NC Homeowners Alliance funds mailer for Robbie Perkins

I came home yesterday to find a mailer for Mayor Robbie Perkins' reelection bid in my mailbox, and immediately wondered if his campaign was switching approaches because of the color scheme and slogans.

That's when I realized it came from the NC Homeowners Alliance, with a donation from the National Association of Realtors. On the front, the mailer shows several stock images (including the same one of Perkins that's on the back) on top of a shot of downtown Greensboro and featuring the catchphrase "The experience we want - The vision we need."

On the back (below), what looks like a stock image of a black family accompanies a checklist of the reasons why the NC Homeowners Alliance supports Perkins over Councilwoman Nancy Vaughan for mayor.


I've written about the NC Homeowners Alliance twice before, once about its donations to NC Rep. Marcus Brandon and then in a little more detail in an article about the Triad Real Estate & Building Industry Coalition, or TREBIC. From the article: 

The NC Homeowners Alliance is tied to the North Carolina Association of Realtors, a Greensboro-based organization that is not part of TREBIC. The association’s president, Lou Baldwin of Baldwin Companies in Winston-Salem, is a board member of the PAC, association employee Bryan Jenkins keeps the PAC’s books and association vice president Andrea Bushnell is the board’s secretary. NC Homeowners Alliance board member Amy Hedgecock works for Fowler & Fowler Realtors and has served as the president of the High Point Association of Realtors, which is one of TREBIC’s member organizations.

Citizens United resolution moves closer to vote by Winston-Salem council

Tony Ndege of Occupy Winston-Salem urges members of the general government committee to approve a resolution calling on Congress to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. 

The Winston-Salem City Council will consider a resolution next Monday calling on Congress to amend the US Constitution to establish that "only human beings, not corporations, are endowed with constitutional rights protected by the First Amendment" and that "money is not speech under the First Amendment and therefore regulating political contributions and spending is not equivalent to limiting political speech."


The resolution was approved by a 3-1 vote tonight by the general government committee following an amendment moved by Councilwoman Denise D. Adams to strike a reference to the US Supreme Court declaring "corporations to be persons" in the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, based on an objection by Councilman Dan Besse that the statement was not factually accurate.

Councilman James Taylor Jr., who brought the original resolution to council at the urging of Occupy Winston-Salem, reluctantly agreed to the amendment. The amended resolution passed with support from Taylor, Adams and Councilwoman Molly Leight, while Besse voted against it. 

City Attorney Angela Carmon concurred with Besse's reading of the Citizens United decision.

"I don't believe the decision declared corporations to be persons," she said. "I believe it declared corporations to be entitled to the same First Amendment protections as natural persons."

After the meeting, Besse circulated an alternative resolution stating that the Supreme Court's rulings "that unlimited spending by non-candidates in efforts to influence the outcome of an election cannot be regulated" and that corporations cannot be regulated as a class distinct from natural persons should be overturned.

City Attorney Angela Carmon told council members that amendments from the floor at next Monday's meeting are permissible. But Montgomery warned that his colleagues should be cautious about entertaining amendments lest the consensus around the resolution unravel and the matter wind up getting sent back to committee. 

"I believe we should send a clear message to the federal judicial branch to let them know that elections should not and will not be bought in this country, in this state and even in this city," Taylor said. "There are hundreds upon hundreds of cities all across the country that stand with us. It isn't just me presenting this. I represent some people who are here today, who I believe are going to speak. This is a grassroots movement. It isn't just us. There are hundreds of cities across the country, and even cities in this state that have approved the resolution calling for an amendment to the Citizens United decision. Those major cities in North Carolina are Greensboro, Durham, Raleigh, Chapel Hill, Asheville and Greenville."

Kim Porter of Occupy Winston-Salem said about a thousand Winston-Salem residents have signed a petition supporting the resolution, including NC Sen. Earline Parmon, NC Rep. Ed Hanes Jr., Winston-Salem NAACP President Wayne Patterson and former Councilman Larry Little, and 300 other North Carolinians from outside of the city also signed on.  

"When you give money free speech, you give corporations a much larger megaphone than, say, I could," said Adam Price, a resolution supporter who said he is currently homeless. "I don't have as much money. What does my voice count in a democratic system where my voice should count if I don't have as much free speech as the next guy. If we turn money into a form of free speech, then we now have a higher system of the amount of free speech than each person will be able to attain in their lifetime. I'm not going to be a millionaire -- I'm not going to say that -- but I'm probably not going to be a millionaire. But if money is free speech, then that millionaire has a million more free speeches than I do. One man, one vote, and if you support that -- support that democratic view of one man, one vote, you'll push this. Let's do this. Let's take it from the ground up. City Hall to Supreme Court. Let's do it. Come on, guys."

Besse has long opposed the resolution, arguing to colleagues that it is not an appropriate area for city council to get involved and that denying corporations the rights of personhood could have the unintended consequence of preventing groups of people from coming together to advance their interests.

"I voted against the resolution because I don't like the way it handled the corporate personhood issue and because it fails to address some of the problems in the Citizens United decision," he said after the meeting. "I think that Move to Amend and other groups like them take the wrong tack on the Citizens United case. It addresses a related issue and fails to address the fundamental issues of the Citizens United decision. I expect to discuss the alternative resolution that I drafted for the city council on Monday evening and simply lay out the option. I think for those who want this it's best to tell them: 'If you want to see Citizens United overturned, this is a better call. I told my fellow council members we would bring it to a resolution next Monday night one way or another. Whether I'm on the winning side or not doesn't really matter to me."

Tony Ndege of Occupy Winston-Salem indicated that he was satisfied overall with the committee's handling of the resolution.


"I'm happy that this is moving along," he said. "I am very unhappy that the wording on 'corporate personhood' has been struck, but I'm happy that the language about moving to amend was left in. Whether or not they agree or disagree, the idea that the original intent of the First Amendment, with the Fourteenth Amendment and with the Bill of Rights were for natural persons -- that is the essential argument. And it also boils down to whether or not we choose to stand on the side of corporate power or on the side of people."

The political clout of Greensboro's rentier class

“We need action right away,” Roy Carroll told Greensboro City Council members last night. “Downtown has come too far and too much is at stake. We must take bold and decisive steps to ensure that all of our citizens have a safe environment wherever they are not matter what time of day it is.”

Carroll is a prominent developer in Greensboro whose CenterPointe residential and commercial high-rise is a focal point of downtown. A handful of downtown property owners, along with their advocates in Downtown Greensboro Inc., Action Greensboro and the Cemala Foundation, trooped into council chambers to make it clear to council that they favored a downtown curfew for people under the age of 18 and tougher anti-loitering measures. Earlier, about a dozen property owners had met with Councilman Zack Matheny and Mayor Bill Knight, along with city and Downtown Greensboro Inc. staff. Matheny spearheaded the initiative, announcing the new measures a mere six days before they came up for a vote.

Betty Cone, chair of Downtown Greensboro Inc.’s board and a civic volunteer responsible for the city’s annual Fun Fourth Festival, asked for all those in favor of the new public safety measures to stand. About 10 people did so. On the other side of the issue, a wide variety of citizens both white and black, including downtown residents, restaurateurs, along with people who frequent the entertainment district, spoke out against the proposed curfew. Among the arguments made was that it would unfairly profile youth, police would have difficulty discerning which young people had a legitimate reason to be downtown such as employed restaurant workers and musicians, it would hurt business owners for whom high school students comprise a significant market and it would be expensive to enforce.

Before the vote took place, at-large Councilman Robbie Perkins indicated he doubted there was sufficient support to pass it, but ultimately the curfew was opposed by a vote of 6-3. Two resolutions to crack down on loitering each passed 8-1.

The votes appear to confirm that Greensboro is a rentier regime, with downtown property owners and their supporters prevailing over other constituencies. Do how much did proponents of stricter downtown public safety regulations give to the campaigns of sitting council members during the 2009 election cycle?

Roy Carroll, developer (including family members and employees): $1,700 (total)
• $450 to District 2 Councilman Jim Kee
• $450 to District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade
• $450 to District 3 Councilman Zack Matheny
• $350 to at-large Councilman Robbie Perkins
Susan Schwartz, Cemala Foundation: $300 (total)
• $100 to Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan
• $100 to Matheny
• $100 to Perkins
Randall Kaplan, Capsule Group: $200 (total)
• $200 to Vaughan
Betty Cone, Downtown Greensboro Inc. (board): $100 (total)
• $100 to Vaughan
Milton Kern, developer: $100 (total)
• $100 to Vaughan

Contributions from this group to victorious candidates in the 2009 election cycle totaled $2,400. Reflecting more prosperous times, total contributions from the same group to victorious candidates in the 2007 election cycle came to $7,740.

How did the votes come down?

Motion to create downtown curfew for those under the age of 18

For: Mayor Bill Knight, at-large Councilman Robbie Perkins, at-large Councilman Danny Thompson, District 3 Councilman Zack Matheny, District 4 Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw and District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade
Against: Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Vaughan, District 1 Councilwoman Dianne Bellamy-Small and District 2 Councilman Jim Kee

Motion to approve ordinance amendment to prohibit loitering in municipal parking garages:

For: Knight, Vaughan, Perkins, Thompson, Kee, Matheny, Rakestraw and Wade
Against: Bellamy-Small

Motion to approve ordinance amendment to prohibit loitering within 50 feet of an establishment that serves alcohol:

For: Knight, Vaughan, Perkins, Thompson, Kee, Matheny, Rakestraw and Wade
Against: Bellamy-Small

Simkins PAC illegally accepted contribution from Action Greensboro

Kudos to Keith Brown of High Point for uncovering a violation of election law by the Simkins PAC.

SBOE: Rakestraw must amend reports

Adam Ragan, a compliance officer with the NC Board of Elections, confirmed that candidates are required to provide complete information, including name, address and occupation, for all campaign contributions in excess of $50. The threshold had previously been set at $100, but the General Assembly lowered the amount to $50, effective Jan. 1, 2007.

Here's what Ragan had to say:

"“The statutory requirement is that for any contributions received by a candidate in excess of 50 dollars, the complete information is required, including the name, address and occupation of the contributor.... [The threshold] used to be a hundred dollars. That actually changed in 2006. It went into effect on Jan. 1, 2007."

Here's the session law in which the $50 threshold was set: Session Law 2006-195.

Under Section 5 of the session law, GS § 163-278.11(a1) (Contents of treasurer’s statement of receipts and expenditures) reads as rewritten: “Threshold for Reporting Identity of Contributor. — A treasurer shall not be required to report the name, address, or principal occupation of any individual resident of the state who contributes fifty dollars ($50.00) or less to the treasurer’s committee during an election as defined in GS 163-278.13.”

Section 9 of the session law states, “Sections 1 through 6 of this act become effective January 1, 2007, and apply to all contributions made and accepted on and after that date.”

Rakestraw will likely have to disclose the names of her contributors.

“At a minimum we would require amendments to be filed to those reports to provide complete information,” Ragan told me.

JW commented on a thread for a previous post: "I would submit that this was an honest mistake."

Probably so. And it probably won't be a stunning disclosure when we find out who made the contributions.

Still, we'd like to see those names.

UPDATE: April 1, 6:28 p.m.: On second thought, I'd like to withhold judgment on whether it was an honest mistake that the Rakestraw campaign did not disclose the names, addresses and principal occupations of 13 donors who made $100 contributions from Oct. 15 to Oct. 31, 2007, as listed on a report received by the Guilford County Board of Elections on Jan. 22, 2008.

Three previous reports received by the county Board of Elections from the Rakestraw campaign consistently list $100 contributions — 14 in all — even though none are dated and the handwriting is at times difficult to read.

Did Mary Rakestraw violate campaign finance law?

A law student with ties to Greensboro has requested an official inquiry into whether Greensboro Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw violated state campaign finance law by failing to identify the source of 13 $100 contributions during her successful 2007 campaign.

Andrew T. Murphy, who filed the March 24 request with the NC Board of Elections, the Guilford County Board of Elections and the Guilford County District Attorney, is the founder of Stand Up Greensboro PAC, a progressive committee that charges that sitting council members “engage in overheated rhetoric and rehash the same tired arguments over and over again [while] Greensboro languishes and further falls behind competing cities around the nation, threatening to derail our city’s social and economic vibrancy.”

Stand Up Greensboro identifies Rakestraw, along with fellow Republican councilwoman Trudy Wade, as “candidates to beat” on its website, and is raising money to publish a print advertisement calling Rakestraw “wrong for Greensboro.”

Murphy notes that the Committee for Mary Rakestraw did not report the names, addresses, occupations and employers of 13 contributors who wrote $100 checks to the candidate. The Rakestraw committee’s 2007 year-end semi-annual report lists the $100 checks on a form reserved for aggregate individual contributions that explicitly states “optional form used to report NC contributions from individuals of $50 or less.”

Reached by phone, Rakestraw said Monday that she was unaware of any problems with her reports. The councilwoman said she thought it was possible that North Carolina statute did not require contributions of $100 or less to be fully reported in 2007.

The North Carolina statutes regulating contributions and expenditures in political campaigns state that all campaign contributions with the exception of those $50 or less must be listed in a statement that includes the name and complete mailing address of each contributor, the amount contributed, the principal occupation of the contributor and the date the contribution was received.

I surveyed year-end semi-annual reports for Greensboro’s 2007 municipal general election found that the other 17 candidates provided detailed information about $100 contributors, and reserved the aggregate individual contributor page for $25 and $50 denominations. In some cases, other candidates went beyond the requirements and provided detailed information about contributors who gave $25, $30 and $40.

Murphy also alleges that Rakestraw’s committee reported $3,500 in outstanding loan proceeds in its 2008 year-end report, but never submitted a proper loan proceeds statement. The loans were made by Rakestraw’s husband and campaign treasurer, Frank.

“You might say that I’m in good standing with Frank Rakestraw,” the councilwoman said in response.

The third complaint enumerated in Murphy’s letter is that Rakestraw accepted a $484 contribution from an entity listed as Skenes for City Council in 2007, and that no such candidate committee existed at the time. The last report from the Skenes for City Council committee posted on the Guilford County Board of Elections website is from 2005.

Rakestraw responded that whatever the status of the contributor’s committee, she did receive a check from Skenes for City Council.

Murphy’s letter warns that his political action committee is currently reviewing other campaign finance reports and might make further investigation requests in the future.

“City council members hold powerful positions within the community,” the letter reads. “Accordingly, Stand Up Greensboro believes that accurate and complete reporting of campaign contributions is not only the law, but also imperative to ensure fair and impartial decision-making on behalf of the people of Greensboro.”