Skip to main content
You have permission to edit this article.
Edit
Money for nothing: Paid little, N.C. lawmakers turn to donations
0 Comments

Money for nothing: Paid little, N.C. lawmakers turn to donations

  • 0
{{featured_button_text}}

RALEIGH — Last fall, with the 2020 election quickly approaching, a handful of North Carolina lawmakers tasked with refereeing the ethics of themselves and their colleagues gathered behind closed doors and quietly repealed a sweeping guideline they had adopted just five months prior.

That guideline, adopted just as quietly in May last year, had barred lawmakers from collecting state money to cover food, lodging and travel while working at the General Assembly and simultaneously using campaign accounts to pay for the same housing, meals and travel in the capital city — a practice that a campaign watchdog has described as “double dipping.”

With a housing per diem that barely covers a night’s stay at a Raleigh hotel, using campaign dollars to help pay for rent and food in Raleigh may help some legislators afford to serve in the General Assembly.

After all, the state’s legislature has one of the lowest salaries in the country, at just $13,591 a year, which may discourage younger and less wealthy people from running.

“I couldn’t afford to do this job if my husband were not employed,” said Rep. Susan Fisher, a Democrat who has represented Asheville since 2004. “We’re stretching the money that we make to the absolute nth degree.”

Fisher is one of about a dozen lawmakers who have used campaign money in addition to their $104 per diem payment for food and housing to cover lodging in Raleigh this year. She said she did not know the legislature had ever restricted the use of the two funding sources and was previously told it was allowed.

This issue arose in late 2019 when longtime government watchdog Bob Hall filed a complaint accusing Senate leader Phil Berger of using campaign money to buy a Raleigh home. Berger’s staff said he received prior approval from North Carolina’s election board to do so.

The elections board later adopted a rule change barring use of campaign dollars on homes that legislators or their relatives own, and the legislature’s ethics commission implemented similar, but broader, guidance shortly after.

In October, Hall filed a complaint against two lawmakers, Republican Reps. John Torbett and Josh Dobson, who were still collecting their per diems even though their campaigns were also paying for housing, saying the pair had enriched their “private fortunes with tax-exempt income.”

“I think there is a problem with the compensation for legislators and that really sets up a problem where they may begin to look for financial help in other ways,” Hall said.

Instead of enforcing the new guideline, the legislative ethics committee repealed it, saying the ban was unnecessary because of the board of elections rule.

Torbett, who did not respond to a request for comment, has spent more than $10,000 in campaign contributions on housing since January, far more than any other lawmakers.

Fisher and Rep. Brenden Jones, a Republican from Tabor City, spent more than $4,000 each this year.

Five other Republican lawmakers — including Rep. Donny Lambeth of Winston-Salem — spent around $3,000 each so far this year for lodging or housing-related expenses.

Low pay is particularly problematic for lawmakers who live far away, said Western Carolina University professor Chris Cooper, though not all those who use campaign dollars to pay for housing live hours from the legislature.

Cooper also highlighted the fact that North Carolina’s legislative sessions don’t have set start and end dates — session can go on for an indeterminate amount of time. That makes becoming a lawmaker especially difficult for people who have families or work inflexible jobs.

“Not only are we not paying people,” he said, “we don’t let them go home at a consistent time.”

Many state legislators work in professions that are flexible, like law, are retired or have spouses who make enough to support them. If lawmakers voted to raise their own pay or per diem amounts, more people might be willing to serve. Lawmakers are reluctant to pass a bill that would increase their pay, however, over concerns that voters would not reelect legislators who voted for such a measure.

0 Comments

Be the first to know

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

Recommended for you

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

Breaking News