Congress has cut federal funding for public media — an $800,000 loss for WFAE. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
There may be a new way to pay to play in North Carolina. A traffic camera company this year went around a ban on corporate donations in the state and gave $220,000 to Republicans in the state legislature. Those lawmakers then passed legislation that could mean millions in profits for the company. Reporter Jeffrey Billman wrote about it for the Assembly and he joined WFAE’s Marshall Terry.
Marshall Terry: State law bans businesses and corporations from donating directly to political candidates or committees. But there's a way around that ban — donating to building funds, which is what you report happened in this case. What are those, and what are the rules for what the money can be used for?
Jeffrey Billman: Building funds have been around for a while. They were intended to help political parties fund their headquarters, and in 1999, when the Democrats controlled the General Assembly, they exempted building funds because they wanted to basically renovate Goodwin House, where Democrats have had their headquarters since, I think, the '70s. At the time, there were very strict rules on how that money could be spent. You could only spend it on buildings. Late last year, in the disaster relief bill during the special session, the legislature tucked in a little provision that allowed these funds to also be used for legal expenses. Suddenly, these things are a little bit more active. And so this year, you had some pretty big donations.
Terry: Who is this company, RedSpeed, that donated this money and what does this legislation lawmakers passed this year allow them to do in North Carolina?
Billman: RedSpeed is a company that's been around since 2006 in the United States. They're based in Illinois. I think they're active in five states now, and what they do is they have automated speed camera technology. They partner with local municipalities and local governments, and what the technology does is essentially it has, like, a laser radar and it records people who are going above the speed limit, takes a picture of their license plate and then sends a violation. The fine in North Carolina under the North Carolina law, if the municipality participates in the program, would be $250.
Terry: What’s the history of these traffic cameras in North Carolina? I know we had them here in Charlotte for a while back in the 2000s, but they eventually went away.
Billman: There was a pilot program in the 2000s, and it seemed to be fairly effective in bringing down the number of speeders, but the legislature declined to fund it, and it went away. And then, because of court rulings and the way the law is set up, nobody's really done it since then.
Terry: Going back to RedSpeed donating to these building funds in North Carolina, what do Republican lawmakers say about accusations that it’s pay to play?
Billman: The caucus directors, the people who control the funds, say that they weren't involved in any of the legislative deals. What was most interesting about reporting this story is trying to chase down the legislative origin of the bill. You go and ask the Senate and say, ‘Hey, you know, can you tell me a little bit about this bill?’ And the Senate says, ‘Well, it was a House thing. The House asked us to do it.’ Nobody said who in the House asked them to do it. So you go and ask the House and say, ‘Hey, who did this?’ And they said, ‘Well, we talked about it with a bunch of people, and this is what happened.’ None of the major groups who would have lobbied for it lobbied for it. The League of Municipalities, the County Commissioners, the school boards, the Sheriff's Association — nobody asked for it.
It just kind of materialized, which is sort of a shorthand way of saying that nobody was really asking for this thing, except for the lobbyists who were working for RedSpeed, in all likelihood. Essentially, what they said was that they think this is in the best interests of the state. Nobody's really defending it in any sort of specificity. If you try and pin them down on it, the bill just sort of materialized. Which is a strange thing, I think.
Terry: Are there any moves to restrict these donations with this building fund loophole? And is money just always going to find a way to politicians?
Billman: Probably. Even when I talked to Sydney Batch about this — Sydney is the state Senate Democratic leader— her position wasn't that building funds should be banned. She thinks they should change the reporting schedule so that if a company that has legislation, or potentially could have legislation, in front of the legislature makes a donation that people get to know about it while the legislature’s in session.
One of the issues with RedSpeed is they made these donations in May and June.
The legislation went through, and then, because of the way the State Board of Elections reports donations, nobody knew about it until late July, after this legislation had become law. So, she wants to change the reporting schedules so that people have a better sense of who's throwing money around while the legislature is in session.
