Preservation Reports

Search • RSS Feed

Executive Summary

Big money in politics corrupts the process by which our laws get made. Major contributors are able to have a disproportionate impact on the outcome of elections, such that few reform-minded individuals win office. Too often, this means some of the state’s most pressing environmental problems, like the state’s disappearing open spaces and its increasing air pollution, don’t get solved.

The North Carolina General Assembly’s failure thus far in taking even small steps toward stopping sprawling development provides a clear example of how big money in politics can thwart popular reforms that would protect the state’s environment and public health.

North Carolina loses over 400 acres of forest and farmland every day—the fifth fastest rate in the country. This in turn leads to degraded environmental conditions. Smog pollution triggers 240,000 asthma attacks across the state each year. Pavement covering the soil that once filtered our water causes two-thirds of North Carolina’s water pollution. These problems are all results of the runaway, unplanned development known as sprawl.

The public overwhelmingly supports solutions to these problems. In many polls, North Carolinians have expressed a readiness to change the rules for growth to protect the state’s natural heritage.

Individuals and industries that profit from sprawl development—developers, realtors, and construction companies—feel differently. They have invested vast sums of money in political campaigns, at least in part to guard against land-use reform. These campaign contributions from pro-sprawl interests totaled nearly $8 million in the 2000 election cycle to North Carolina legislative and statewide candidates.

Campaign contributions from pro-sprawl interests included the following during the 2000 election cycle:

• $5 million from builders, contractors and developers.
• $3 million from the real estate industry.
• $400,000 from real estate and construction PACs.
• $461,000 from the top three donors: $217,000 from the Shelton Companies of Charlotte; $132,000 from the Wilmington-based network of John Elmore, Henry E. Miller and Lionel Yow; and $112,000 from attorney, developer, and new Board of Transportation member Lanny Wilson, also from Wilmington.

In the 2001-2002 legislative session, champions of land-use reform put forward several proposals to begin to curb sprawl. Recognizing the financial clout of the developers, they kept their reforms modest. Yet anti-reform legislators supported by developers and Realtors have pushed aside even these modest measures, in most cases not even allowing debate on proposals.

Land-use reforms should be debated on a level playing field. For this to happen, public officials must better reflect the opinions and diversity of the citizens of the state.

Public financing of elections would help to create a level playing field. In such a system, any candidate who has amassed the support of enough individual voters can be within striking distance of winning an election for state office. Once they qualify, candidates use public money for their campaigns, not money from special interests. Land-use reforms should be debated on a level playing field.

An effective public financing system must contain three key elements:

• Local fundraising requirements to ensure that candidates serve their constituents rather than out-of-district wealthy special interests.
• A qualification requirement of a large number of contributions at a level that ordinary citizens can afford.
• Matching funds to help publicly-financed candidates running against candidates funded by large amounts of private money.