Home › Blogs › scharrison's blog ›

A little love for the precincts

Submitted by scharrison on Sun, 01/30/2011 - 10:34pm

In the run-up to the SEC meeting/election, one particular issue seemed to be on the minds of many: The distribution of check-off funding headed down to the county and precinct levels. There was also some concern over whether or not a sitting Legislator could also legally engage in fundraising for the Party while the General Assembly was in session, which I believe was answered here.

With those two things in mind, I've got a proposition, which should help to empower both the base and the elected officials who owe them so much:

Every sitting Democratic Legislator should hold (or be the featured guest at) a fundraiser for each of the precincts in his or her District. Not "at", or "sponsored by" the Precinct. For the Precinct itself. Not only will that throw some desperately needed funds into the precinct's budget, it should also help to populate the Precinct's roster of volunteers.

I'm sure many Legislators already engage with local volunteers from time to time, but that's not the same thing as throwing a shin-dig in their honor with some decent face time, while also helping them balance the books. And introducing some of those big-money donors to the nuts & bolts local activists won't hurt, and it might actually pay off later, when it comes time to seek donations for your individual campaigns.

Now, I'm not sure if the law (or the POO) says those monies need to go up to the NCDP first and then back down to the Precinct, so maybe someone could set me straight on this.

Tagged:

Comments

More than a little love for the precincts

Submitted by Dan B on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 7:51pm.

I think it's a great idea, but it's a bit more complicated than that. I've actually spent some time thinking about this and keep running into a couple of roadblocks.

The Plan of Organization (I just can't call it the POO any more) has two features to it that are relevant here:

First, the precinct committees include a secretary/treasurer (who at the moment is much more secretary than treasurer). I believe at some point in recent history someone actually contemplated the precincts actually having funds.

Second, the entire method of precinct organization can be replaced by any given county (more or less). (Read Section 1.10). While I appreciate the efforts of the committee to rewrite the entire plan, I don't think my county can wait for the committee to help us resolve some of those organization issues, nor do I expect anything coming out of the committee to work for my county as well as something developed and approved by my county. That's related to your point on the Plan rewrite, but not so much on your proposal for precinct funding.

First roadblock: SCOPE AND COORDINATION

Because you've said Legislators, I'm going to assume that you're excusing the Governor and Senator Hagan. I'm also going to assume that you're excluding the Congressional Representatives due to the sheer number of precincts in their districts. Using Wake County as an example, the average NC Senate district has 54 precincts and the average NC House district has 22 precincts. (I'll have to check the other counties from home, but I'm assuming they'll be fairly close.) In Wake County, there are 198 precincts, which means there would be 4 precinct fundraisers each week. It would be a challenge to coordinate that. So, let's assume that we loosen your constraints a bit to allow them to have fundraisers in clusters or districts.

Second roadblock: ACCOUNTING AND REPORTING

Carrying on from the last roadblock, let's assume that the elected officials (or the county/state parties) are coordinating everything and that these fundraisers have to be accounted for and reported to the SEC or SBOE. If that's the case, then the county or state parties are in better shape to handle both responsibilities, BUT then, they'd have to hold accounts for each precinct. For Wake County, that requires the treasurer to keep track of 198 precinct-related accounts. Tracking the money coming IN would be easy, but tracking the individual precinct expenditures is not. It's a little easier if the precincts are grouped together and you don't have to worry about separate accounts if the fundraising is done at a district level anyway.

(You could move the precinct money outside of the state party's umbrella, but you'd become a separate political action committee or nonprofit. I wouldn't go there unless you really had to do so.)

Third roadblock: CAMPAIGNS

If I'm an elected official (again, using Wake County as my example), I'm already contributing money from my campaign (or my own wallet) to the county and state parties. I'm donating at fundraisers, I'm going my share of chicken dinners, luncheons and breakfasts, AND I'm still supporting my own campaign activities within my district (volunteers, outreach, newsletters, etc.) If I'm doing my job, I know the big- and small-money donors within my district and some of them are working on my campaign.

---

The closest I've been able to come to what you've proposed is to keep the fundraising in districts rather than precincts (which is why I started there) and to assume that an elected official will support the party's efforts in their district if, and only if, those efforts are in line with their campaign efforts. Or, to beef up the Congressional District money awards to allocate more of the money to grassroots activities. This year will be a better indicator of the usage of taxpayer money because the elections will all be local; I think the requests in 2010 were all for election battles rather than party-building. Of course, I'm using Wake County as a reference point and your mileage may vary in other counties.

Yeah, I figured it was more complicated

Submitted by scharrison on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:57pm.

than my proposition made it sound. But I also hoped someone would help fill in the blanks, which you did, Dan. Thanks.

That's also more precincts than I'd imagined, and it would be quite a challenge to work them all in. But I like the idea of grouping them. Wouldn't that help the ones who have trouble organizing? Just throwing stuff at the wall here.

As far as the campaigns, that's why I thought focusing on fundraising for the county/precinct during session was a good idea. You can't ask for your own money then, so why not work on the Party structure?

Oops. I was wrong on taxpayer checkoff funds

Submitted by Dan B on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 9:54pm.

... previously, I suggested that more of the Congressional District money needed to be allocated towards grassroots activities, but I failed to mention the restrictions:

It shall be unlawful for any political party to use either directly or indirectly any part of funds distributed from the Political Parties Fund or the Presidential Election Year Candidates Fund of any political party for the support or assistance either directly or indirectly of any candidate in a primary election, for support or assistance relating to the selection of a candidate at a political convention or by the executive committee of a party, for the payment or repayment of any debt or obligation of whatsoever kind or nature incurred by any person, candidate or political committee in a primary election, the selection of a candidate at a political convention or by the executive committee of a party, or for the support, promotion or opposition of a national, State or local referendum, bond election or constitutional amendment.

BUT, you are allowed to spend money on legitimate campaign expenses such as:

Party headquarters operations related to upcoming general elections, including the purchase, maintenance and programming of computers to provide lists of voters, party workers, officers, committee members and participants in party functions, patterns of voting and other data for use in general election campaigns and party activities and functions prior thereto, the establishment and updating computer file systems of voter registration lists, State, district, county and precinct officers and committee member lists, party clubs or organization lists, the organizing of voter registration, fund raising and get‑out‑the‑vote programs at the county level when conducted by State party personnel, and the preparation of reports required to be filed by State and federal laws and systems needed to prepare the same and keep records incident thereto.

So, you have to think about which grassroots activities fall into the permitted uses rather than the non-permitted uses. Of course, money tends to be fungible.

as a county party treasurer

Submitted by TrueMeckDem on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 8:36pm.

I personally would like to see the check off money returned to the county level as opposed to the congressional district level. I had to deal with three different district chairs who had their own requirements for requesting money and only one of these was the way outlined by the NCDP.

Wake County is in the same

Submitted by Dan B on Mon, 01/31/2011 - 10:05pm.

Wake County is in the same position... we too are split between three congressional districts.

I think -- and I stress that this is conjecture -- that distributions to the Congressional District are preferred for two reasons:

(1) It's easier to deal with 13 districts than 100 counties.
(2) It's easier to coordinate 13 district-wide "coordinated campaigns" with the taxpayer money than it is to coordinate 100 county-wide "coordinated campaigns." Again, it is 13 versus 100 and more importantly, it is 13 districts with a clear focus (ie, the congressional candidate is the focus) rather than 100 counties with no discernible top of the ticket.

I do agree that there should be more consistency across the Congressional Districts (but that may be impossible).