The Ever-Embarrassing Bill Faison

State Rep. Bill Faison defends his opposition to the cigarette tax increase in an interview with Barbara Solow in this week's Independent.

The incredible and troubling aspect of the interview is Faison's dismissive attitude toward the tremendous health problems and costs associated with tobacco. He tells Solow:

I know the health argument, but on balance, we have a lot of things that cause health problems. Sugar contributes to obesity. It could lead you to look at sugar as something that ought to be controlled.

"On balance"?!? Tell that to the families of the multitudes who die from smoking related illnesses each year.

Issues: 

Comments

Mary,

It seems to me that the Health and Wellness Trust Fund money is too broadly described. Tighter wording would lead to less abuse, IMHO.

I went to grad school in Florida and right after I left I heard about a lawsuit against the state for spending lottery money on non-education expenses. Actually, I think the problem was that for every dollar made on the lottery, the legislature cut $1 from the education budget. So, the lawsuit was upheld and the education budget was increased to its previous levels and the lottery funding was an add-on. My point is that tight wording can be upheld while the loosey-goosey wording described above can mean just about anything.
Robert

The interesting part of the Faison story I think is that the press-including both the left and the right -never looked into the "scholarships" and other "donations" he is reported to have given to many churches whose leadership then supported him.Why was this story never looked into ?
Jacquie

Religion and House Race 50--- what could be gained by going there?

Jacquie is right, if Faison is disguising campaign expenditures as donations then the public ought to know about it... and the media ought to investigate.

Faison reportedly gave thousands more in "donations" to many non-profits and schools, etc. in addition to the $170000 ($160000 of it his own money) he officially spent in 2004. A bit of it got into the media but Faison said he was just doing what he had always done in his community and giving to the same type of groups. I thought that was a weak defense. This type of spending by a candidate should be considered campaign spending.

Don't smokers tend to be poorer than the general population? Thus, wouldn't a tobacco tax actually be regressive?

Look, I'm against smoking, and would ban it in bars and restaurants on the basis on second hand smoke harm.

Having said that, I'm not sure that current policy towards tobacco companies and smokers is actually effective. Instead, it seems to me as if it makes state governments partners with tobacco companies in that sense that

a) high cigarette taxes mean that states will derive a significant percentage of revenue from smoking

b) the payments to states under the master settlement, IIRC, are a function of tobacco company revenues.

In both cases, state governments would seem to actually have a vested interert in making sure the rate of smoking doesn't fall too quickly.

Chris, right you are.

Tax a behavior and you are encouraging people to reduce that behavior. What many people fail to realize is that while this works with cigarette smoking, it also works when you tax work, productivity, investment, risk-taking and success.

About the HWTF money: The wording wass purposely done that way after the MSA so legislators could corral it. Ostensibly, they're supposed to pay it back, but we'll see if that ever happens.

Golden Leaf, on the other hand, is set up to be untouchable, and it pretty much has been.

Chris,
Wouldn't it be nice if we could make all of our "set-asides" untouchable, save for that which they were meant.

I don't understand the concern about Mr. Faison's donations --perhaps I am missing something. Most people, including public officials, financially support organizations that are of importance to them, and the people in those organizations are free to exercise their rights to suppprt candidates of their choice.

The only thing that it seems would be problematic is if it could be shown that Mr. Faison extracted a promise of public support in exchange for the donation--that would clearly be an ethical violation. But he's free to donate money, and people are free to come out and support him if they choose.

Anita, there are two questions that come into play here:

1) does Faison's pattern of contributions indicate an effort to influence the election;
2) does Faison's ability to make such contributions give him an unfair advantage in the election even if there was no wrong-doing per se. we need to understand cases like this to best structure our election rules so that there is some possibility of a level playing field.

"does Faison's ability to make such contributions give him an unfair advantage in the election"

So if Candidate1 has the ability to give 10% of his income to a church/charity and Candidate2 only has the ability to give 1% of his income to church/charity, Candidate1 would be asked to drop his contributions?

If charitable contributions are not part of an attempt to "influence the election", what different does the level of contribution from Candidate1 to Candidate2 matter?

Methinks you just have an axe to grind with Faison, since you clearly don't like him.

Gulp.....I agree with Dan on this. Even the appearance of buying an election is not consistent with democracy. Mr. Faison doesn't help himself or his causes by creating even the illusion of a commitment to vote for him in exchange for his wealth.

It would be interesting to see which organizations he gave money to and when he gave it. Just as a matter of public record-it may be a good idea for all elected officals,canidates to do that.Just a thought
Jacquie Gist

Jacquie, I guess it's time to lift the Faison donation issue from one of gross speculation to detailed specifics.

There's a lot of blather about 'blogs replacing professional journalism any day now, an idea that I think underscores the poor understanding the general public has of what good journalism is all about (maybe because of so many journalistic examples to the contrary) but, in spite of hype, I do think forums, such as OP.org, can perform a vital reporting function (and deserves a couple protected acres on the 4th Estate).

Why the long wind up? Well here's the pitch. Why don't you and others contact Faison and ask him, directly, about these contributions? If you know of any specific institutions that received monies, call them and get the straight poop. Are there any election-related filings at the BOEs, why not check?

I used to be passively fed by the local media, generally accepting their filtering of the locality's daily events, waiting for substantive reports on issues I was concerned about, being disappointed when some particular issue escaped any review but then I realized I didn't have to be disappointed. I started researching issues, interviewing people, following leads and then, through OP and other venues, started to report what I found. I say report, loosely, because even though I've reviewed some materials on the journalistic process I can barely compare my process (or spelling or editing or writing or ... ) to those of our respected local journalists.

This isn't a condemnation of our local media (except maybe for WRAL, but that's another story) but an observation that things are missed, maybe sometimes missed on purpose but more probably because of the process of commercial reporting.

The truth is out there. It might not be the Truth you want or the Truth Faison wants, but a truth is there. If this alleged conduct happened there's going to be a money trail to follow, timelines to establish and conclusions to draw.

So, is anyone going to form a journalistic OP.org tiger team to penetrate the web of allegations, investigate the donation issue and report back to the community?

My thanks to Dan, Terri, Jacqui, Will, and others for their comments and I know they are brought out in the spirit of making sure we have clean and fair elections. However, I still think there's a double standard going on here--and understand that I know virtually nothing about Mr. Faison, so he is not my dog in this race.

If you dig, I can imagine that you would find that Barry Jacobs gave money to some organization, and at some later date, some or all of its membership supported him. Does that imply causation? Does that mean that Mr. Jacobs "bought support?" I doubt it. What is probably means is that Mr. Jacobs contributes to organizations that share his political/ethical persuasions, and he would be the candidate of choice for them, donation or not. I think we have to give Mr. Faison the same grace unless there is evidence beyond just a suspicion to the contrary. The fact that he (maybe) has more financial resources than someone else isn't the issue-- even one dollar changing hands in exchange for a vote should incense everyone who believes in election integrity.

Until I see hard evidence that a candidate has made his or her financial support of an organization contingent upon an electoral endorsement, I can't go there. It is a very serious allegation. I don't have a problem with someone investigating this matter, provided they do so for all candidates. The fact that Mr. Faison has generous financial resources to contribute to his interests is not the issue. It is whether any or all candidates bought votes, whether on the cheap or first class.

ah, a dig at fox news. how original!

odd that you would feel soooo threatened by foxnews--isn't having the NYTimes, WashPost, LATimes. ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN pushing the left's agenda enough for you?

Mainstream media should be ashamed of itself, for both the way it has covered the war and the coverage of the election. Thankfully, people have a choice about where they get their news now and viewership is down at CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN. Daily newspapers are all reporting drops in circulation with some going so far as inflate their numbers to preserve the image of relevance. Oh, the one broadcast whose viewership numbers are going up? FOX. Must be all those unenlightened dolts in Red State Flyover Country.

Anita, I think the whole point of this discussion is the desire for exactly what you are seeking: hard evidence. There are allegations. Some have known of them for a year now. Willr may glibly suggest that we call Faison and ask him but I can tell your from first hand experience that he may not take such calls. Professional journalists ought to be able to dig into a question like this. I also agree that we should be even-handed but, in this case, I have not heard any suggestion that Faison's opponent tried to influence the election in such a manner.

Do state candidates have to provide copies of their IRS returns (like candidates for federal office)??

Bill Oliver,
You are so over the top on the media thing its not even funny anymore. If the press is so liberal, they're sure doing a sucky job of using their influence. If they had the power and the perspective that you claim, we wouldn't have an ultra- conservative president, a conservative congress, and a conservative state gov & legislature. Given the failures of the liberal press, why do you feel the need to keep hammering away at their 'liberalness?" Aren't they doing you and your conservative freinds a favor? How much sway did they have in the last election? On Iraq? On energy policy? Get real Bill.

That's just the point Terri.

I didn't say mainstream media was powerful, just biased. With each passing day, mainstream media is losing its influence. You can push an agenda and still fail and that is what is happening. That's why we do have a conservative president, congress, etc., and will for some time to come.

Anita, I only know as much about Mr. Faison as I've read, pre-election to now, in the state and local press, on various 'net sites and orangepolitics.org. As Dan pointed out, hard evidence of improprieties, one way or the other, should exist. Now Dan suggests I was being somewhat superficial in my suggestion to call Mr. Faison - I wasn't. Pollyanish? Maybe. But you're a constituent that has heard of possible impropriety, I don't think it's that irregular to call your representative and at least ask if there's any truth to the allegations.

I can imagine a range of responses: the Elizabeth Dole gambit - staff never returns your calls, the Richard Burr gambit - staff says Sen. Burr would never do X as he does X or, as Dan suggests, you get a non-response. Since asking outright about this issue with no backing evidence seems to fit into the "Senator, when did you last beat your wife?" category of questions, for me the decent and prudent tack is to get some facts straight before making that call.

But after doing your research, if there's meat on those allegation's bones, call the man and give him a chance to explain.

Bill, I'm not threatened by Fox News, I'm disgusted.

Terri Buckner wrote:

If they had the power and the perspective that you claim, we wouldn't have an ultra- conservative president, a conservative congress, and a conservative state gov & legislature.

Point of order. The Governor is not a conservative, he just plays one on tv (like Andy Griffith). ;-)

"disgusted"? please tell...

In reference to a post I made further up, Faison was talking about the Tobacco Market Transition Act of 2003 in the Indy article.

In the HS today:

Dole first introduced legislation to create a tobacco quota buyout in July 2003, and it became law last year.

The legislation eliminated the federal system allotting farmers an annual fixed quota of tobacco to produce and will compensate quota owners and growers nationwide with $9.6 billion over 10 years. The buyout also terminates the federal tobacco price support program and sets up the disposal of existing tobacco pool stocks.

Dear Sir / Madam

I have lost both my Mother and Sister to Lung cancer, and although the experience was /is deeply hurtfull, and sad..I can understand the logic behind Bill Faisons argument.
Cigarettes are not the only damaging to health product that is freely available in the US...and also there is no direct link or proof that by raising taxes on the product it actually stops a person from Smoking
You only have to see the amount of tax smokers pay in the united kingdom for proof of that..
Bill Faison was, and is doing what all good politicians would do in his position...looking out for his constituants....

Gary Spencer,

There is actually study after study demonstrating "that higher cigarette taxes and prices work to significantly decrease the demand for cigarettes."
http://repositories.cdlib.org/context/tc/article/1064/type/pdf/viewcontent/

This 2001 study cites other literature as well.

Pages

 

Community Guidelines

By using this site, you agree to our community guidelines. Inappropriate or disruptive behavior will result in moderation or eviction.

 

Content license

By contributing to OrangePolitics, you agree to license your contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.

Creative Commons License

 
Zircon - This is a contributing Drupal Theme
Design by WeebPal.