Uncategorized

Congratulations Speaker Hackney

 For being awarded the 2007 Excellence in State Legislative Leadership Award.

Each year, National Conference of State Legislatures and the State Legislative Leadership Foundation honor a leader who has shown commitment to protecting and strengthening the institution of the state legislature. Speaker Hackney has truly done that. His leadership has reinforced the foundation of the North Carolina House and it is now a more effective body," said NCSL Executive Director Bill Pound. "We are pleased to spotlight his diligence and statesmanship with this award. In addition to championing new ethics and lobbying legislation, he is also credited with fostering greater openness in the legislative process of North Carolina by better use of the committee system.

7 Comments

  1. aplum

    July 13, 2007 at 2:10 pm

    I hope Speaker Hackney will build on this foundation and continue making ethical reforms within the state legislature. Lobbyist can no longer contribute to candidate’s campaigns but lobbyists can host fund raising parties for candidates in their homes. Erasing this fine line between giving money and raising money is one example of the ethics reforms that still need to passed in North Carolina.

  2. Anglico

    July 13, 2007 at 2:28 pm

    Great minds and all that.

    Good for Joe. He deserves it.

  3. Jim Stegall

    July 15, 2007 at 1:23 pm

    Why shouldn’t a lobbyist be allowed to contribute to the campaign of those running for office in the lobbyist’s own district? Isn’t it a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution to allow one man to contribute to candidates for office in a given district, but not allow his neighbor the same right?

    And why are some citizens (those who control party campaign funds) allowed to contribute as much as they want, while everyone else is limited to only $4,000 per cycle? It seems to me that allowing parties to dump unlimited funds into selected races, while barring citizens who live in such districts from contributing more than $4,000, gives party bosses far more say in who winds up representing those citizens than they have themselves. Why should that be?

  4. aplum

    July 16, 2007 at 11:17 am

    Yet another reason we need campaign finance reform. Why can’t we have a system where candidates get equal funds for their campaigns to use as they see best; we might have more issue discussion and less name calling under those circumstances. It might also encourage more people to run for public office. Think of all the races where candidates are run unopposed.

  5. Jim Stegall

    July 16, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    Or we might have more name-calling and less issue discussion under that plan. How in the world could you say how candidates “would” spend their state-limited funds? Seems to me that if you left it up to the candidates, they would expend their allocation of free speech in whatever manner they believed to be most efficacious.

    And who would set this limit? Is it really the right of the government to tell the people when they have had “enough” political commentary? I’ve never heard anyone lay out a plan publicly funded campaigning that did not run afoul of the First Amendment’s guarantee that the Congress shall not restrict political speech.

  6. aplum

    July 16, 2007 at 7:51 pm

    Wishful thinking. There must be a better way than what we have, but I guess you’re happy with our ‘big money’ system of democracy.

  7. Jim Stegall

    July 17, 2007 at 4:32 pm

    Yes, it is wishful thinking like this that our revolutionary forefathers fought for. Thank God they won. And yes, I prefer the free market of ideas (including yours), with all its warts, to any government attempt to control speech.