But retired Deputy State Treasurer, Charles Heatherly, has raised some interesting questions about how Moore raised that $1.28 million. According to Mr. Heatherly, “Much of the money came from people who do business with his [Moore’s] office. While that might appear to be a conflict of interest, it is legal under the rules set by the General Assembly” (News and Observer 3/3/06).

I might add those rules were actually written by the Democrat majorities that control the State House and Senate.

Mr. Heatherly adds, “Since becoming Treasurer in January 2001, Moore has expanded the number of outside managers hired to manage public pension funds and has increased the manager’s compensation.”

Which is another way of saying that by hiring more fund managers, Treasurer Moore increased the number of people he can raise money from.

Heatherly continues, “The fact that the custodian of North Carolina’s pension funds is allowed to solicit and collect campaign contributions from fund managers who serve at his pleasure raises a serious issue of fiduciary accountability. Perhaps we should be impressed that Moore has persuaded hundreds of out-of-state residents, including two dozen persons who list their occupations as ‘homemaker,’ to contribute the $4,000 maximum allowable contribution to his political campaign. It would be commendable to learn that these folks in widely dispersed locations throughout the United States, including Iowa, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Missouri and California, gave to his campaign primarily because of their concern for good government in North Carolina.

“In the case of some of the homemakers, however, the fact is they share a last name and a home address with another contributor whose occupation appears to be connected to the pension investment business gives rise to other concerns.”

In other words, to use a euphemism, Moore is ‘shaking down’ pension fund managers for campaign contributions. Which is perfectly legal.

Heatherly says the solution is simple. “First, the General Assembly should enact a law prohibiting the custodian of public pension funds from accepting contributions or any gifts from those he or she hires to manage funds.”

My question is, Why hasn’t the legislature already done that? The answer is because this is how the Democrats in the Governor’s Mansion and the General Assembly have done business for years. This is how they raise the money to pay for their political campaigns.

And what does Treasurer Moore have to say to defend himself?

His Chief of State Staff, Stacey Phipps responded on his behalf. Phipps wrote, “Every elected official in North Carolina, such as the Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, and members of the General Assembly, receives campaign contribution from individuals or organizations that either do business with or are regulated by the State.”

Now, there’s a ringing defense. Everybody ‘shakes down’ the people who do business with the State, so it’s fine.

I don’t see much difference between what House Speaker Jim Black has done and what Richard Moore is doing. It certainly sounds like Moore is practicing his own version of ‘pay to play.’

The only difference is Black, at last, has come out for banning donations from, and fundraising by, lobbyists. Richard Moore, Governor Easley, and Senate Leader Marc Basnight haven’t done that. And the only logical conclusion to draw from their silence is, to them, it’s fine to let ‘pay for play’ continue to be business as usual in North Carolina.