$6,700 Each

Now why would people contribute so heavily to the re-election campaign of a guy who is a shoe-in for re-election anyway? Answer: these are not really 'contributions;' they are 'bribes.' You want something done in state government, a law giving a break to your business or creating an obstacle for your competitors, you have to give Joe Hackney money.

And because Joe and his cronies have rigged the law to grant themselves unlimited power to transfer these funds to the campaigns of others, he can use that money to interfere in the democratic process in other peoples' districts, rewarding those who lick his boots and punishing those who dare to oppose him.

At the same time he enacts laws that limit the ability of people other than himself to make contributions, thus magnifying the power and importance of his own stash of cash. And the media call those laws "campaign finance reform" and laud him for it.

First, I don't think that campaign contributions are bribes. Unless there is a specific quid pro quo, that's just hyperbole. I don't have any evidence that Speaker Hackney (or Rep. Stam, or any other member) is accepting bribes.

Having said that, the influence of money in our politics is corrosive, and it is not limited to any single party, faction, or person. It is a systemic, structural breakdown that has to be corrected. The best solution is having Voter-Owned Elections, in which candidates can run without having to raise huge amounts of cash.

But let's be very clear here: Speaker Hackney and most Democrats have supported greater reforms of campaign finance rules - including Voter-Owned Elections. It has been Republicans who have consistently opposed these reforms. They need to get on board so that we can fix this broken system.

We are fortunate to have a person of Joe Hackney's intelligence and ethical standards serving the people of North Carolina. You can throw a lot of mud, much of it deserved, at other Democrats who have been in the news lately, but what you can't do, and you know it, is impugn Joe's integrity.

Dan, when I (or any other common citizen) give money to a candidate, even the maximum allowed by law, that candidate can still do and vote as he pleases with the only negative repercussion being that I may not vote for him next time around. You're right that that does not constitute a bribe.

When Joe Hackney gives money to a candidate from his campaign fund there is NO LIMIT to how much he can give, and there are massive reprecussions involved if the candidate does not then do and vote as Joe wishes. That's more than just a bribe--it's a huge distortion of the democratic process.

Just think, under Joe's 'reforms' regular citizens such as myself are limited in assisting candidates we want to have represent us, while no restrictions at all are placed on his ability to fund candidates who will do his bidding. If one happens to live in a House district represented by a Democrat elected with Joe's financial help, one's representation is attenuated by that representative's divided loyalty.

What has either party done to address that situation? Nothing, of course. As the leaders of the party in absolute power, Joe Hackney and Marc Basnight and Beverley Perdue are the ones most responsible for addressing this stunning inequity, yet their only solutions have been further restrictions on OTHER PEOPLE'S ability to exercise influence, not thier own.

"Voter owned" elections my foot

Brunette, I'll believe Joe's an ethical man when I see him for once championing a ethics reform that actually addresses inequities like the one I've described, and not just hamstringing his opponents' fund-raising efforts.

This shows how weak a fundraiser Tom Fetzer is.I am a multi millionaire and have contributed for years to various republicans and I am yet to even get a call.I also have raised millions.Fetzer is so polarizing because of his history I thought fundraising would be difficult for him.

This report also highlights another problem, the top heavy overpaid executive level of the NCGOP. This diverts money that could be going to candidates, and certainly over $150,000.

Our NCGOP Plan of Organization allows for only one top executive position, the Executive Director. When state chairmen wanted to be full time, they were simultaneously hired as Executive Director so they could that salary This is the way it was done - legally - for Jack Lee, Dave Flaherty, Jack Hawke, and Jane Rouse., all of the paid full time chairmen the party has had in the past.

Along comes Tom Fetzer and decides he wants to be a heavily paid state chairman AND have a well paid ED as well, even though the State Plan does not allow that. After stacking the Central Committee right after the convention, he has the votes for that Central Committee to, without authority, establish a seperate salary for the chairman, and still hire an ED. He proceeds to do that, AND to turn around and raise his own salary to a whopping $120,000. Then theres benefits which typically are another 40% on top of salary. He had also pushed for a 'chairman's commission' on money raised and it is unclear if he is now getting that, too, on top of the $120,000 and benefits.

If the NCGOP goes back to following the Plan of Organization and hires just the Executive Director that is allowed (and sure, let Fetzer have that at a normal ED salary), it will save the party the $120,000 and benefits - which would amount to between $160,000 and $170,000 - that could then be put into a fund to help our candidates.

Word spreading about the salary hanky panky is also not helping the NCGOP with contributors.

Dan, it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. Everyone at the General Assembly knows it's true, so do his constituents, and so does Carter Wrenn.

Sadly you are right, Brunette, that it doesn't matter what I (or anyone else outside of his district) think about Joe Hackney. Under our current unethical system he has the power to shape legislation anyway he wants, yet he answers only to the voters in his own district.

When he and his party finally do lose control of his chamber (I'm an optimist--I think democracy will eventually triumph) someone else will wield that kind of power, and it will most likely be a conservative Republican. When that guy raises hundreds of thousands he doesn't need, only to dole it out to candidates who will do his conservative bidding, perhaps then you will understand what's wrong with Joe's system and why I say if he were truely an ethical man he would be trying to change it

But it will be too late. It won't matter to the new leader what you think.

Brunette is back. I might start reading this blog again on a more regular basis.

As to the corrupt concentration of power in legislative leaders, what allows them to concentrate money and use it to maintain power is their ability to serve multiple terms. This creats a vicious cycle is which special interests shower them with money because that is where the power is, and the money in turn allows them to buy the support through campaign contributions to keep themselves in power.

North Carolina had two traditions that for years prevented this concentration of power. In the Senate, that was the division of power between the Lt. Governor and the President Pro Tem. That tradion has changed in both houses in relatively recent times. After Gardner was elected Lt. Governor, the Democrats staged a legislative coup, stripped the Lt. Governor of all legislative power other than that which was in the Constitution and gave it to President Pro Tem Basnight. In the House, there was a long standing tradition that Speakers only served one term in that office. Then egotistical Speaker Carl Stewart, Jr. (whose 2 sons are Carl III and Carl IV) decided to seek two terms and was able to bull his way through to do so. Then his successor Liston Ramsey decided he would serve forever. Thus was born the Imperial Speaker.

The reform that is desperately needed to bring things back into balance is to put a one-term limit on holding the office of Speaker into the state constitution, and to either do the same for Preisdnet Pro Tem of the Senate or to restore the traditional powers of the Lt. Governor to again divide Senate power.

Socialized elections (or as the left puts it ''voter owned elections'') are not the answer as all this does is tilt the playing field in favor of the left. This not a reform but to the contrary a power grabbing charade by the left. If both candidates are restricted to the same amount of money, the fact that the news media tilts strongly to the left, gives the left an inherent advantage in the elections.

On the original topic, something really needs to be done in the NCGOP to end the outrageous bloated executive level salaries that are taking $150,000 out of the campaigns of our candidates.

I'm not so sure that the so-called 'voter-owned' elections favor the left or the right. What they do do, however, is tilt the playing field towards incumbents. Think about this for a while.

Who will write (and amend, as developments occur) the rules concerning who can receive these funds? Who will write rules regarding how they may or may not be used? Who will set the amounts? The incumbents, of course.

Now if conservatives were in power, do you liberals think that they would not change the rules as needed to stay in power? Is that not exactly what the liberal incumbents do now, regarding campaign finance, redistricting, ballot access, and anything else they can think of? Does anyone really think that either party would accept looming defeat rather than change the rules again if they thought such a change might keep them in power?

You will never legislate honest, ethical politicians or smart, well-informed voters. Human nature is what it is, and the best thing for all would be to allow the most unfettered campaigning possible while demanding the most comprehensive disclosure possible. Then let the chips fall where they will.

Joe has been elected Speaker precisely because he does serve all the people of the state, not just his constituency. He has the reputation he has for strong ethics and integrity (as well as keen intelligence) because he earned it from both GOP and Dems. Even those who want to see him unseated are forced to acknowledge that he's fair and he's just. You don't like it? Too bad. But no one who knows him, friend or foe, denies his high moral character, his dedication or his strict adherence to the letter as well as the spirit of the law.

I'm well aware of Joe's reputation, but so what? He presides over a profoundly crooked system that benefits his party and himself personally, at the expense of true represenatative democracy. He could at least start a conversation about changing it, anytime he felt like it. But clearly, he doesn't feel like it. That fact speaks louder to me than any reputation he may have acquirred.

Joe Hackney doesn't arrange anything for his personal benefit. As far as changing the system, he has been a great leader in ethics reform (not to mention a leader by personal example). You can't possibly know what he "feels like" and the fact that you're resorting to that kind of supposition suggests you know you've got nuthin'. His fiercest political opponents don't deny that he's clean as a whistle and that whether they agree or disagree, he has been an effective and honest leader. That's something very, very few politicians anywhere can say for themselves (or about anyone they work with). But go ahead and carp. I don't think you're actually interested in the truth about Hackney so much as you are in trying to make some mud stick somewhere. Have at it.

I don't care about mud or where it sticks or doesn't; I care about changing a crooked system that allows top elected officials like Joe Hackney to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars they have no intention of spending on their own campaigns, and then using those dollars to make other legislators tow his line, while at the same time limiting the amount that ordinary citizens can donate to elect their own representatives. Under his system, he may contribute to a candidate in my district many, many times the amount that I or any other citizen of this district may contribute. It's stunningly unfair, and un-democratic.

I'll be the first to sing Joe's praises the day he announces a serious attempt to address this inequity. But I'm not holding my breath waiting for him to do that. Nor do I expect him to fight for a fair and common sense redistricting plan next year, rather than the same old anti-democratic gerrymandering schemes we've always had. I'd love to be proven wrong, but it's going to take action on his part, not airy arguements about reputation and honesty by his starry-eyed supporters.

Well, the reputation he has for honesty and integrity isn't just among his supporters. That reputation is acknowledged and respected (with good reason) by his political opponents -- and people like John Hood and Carter Wrenn. I guess ya just gotta live with that.

Again, I don't care what his reputation is. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand, which I notice as I read back through your posts you never touch upon. He (and Marc Basnight and Beverly Perdue) are at the top of a very corrupt food chain, and they've made no effort whatsoever to change those anti-democratic aspects of it that keep them in power.

I don't "touch" upon what you see as the issue at hand because I have my own, which is the fact that whether or not he puts your druthers at the top of his "to do" list, he's has done good work, is doing good work, and it looks like he'll be able to continue doing so. I don't think we have ever had a politician in either house or party with as strong a record of achievement as he has with ethics and reform; in fact he has been recognized nationwide for it. Whether or not you care about accomplishments or reputation, a lot of people do. That's why Joe Hackney stands out.

Posters are arguing over two different levels of corruption. On one level, Comrade Hackney is probably as pure as the driven snow. I doubt he would take a cash payoff to vote a particular way on a bill. He is after all an ideologue, and ideologues of whatever stripe (and his is bright leftist red) tend to be more principled in that sense than the often opportunist moderates. However that is really not the level that matters in his position. The issue is whether he would engage in power plays to maintain a corrupt system that abuses both power and money. Since that plays into being able to legislate his ideology, on that level, yes he is thoroughly corrupt.

If he really wanted to stand up for democracy in the running of the NC House, he could come out for a Constitutional Amendment to term limit the Speaker of the House to one term, as Speakers used to have the integrity to limit themselves. Obviously Hackney lacks that integrity and will never in a million years support such a sensible reform.

"I don't think we have ever had a politician in either house or party with as strong a record of achievement as he has with ethics and reform..."

That, sadly, just might be true. It's also irrelevant. It's like being voted the most tolerant guy in the KKK. If the standard we're going to judge our highest elected leaders by is whether they are more or less corrupt than the ones who preceeded them we will never make much progress in ethics reform. All he's done so far is tinker around the edges, and in ways that only make his own position (and that of his party) even stronger.

At least you didn't attempt to defend his inaction on the issue I raised.

I like Joe Hackney exactly where he is. You want him to throw himself on a sword so that one of your "team" can take over? I see no one on the horizon of GOP candidates who could come close to Hackney for intelligence, integrity or effectiveness. Nor do I have any reason to think that you've got someone waiting in the wings to jump in and reform the system ahead of any of the other needs that voters have articulated as being crucial to their concerns. When the voters demand the change you are seeking, you'll see their leaders responding, whatever the party. No such hue and cry is being raised, at least not to such an extent that the current crises in state government are taking a back seat. Hackney is in there doing what the voters -- and he has to respond to all of them -- not just his district constituents -- want him to do.
I have to disagree, Aristotle, that term limits are an obvious and sensible reform. Much as I sympathize with the yearning to see the fat cat system derailed, and though I disliked Jesse Helms being elected over and over and over again, the fact is that he *was* elected over and over and over again because people chose to vote for him over and over and over again. I'm not sure I like the idea that voters may not choose to elect a candidate they approve of back into office to keep doing what they like him or her doing.

I don't have a 'team' Brunette, unless you think of people who want a fair and representative democratic system as a team. Your comment about Joe throwing himself on a sword is telling. Are you acknowledging that without the unfair monetary advantages Joe's 'team' now enjoys they would be swept out of office? It seems to me that's what you're implying.

I've been around NC politics long enough to know that the Republicans would have no intention of fixing a crooked system that worked to their benefit, were their roles reversed with the Democrats. However, that does not excuse those who currently hold power from doing the right thing. Thinking like yours (and Joe's, it would appear) are why we are stuck with the anti-democratic system we currently have.

I take issue with your view that Hackney has to respond to all the voters in the state, and I chanllange you to explain how that could be. I think it's quite the other way around--all the voters in the state have to live under the agenda that Hackney imposes, with virtually no recourse. If I don't like the job Joe is doing I can contribute to whoever runs against him, but Joe has seen to it that I (and any other citizen so inclined) may only do so under a very strict limit. But if Joe doesn't like who I and my fellow voters elect to represent us, he can dump unlimited amounts of cash on HIS chosen candidate. It should make one wonder who our representatives actually represent--us, or Joe Hackney.

No, I'm saying that if he were to set aside current issues to address the one you think is over-riding, he'd be making a huge mistake. And I thought, by the way, that you were talking about redistricting, not the cash flow. I do agree that we need continuing reforms in the way cash affects our political system.

I disagree that Hackney has not been responsive to constituents state-wide. If he were as red as you paint him, he certainly wouldn't have been elected speaker a second time. Had he not demonstrated his willingness to work with a wide variety of people whose agendas he doesn't necessarily admire, he wouldn't be where he is right now. The fact is that he has won praises from both sides of the aisle because he is a fair man.

Agenda he imposes? You mean like ethics reform?

I've watched the General Assembly do it's work for a long time now, and I'm confident that they could address my little issue while handling other things just fine, if they wanted to. But just try to imagine what would happen to the first Democrat representative who spoke up in the caucus and said, "You know, I think that the next part of campaign finance reform we take up ought to be the vast inequity built into the system by allowing elected officials to give each other's campaigns unlimited contributions, while limiting those of everyone else." That would be a great way to guarantee a primary challenge, and guess who would be funding the challenger?

And I don't understand who Joe Hackney's constituents "state wide" are. I'm certainly not one; I can't vote for him, I'm barred by law in how much I can contribute to him or his opponent, and if what you Democrats and leftists always say about the impact of money on campaigns is correct, he's got more say over who represents me than I do. I'm closer to being his subject than his constituent.

As for how 'red' Joe is, I think any knowledgable insider would admit that he's far more radical left than he acts as speaker. I guess I should be thankful for that.

I'm a knowledgeable insider, Carbine. And while I think your tagging him as a communist is ironic in light of your denial that you are on a "team" (speaking as it does to a mentality that likes fast and easy labels), I understand there is resentment among your ilk (oops) that he's "more radical than he acts as speaker." First, I think it's amusing that it is a source of irritation (and grudging thanks) that he is fair to people with whom he disagrees -- which is another way of expressing the idea that he is personally more "radical" than his actions as speaker would indicate. Second, yes, he undoubtedly back-shelves, as any leader should, personal druthers in favor of serving all of the people who count on his actions as speaker to be just and fair. That's everyone in NC, not just those who vote in his district.

Did I "tag" Joe Hackney as a communist? For that matter, did I write that I thought he was fair to those with whom he disagreed, or that I found that irritating? You seem to have a remarkable ability to read things not written.

But back to the point--in your penultimate sentence you seem to be implying that Joe isn't necessarily against the reforms I seek, but is perhaps merely 'back-shelfing' them for action at some more propitious future moment. Knowing Joe as you undoubtedly do, do you really, seriously think that he would ever, under any circumstances, agree to any limitation on the amounts of money an elected official such as himself could donate from his own campaign fund to the campaign fund of another? Or (dare I even bring this up?) the amount a political party can donate to a candidate?

Yes, you "tagged" him as communist by labeling him "red" a few posts ago, and you did so rather emphatically. In the context you employed it, "red" is another word for "communist"

And while you're being indignant that I should read into your statements something you now claim not to have said, diid you not launch a series of accusations based upon what you decided I had "implied" a few posts ago? And in this most recent, here you go again drawing (incorrectly) from what I've written to conclusions I can't support.

When I said Joe undoubtedly back-shelves personal druthers, I was saying no more than the obvious about any good leader -- which is that whatever his personal preferences may be (and no I was not speculating as to what issues those might include), he is responsive to the body over which he presides, and thus puts the agenda of the people of NC ahead of his personal preferences. Your suggestion that I was implying that whatever those issues include, they would necessarily include your own ideas of what needs to happen is simply incorrect. I do think it's fortunate for NC that he has always been at the forefront of ethics reform and continues to be.

Yes, I do know Joe, and like virtually everyone who knows him, I admire him, but we've not discussed redistricting, so I do not know what his thoughts are or how he would answer you, and I have not tried , nor will I try to speak for him.

But if you're paranoid enough to affix the label "red" (communist) as loosely as you do, you're unlikely to appreciate what a boon it is to NC to have someone of his integrity, intelligence and ability leading the House.

"If he were as red as you paint him..." Brunette, Feb 13, 3:08 pm

Honey, YOU wrote that, not me. YOU are the one who first brought up this 'red' business. I've neither written nor implied that he was anything other than a left-wing Democrat. Please show me which of my posts lead you to believe that I thought of Joe Hackney as a communist.

While you're at it could you also tell me what this "string of accusations" you're referring to is? My point in this thread, which I think I've made very clear, is that Joe Hackney and the rest of the legislative leadership has tinkered around the edges of campaign finance reform with a view towards limiting the voices of others while magnifying the significance of their own voices, via control over campaign contributions. I don't think there is really any debate over the fact that the 'reforms' have made it much more difficult for candidates to raise cash on their own, from their local supporters, and made them much more dependent upon a handful of 'rain makers' like Joe Hackney and Marc Basnight. That's not a "string of accusations"--that's a factual observation.

Nor have you mounted any arguement to the contrary. All you've done is to keep repeating that he's a leader in ethics reform, well-respected by his fellow legislators, with "integrity" and a couple of other buzz words thrown in for good measure. I'm sorry, but that's not an arguement--that's hero worship.

You're right, Carbine, you didn't call him red. I conflated your posts with those of another. You stand falsely accused, and I withdraw that accusation with apologies.

As for Joe, it's more than ironic that he is being castigated for being a "rainmaker" by reactionary conservatives. I can't help enjoying that fact, since, yes, I've been a fan of Hackney's from years and years back -- back when the people running the party were wrinkling their noses at so-called liberal causes, and discounting his politics.

But even years back,those same folks recognized the fact of his intelligence and his integrity (not buzz words, but accurate descriptions with genuine application). He was made speaker because the Democrats knew that in the aftermath of the Jim Black scandal (and with others brewing) they needed to put someone in place who had an untarnished reputation, a stiff backbone and the ability to inspire trust.

He's the reason a lot of Democrats have been able to keep the faith. That's probably as upsetting to Republicans (and the like) as any of his supposedly radical ideas.

Thanks for clearing that red business up.

I hope that in the coming session Speaker Hackney surprises us all and moves legislation to make campaign committees, PACs, and political parties subject to the same restrictions on campaign contributions that I and the other unwashed masses labor under. If he does I'll shine his shoes for a month. Or I would, if his earlier bills hadn't made it illegal for him to accept a free shoe shine. Anyway, we can hope for the best.

Great news! http://www.wral.com/news/state/story/7034520/

If this is true, they are actually considering some kind of limit on the amount of money parties can contribute to a candidate. No mention of contributions from one candidate's fund to another, but if the parties can be thus restricted why not the party rainmakers?

Maybe I'm overly optimistic, but I think I'll restock my shoe-shining box...

In this way, Replica Watches, Swiss Replica Watches, Hublot Watches, Hugo Boss Watches, IWC Watches, Jacob&Co Watches, Jaeger-LeCoultre Watches, is famous for its iconic Museum collection-type dial (Museum ?) and modern design in the world. Jaquet Droz Watches, Longines Watches, Louis Vuitton Watches, Maurice Lacroix Watches, Montblanc Watches, Movado Watches, Omega Watches, Oris Watches, Even you are a fastidious person, you can always find your favorite watch in Movado bracelet series. Panerai Watches, Parmigiani Watches, Patek Philippe Watches, Paul Picot Watches, Philip Stein Watches, Maybe it is the symbol of female’s elegance. Piaget Watches, Porsche Design Watches, Rado Watches, Raymond Weil Watches, Richard Mille Watches, Roger Dubuis Watches, Romain Jerome Watches, Sinn Watches, Tag Heuer Watches, Make every woman be grace and confident. Tissot Watches, Tudor Watches, U-Boat Watches, VUlysse Nardin Watches, Vacheron Constantin Watches, VZenith Watches, as well as shows the beauty of symmetry.

In this way, Replica Watches, Swiss Replica Watches, Hublot Watches, Hugo Boss Watches, IWC Watches, Jacob&Co Watches, Jaeger-LeCoultre Watches, is famous for its iconic Museum collection-type dial (Museum ?) and modern design in the world. Jaquet Droz Watches, Longines Watches, Louis Vuitton Watches, Maurice Lacroix Watches, Montblanc Watches, Movado Watches, Omega Watches, Oris Watches, Even you are a fastidious person, you can always find your favorite watch in Movado bracelet series. Panerai Watches, Parmigiani Watches, Patek Philippe Watches, Paul Picot Watches, Philip Stein Watches, Maybe it is the symbol of female’s elegance. Piaget Watches, Porsche Design Watches, Rado Watches, Raymond Weil Watches, Richard Mille Watches, Roger Dubuis Watches, Romain Jerome Watches, Sinn Watches, Tag Heuer Watches, Make every woman be grace and confident. Tissot Watches, Tudor Watches, U-Boat Watches, VUlysse Nardin Watches, Vacheron Constantin Watches, VZenith Watches, as well as shows the beauty of symmetry.

Our company is a professional manufacturer specialized in fashion mbt tunisha.

We provide the joy handbags online.


Discount mbt shoes tataga are still paying attention to quality,


Use all the mbt shoes sport white that can make you comfort and try your best to live by it.


Fitness shoes of discount ugg handbags are collected at our website.


If you miss ugg tasmina chestnut ,you miss beauty.