By John Hood

RALEIGH – After weeks of suspense, and a small trickle of Democrats coming out against House Speaker Jim Black’s continued tenure, the House Democratic caucus met in Raleigh to talk things over. I think a fair reading of what transpired is that Black has made a plea bargain to retain the speakership through the 2006 session.

No, I don’t mean that literally. Black has not been charged with anything by federal or state authorities. What I mean is that as a political matter, the charges of influence-peddling, campaign-finance irregularities, and a lax approach to running his office have stuck. Many Democrats believe he should not be the leader of their North Carolina House majority. But many, perhaps most, of these Democrats – including the House Democratic caucus itself – are amenable to Black retaining the job through the 2006 session, just not afterward.

So why not insist on Black’s immediate departure? I’ve heard several explanations from Democrats:

Post a Job! $9 for 15 days

Loyalty. Some Democratic members still feel intensely loyal to the speaker who led them for years and, in many cases, financed their campaigns in contested races (he raised well over $1 million for House races in 2000, 2002, and 2004). While they may be troubled by what they’ve heard about Black’s conduct during these sessions and campaigns, they believe the significance of the allegations has been exaggerated by Republican antagonists and their allies in the news media.

Hmm.

Fear. Some Democrats not inclined to dismiss the allegations as exaggerated are nevertheless fearful of pressing for Black to go now. They don’t see how Democrats can be competitive in House races this fall without the benefit of the speaker’s leadership and fundraising prowess. They wonder where Black’s existing campaign funds would go after an ouster. Also, they fear what could happen to their own political futures if they go public and Black keeps his post. As the fantasy author George R.R. Martin famously put it, when you play the game of thrones, you win or you die.

Legislative business. There are only a few weeks remaining before the start of the 2006 legislative session. Some Democrats who might otherwise contemplate acting against Black don’t see how a new speaker and leadership team could be in place fast enough to prepare for likely tussles with the governor and state senate this summer. The potential disagreements include how to spend an expected $600 million to $800 million budget surplus, whether to enact an election-year tax cut, how large a bond package to put before the November electorate for water and road projects, and how to reform the legislative process enough to please critics but not too much for members who think the current process is just fine. House Democrats are used to Black acting as their (rather-effective) negotiator on such matters. Without him, they worry that the other branches of government will prevail on contested items.

Politics. While some Democrats clearly believe that having Jim Black remain House Speaker through the November elections is extremely risky, handing Republicans a pertinent campaign issue and intensifying the damage should he be indicted this year, other Democrats disagree. They argue that GOP candidates are going to use the Jim Black issue in their campaign messages either way. The electoral damage, whatever its extent, is already done, they say. To force Black out would be an admission of guilt and actually worsen the political hit, goes this argument.

Let me repeat that I rarely hear Democrats make these points (privately) without insisting that they still believe Black cannot be speaker past 2006. His re-election in 2007 seems unlikely (either by a Democratic majority or Democratic-led coalition), though Black vows to seek the office again if the November election results permit it. Also, I happen to think the above arguments don’t wash, and make little political sense. For example, if there are additional disclosures about Black before November, they will sting less if he isn’t the speaker. But I’m not in the House Democratic caucus – so I guess that, like everyone else, I’ll just have to wait and see whether they’ve gotten the politics of the situation right.

I don’t have to wait, however, to evaluate the policy implications. They are horrendous. At the very least, the speaker has engaged in irresponsible conduct. That’s why virtually every major newspaper in the state has editorialized in favor of him stepping down from his leadership post (though not from the legislature altogether). Surely Black’s behavior, even if it falls short of criminality, should not be allowed to set a new, low standard for North Carolina government.

Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation and the author of Selling the Dream: Why Advertising is Good Business, published by Praeger. Contact him at jhood@johnlocke.org.