Wayne Goodwin on Voter Financed Elections

I caught up with Wayne Goodwin this week and asked him about his campaign. I was specifically interested in how public financing worked for him. Both he and his opponent participated in public financing, so were on equal footing in that regard. The most obvious result of their participation is that insurance industry money was kept at a minimum in both campaigns reducing the appearance that those who are regulated by the office also hold influence over it.

This year the voters booted the insurance industry and its employees out of this campaign, not that the current or future office holders were or would have been influenced by their contributions in the first place.

The following is a bit of my Q & A with Commissioner-elect Goodwin:

BlueNC: Did public financing make campaigning easier or more difficult?

Goodwin: In my opinion, the pilot program for public financing of the Insurance Commissioner race made my 2008 campaign much easier. Frankly, public financing allowed me to (1) spend a finite period of time fundraising (2) among a broader group of persons (3) who were all limited to between $10 and $200 each and (4) with no involvement of PACs - particularly of the special interest variety - that could otherwise give up to $4,000 each. The program also (5) significantly marginalized special interests and, most importantly, (6) after May 6th allowed me to spend 100% of my time and energy meeting with voters, listening to their concerns, and sharing both my ideas and my credentials with them. Public financing also (7) forced my campaign to be ever more frugal and strategic on campaign expenditures, further underscoring the grassroots organization necessary for victory.

In my opinion, the program made it easier for both me and my opponents because it leveled the playing field on finances but increased the premium on and impact of grassroots organization, well-thought plans and proposals, and relevant experience for the office of Insurance Commissioner.

BlueNC: How did it make your fundraising more transparent?

Goodwin: The public financing program made the campaign more transparent because it prohibited involvement by PACs and made it clear to the public that the very most any contribution could be was $200. There was also an increased emphasis on identifying the employer and/or occupation of the contributor. Furthermore, the pilot program also limited contributions to those from NC residents registered to vote in NC. That meant the contributors who helped me qualify for public funding were the exact same people who could either elect me or my opponents. Thus, there would be no financial intervention or involvement in this race by out-of-state interlopers or special interests.

BlueNC: Did you have to work harder or spend more time raising money?

Goodwin: As for whether I had to work harder to raise money, I believe it is a matter of perspective: As opposed to spending more and more time raising money throughout the length of the campaign - which in my instance stretched eight months but theoretically could have lasted for years - my campaign team and I had to raise all of the allowed funds only during a finite, truncated period between February 29 and May 6. That 2-1/2 month period took a burst of energy and organization to do all the requisite fundraising, but it helped tremendously that a qualifying contribution of $10 had almost the same qualifying weight as the maximum contribution of $200.

BlueNC: In that past the industries regulated by this office contributed heavily to candidates for this office. While these folks might not have had greater access to the office, it could have appeared that way to some people. How has public financing changed all that?

Goodwin: Regarding my relationship to those I would work with from the insurance industry or any other industry regulated by the office of Insurance Commissioner, the public financing program made my campaign dramatically less reliant on the very persons regulated by the Department of Insurance. As recent reports revealed, the percentage of campaign funds raised from the insurance industry by the Democratic and Republican party nominees for NC Insurance Commissioner dropped from 65% in the 2004 race to approximately 5% in my successful campaign. That, at least to me and to other observers of the process, means that the 2008 candidates spent more time than ever before campaigning among rank-and-file voters who are not "special interests." Another piece of trivia that has not been reported in the media is this: Because of public financing available in the Insurance Commissioner race, I was able to participate in more head-to-head debates and forums with my Insurance Commissioner opponents than ALL the other 2008 statewide races for other offices combined. (We had at least 20 such debates or candidate forums, not counting the events involving campaigns for other offices.) Public financing gave me the freedom to spend more very valuable time visiting businesses, homes, churches, families, schools, offices, civic clubs, professional groups, insurance experts, and media of all types and sizes that might not have seen me otherwise due to the usual pressures of major fundraising and holding events that are money-driven and not idea-driven.

As for those who may believe they have no influence over the office, I simply state that those persons who are affiliated with special interests have the same way of helping publicly-financed candidates through ideas, organization, and voter education that persons who are not affiliated with special interests have. Influence is "democratized" or spread among all the people.

BlueNC: Any further thoughts on the process?

Goodwin: It is my hope that the legislature will see the very positive effects that public financing had in this race and quickly consider expanding the pilot program to additional Council of State offices. I will personally advocate for the program, and will tout as proof the comparison of my 2008 campaign with my 2004 race, as well as comparisons with other campaigns that became obsessed with "the money chase."

Though the program was successful, there are a number of amendments needed to the pilot program to provide greater incentive for participation and to ensure that the funding mechanism is adjusted for the cost-of-living and anticipated increases in media and transportation by the candidates.

Meanwhile, in expressing my support for public financing I do not cast any negative light on Commissioner Long or on any other candidate. The vast majority of those candidates merely played by the laws and rules as they were for those other elections. Now, with the creation and successful operation of public financing in statewide judicial and certain Council of State offices, we have a political climate that will allow the State to institute greater reforms and new rules that change campaigning for the better and which dilute the impact of special interests. In that respect, everyone wins!

Thank you, Wayne for taking so much time to answer these questions. I hope that other candidates who participated in publicly financed campaigns will share their thoughts as well.

Do you have any thoughts on this?