It’s all behind us now, and so it’s easy to push it out of our minds and forget. But I’ll make a pitch right now for full public funding of all statewide and national political campaigns. If we can’t get there — and I know that it will be a long journey — then we should at least create a process whereby candidates can agree to voluntary spending limits and stronger oversight on what is contained in the advertisements.

I know I’ll hear it, that what I’m suggesting amounts to limiting free speech. To tell a candidate how much he or she can spend and how it must be spent is a violation of the First Amendment, some argue.

But damn, do you remember what happened in the last few weeks of the 2004 election? Remember the ads, particularly the television ads. It wasn’t just the presidential race. In nearly all contests, the mud slinging and the tone of the discourse was unabashedly degrading. The philosophy is to attack and denigrate the opponent instead of holding up one’s own accomplishments.

Now, when we aren’t in the midst of any campaigns, is the time to address this nastiness. And the truth is that North Carolina is a national leader in efforts to bring some integrity to the election process (notice I did not suggest bringing integrity “back,” because it’s always been a somewhat dog-eat-dog business despite the warm fuzzy feelings some may have of how it used to be). To continue our role as a leader, citizens must check off the little box on their income tax returns that contributes $3 of your taxes to the judicial candidates who accept strict campaign spending and fund-raising limits. Checking the box won’t raise your taxes because the money comes from the taxes you already owe or have already paid.

The group Democracy North Carolina has been the key player in educating taxpayers about this initiative. I have no doubt the group’s success can be attributed to a rising belief that campaign spending and advertising is out of control.

The program does not just hand over the cash to anyone who decides to run for any seat. In North Carolina the public funding only applies to Appellate Court judge candidates and state Supreme Court judge candidates. In the 2004 election cycle, 12 of 16 judicial candidates in qualified for public financing of their campaigns. Two others failed to qualify, and two opted out of the program.

To qualify for the public funding candidates had to raise between $34,500 and $69,000. That threshold was to prove their viability, that they were serious candidates and not just out to scam the system for the public money. Compared to other states, though, the judicial candidates in our state were not forced to grovel for money by sucking up to special-interest groups who then might gain undue influence when appearing in court. In nine other states, candidates for the Supreme Court were forced to go out and raise campaign money, and in those states the average campaign war chest was more than $1 million.

Before anyone begins complaining about taxpayers spending a bundle on these campaigns, let’s look at the figures. Exactly $1,497,727 in public money was given to the 12 judicial candidates in 2004. Of that, more than $1 million came from the $3 check-off on income tax returns. Money also goes into the fund from attorney privilege licenses. All told, the General Assembly spent $863,000, some of which went to a judicial voter guide that was mailed to all North Carolina residences. I’d say that’s a pretty good use of money, especially considering that nationwide judicial candidates raised $39 million in 2004 (up from $29 million in 2002).

Since North Carolina’s judicial races are non-partisan, the candidates for these offices could simply say no to special-interest money. The N.C. Public Campaign Fund also kept a pool of “rescue money” that would have been used to combat special-interest attack ads. That pool of cash helped keep us from being hit over the head with attack ads disguised as “issue ads,” the very type used in the presidential election that disgusted many taxpayers.

For now, this is just a limited attempt to keep campaigns for our most important judicial cases above-board. But NC Voters for Clean Elections would like to see a similar public funding effort for more statewide races.

“The high cost of elections stops many qualified people from running for office and traps many who do run in an almost endless chase for campaign money. This money chase has a devastating effect on the public’s perception of elections,” says the group’s Web site.

We’ve seen in happen right here in Western North Carolina. When Sen. John Snow, D-Murphy, beat long-time incumbent Sen. Bob Carpenter, R-Franklin, he spent nearly $400,000. Former Sen. Joe Sam Queen, D-Waynesville, who lost to Keith Presnell, spent more than $400,000 and lost his seat. The huge dollar amounts don’t guarantee victory, but it does promise a rough-and-tumble campaign fight where it is often difficult to separate the issues from the accusations. That serves no useful purpose for taxpayers and voters.

At some point in this country’s future, all campaign spending will filter through a system of public financing where all candidates get an equal amount. We will snicker at the latter half of the 20th century and the early 21st century when our republic was nearly spoiled by the need to curry favor from special-interest groups in order to have a chance of winning a seat in Congress or in the state legislature. It will be quaint memory.

The sooner the better.

(Scott McLeod can be reached at info@smokymountainnews.com.)