they couldn’t be educated.

After presenting the only option in defeat as sticking with what we have, I asked him directly what would stop the BOCC, 24 hours after the referendum’s defeat, from starting over and incorporating the best ideas for selecting and electing a diverse slate of candidates.

He ducked that direct question and a subsequent one from the audience: “What will you do if the referendum is defeated?”

When asked the same question I made the following pledge:

If the referendum is defeated I will appear at the first BOCC meeting after the election and ask for:

Expansion of the board to seven members

Non-partisan elections

Cumulative voting

Immediate implementation of rural and urban super-precincts

If we pass this referendum, additional reforms will not be implemented. If we pass this referendum, rejecting proven and practical alternatives which emphasize coalition building, then we’ll have consciously created a house divided.

Please don’t be fooled by the sugar-coating, board expansion, around this bitter pill, institutionalized divisiveness and disenfranchisement.

Vote NO on the Orange County districting referendum.

Community, Elections, Government, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Judge Calabria, FairJudges.net and the problem of 527 monies

November 2, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

From todays New & Record (11/01/06):

An independent political organization called FairJudges.Net began airing the ad this week. By promoting four Supreme Court candidates, it upsets a system meant to create a level playing field in judicial contests. Watchdog groups are up in arms.

“Democracy North Carolina believes the activities of FairJudges.Net are a disturbing and unhealthy development for judicial elections in North Carolina,” director Bob Hall said.

The N.C. Center for Voter Education called on “those responsible to stop airing these advertisements,” executive director Chris Heagarty said.

Even a beneficiary, Chief Justice Sarah Parker, wasn’t pleased. “If I had my druthers, I’d prefer to run my own campaign and plan my own strategy without unsolicited help from outside parties,” she said. “It would suit me fine if the ads did not run.”

The ad promotes “fair judges,” naming Parker, Mark Martin, Patricia Timmons-Goodson and Robin Hudson.

Judge Calabria is so far the only judge to respond to my email on the possible deceptive campaigning practices over at Morehead Planetarium.

The injection of big money in judicial races is a concern – that’s why NC switched to “voter-owned” judicial elections (at least for some judicial positions).

The complaint puts a major test on the state’s public financing system, adopted two years ago and touted as a way to remove partisan and big money influence from the courts.

Participants in public financing are allowed to raise a maximum of about $70,000 in contributions. The state then chips in, giving candidates for Court of Appeals about $144,000 and Supreme Court chief justice hopefuls about $217,000.

WRAL5, 11/01/06

The end-run, legal though it may be, around these limits is troubling – something acknowledged by the chair of the organization former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Burley Mitchell:

FairJudges.Net, chaired by former N.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Burley Mitchell, says its mission is to provide “positive, accurate, bipartisan information about judges.”

That isn’t how Levinson sees it. In asking the state for additional funds, he protested that 527 spending bypasses “public financing restrictions and guidelines …”

He’s right. The playing field has tilted. This also pushes judicial politics into a potentially troubling realm, where special-interest groups can spend millions to sway voters.

In West Virginia two years ago, a 527 group funded with more than $2 million from a coal company executive helped defeat a Supreme Court justice. It prompted the legislature to enact tougher restrictions. North Carolina might have to do the same, at least barring 527s from pouring money into last-minute ad campaigns.

Mitchell conceded Wednesday that “527s generally should be of concern to people” but defended the ad as “nothing but positive.”

It may be, but the prospect of big-money, special-interest influence in judicial elections should raise a hue and cry every time.

N&R, 11/02/06

ChapelHill, Elections, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

Fool me once, shame on you…: Judge Calabria responds.

November 1, 2006 WillR Leave a comment

Nice and quick response from Judge Calabria:

Mr. Raymond,
I will look into this as soon as I finish sending a letter to the State
Board of Elections about the violations that are occurring on TV. I have
already requested rescue funds. I will be happy to provide a copy of my
new letter to you after I send it to Mr. Leake. if you would like one.
Sincerely,
Ann Marie

Judge Ann Marie Calabria
Candidate for NC Supreme Court

Let’s see how quickly, if at all, the rest of the candidates respond.

[UPDATE:]

Dear Mr. Raymond,

Mr. Leake was gone for the day and we do not have his email address.
I will look into the Orange County Early Voting matter.

Thanks,
Ann Marie Calabria

ChapelHill, CivilLiberties, Elections, LocalPolitics, NationalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Fool me once, shame on you…: Possible Republican Judge Election Trickery

November 1, 2006 WillR 4 Comments

According to WCHL1360 some kind of organized tomfoolery is going on at the Morehead Planetarium polling place

Some students from UNC Chapel Hill are working to get votes for Conservative judges, but are not always transparent in their efforts.

Chapel Hill attorney Bob Epting says a young woman approached him outside the polling place and asked if he was a Democrat. When he said yes, she gave him a list of candidates.

The implication was the list was of progressive judges (essentially Democrats) in this non-partisan race.

Fred Black relates the following over on OP:

Yesterday when I voted at Morehead (#996 since Oct. 23d), there was a young lady on the edge of the parking lot. She asked me if I was going to vote and I replied that I was. She handed me a small piece of paper that listed Duke, Martin, Levinson, Calabria, Bailey, and Stroud. With the DTH and the WCHL story as background, I asked if the named people were all Republicans. She said that she thought so but theirâ€™s are nonpartisan races. I asked her what organization she represented and she said she was just helping her friend who was in class.

More information on this BlueNC and OrangePolitics threads.

With the current vote flipping problems in Arkansas, Missouri, Texas and Florida – all biased towards Republican candidates – one has to wonder if the Morehead trickery is the least of election 2006 problems.

That said, I’ve gone ahead and contacted the campaigns of Duke, Martin, Levinson, Calabria, Bailey, and Stroud in case they weren’t aware of folks scamming the electorate in their name.

Their handling of this mess will be a great indicator of their willingness to cultivate public trust both in the election and judicial process.

Contact information:

Judge Duke – www.rustyduke.com judgeduke@rustyduke.com
Justice Martin – www.justicemarkmartin.org mmartin@justicemarkmartin.org
Judge Levinson – www.justicelevinson.org campaign@justicelevinson.org
Judge Calabria – www.calabria4judge.com amcalabria@nc.rr.com
Judge Bailey – www.judgekrisbailey.com judgekdb2006@nc.rr.com
Judge Stroud – www.judgestroud.com JudgeStroud@aol.com

Mailto link: MAIL the JUDGES.

My email:

RE: Apparent organized effort to deceive Orange County voters
TO: Judge Duke, Justice Martin, Judge Levinson, Judge Calabria, Judge Bailey, Judge Stroud

According to local media reports (WCHL1360 – http://www.wchl1360.com/details.html?id=2124 ) and several eyewitness reports ( http://orangepolitics.org/2006/11/republicans-attempt-to-deceive-orange-county-voters/#comment-65383 ) , an organized effort is being made in Orange County to deceive voters in your name. A list of your names is being presented to Democratic voters in a fashion meant to mislead uninformed voters into voting for you.

Given your current standings as judges, given the responsibility you’ve been entrusted with, given the tenor of all your campaigns, I imagine this tomfoolery comes both as a surprise and a disappointment.

Now that you are aware of the problem, would you please publicly ask the participants to desist? A quick resolution to this problem will serve the public well.

Thank you for your prompt attention,

Will Raymond
Independent, Orange County

CitizenWill, Community, Elections, LocalPolitics, OrangeCounty, Ruminations

Soundbite: Carey, CitizenWill and the 2006 Redistricting Referendum

October 21, 2006 Administrator Leave a comment

WCHL1360 caught a small taste [MP3] of Wednesday’s “debate”.

I’ve since heard the radio ad promoting,to some small extent (and, hopefully, unintentionally), the referendum. Besides surmounting all the advertising – radio, print – the layout of the ballot will probably prove to be the hardest obstacle to overcome. As someone (thanks) pointed out to me, most folks will read the first sentence describing the expansion of the board to seven members – something I agree with – and skip all the rest of the legalese. My concern? That on this strategic layout alone will the referendum be decided.

Community, Elections, Government, LocalPolitics, Ruminations

WCHL Commentary: Oct. 24th Superior Court and BOCC Voluntary Campaign Finance Disclosure

October 19, 2006 WillR 2 Comments

Citizen Will