They got their money from Big Donors. Not only that, they got a lot of it from the same Big Donors, who doubtless figure on running things regardless of how the little people vote.
Full credit for this insight goes to Democracy North Carolina, the watchdog group based in Carrboro, and in particular its research director, Bob Hall. Both Gov. Mike Easley, the victor, and Republican challenger Patrick Ballantine "got the bulk of their financial support from a very tiny group of very wealthy individuals and special interests," Hall says. "Neither gubernatorial candidate tried to attract a broad base of support from small donors, and neither imitated the successful Internet donation solicitation of the presidential candidates in 2004."
How big were the B-Ds? Almost half of Easley's money came from $4,000-and-up donors, and 37 percent of Ballantine's, according to Hall ($4,000 is the election limit, but the primary was an election, too). Together, less than 1,000 B-Ds gave the two candidates almost $5 million, which was 22 times what they raised from their small donors who gave $100 or less.
Combined, Easley and Ballantine raised only $230,000 from the $100-and-under crowd (through their mid-October campaign reports). That's out of their combined total of $12 million!
Topping the gubernatorial donor lists are what Hall calls the Switch Hitters, who--in true bipartisan fashion--gave to both candidates. Why would they do that? Well, a lot of them are in the real estate development and construction game, which means they have a lot at stake, depending on how much road-building the state does--and where. Folks like the Futrells in Raleigh ($19,000 to both candidates), the Weisigers in Charlotte ($20,000), and the Richard Vaughn family of Mount Airy ($21,000). Yes, Mayberry has its B-Ds too.
Joining the concrete-pavers this year on Hall's list of Switch Hitters:
"Switch hitters want to secure their access to the top decision-makers regardless of which political party or individual wins," says Hall, "They're less interested in the candidate's ideology than in gaining an advantage over Joe and Jane Voter."
Public financing of political campaigns would help Joe and Jane be heard, Hall argues. More than that, it would also let candidates choose whether to keep taking Big Money from the switch-hitting special interests or swear off it and go in search of small donors and a broader base of political support.