Once again, Raleigh tries to choose FOR US and – once again – ethics fly out the window.
Cash is king in Raleigh. You’ll be met with plenty of eye-rolls and cynical snickers if you dare to bring up public service or doing stuff for the common good.
There have always been folks who jump into politics and state government for the sole purpose of enriching themselves, their friends, and their families. Both sides of the aisle. But now it seems more obnoxious, more blatant, and more in-your-face than ever before.
Let’s check out the latest on one of the 2026 judicial candidates handpicked by Paul Newby and the Berger political machine:
A powerful state lawmaker whose campaign took thousands of dollars from lobbyists during this year’s legislative session is giving the money back, after drawing concerns over the legality of those transactions.
Rep. Sarah Stevens (R-Surry) has spent years as a top member of House Republican leadership in North Carolina. She’s not seeking reelection, however, choosing instead to run for a seat next year on the North Carolina Supreme Court. […]
This is not a case of ignorance. She’s been around – and in leadership – a long time. She KNOWS the deal.
MORE:
[…] That’s where the campaign finance issues begin.
After Stevens announced her judicial campaign, she received $6,800 from Harold Brubaker — the maximum allowable amount — and $1,500 from Andy Munn. Both men are lobbyists. State law broadly bans legislators from taking money from lobbyists. But lobbyists are free to give money to judges and judicial candidates in North Carolina, and there exist other legal loopholes that allow lobbyists to give lawmakers money in certain circumstances, creating a potential legal gray area. […]
Harold Brubaker was a long-time legislator and former speaker of the NC House. He KNOWS the deal. We’re not talking wide-eyed innocent babes wandering lost in the woods, here.
MORE:
[…] The lobbyists’ contributions to Stevens’ campaign happened while the legislature was actively meeting and debating bills earlier this year, and it’s highly likely the House Judiciary Committee that Stevens chairs took up bills that would affect their clients. Both lobbyists have reputations for success and represent dozens of clients, including some of the biggest corporations in the country as well as various advocacy groups for a wide range of special interests.
Stevens campaign advisor Paul Shumaker told WRAL Tuesday that Stevens’ campaign has returned the money, but he noted that state law allows judicial candidates to take lobbyist campaign contributions.
And even while state law does largely ban lobbyists from giving money to members of the legislature, there are loopholes.
Legislators can take the money indirectly in a number of ways — including from a lobbyist’s spouse, or from groups that are funded by lobbyists. Legislators can also take money directly from lobbyists, even while the legislature is in session, if it’s for a federal campaign. Shumaker said that loophole was created by Democrats, when they led the state legislature, to help Democratic state lawmaker Kay Hagan raise money during her 2008 run for U.S. Senate, a race she ultimately won. Most recently the loophole has benefitted U.S. Rep Tim Moore (R-NC), who took thousands of dollars from lobbyists in 2023 and 2024 for his congressional campaign while also serving as N.C. Speaker of the House.
But the state Supreme Court isn’t a federal office, and longtime anti-corruption advocate Bob Hall says there’s no question to him that the lobbyist contributions to Stevens broke state law. He’s asking the State Board of Elections to launch an investigation.
In his formal complaint, Hall says he has no reason to believe that Stevens or the lobbyists who gave her money meant to do anything illegal. But that doesn’t make the transactions OK, he said.
“The contribution should be declared illegal and forfeited,” Hall wrote to the Board of Elections. […]
It’s unlikely we’ll hear any more about this. Legislators – led, of course, by the Berger cartel – rearranged and reshaped the state elections board to their liking. *It’s awful nice to be able to “fix” the organ meant to police you and your activities, huh?*
One of the slickest moves connected to this bureaucratic renovation was keeping all of the details of an elections complaint and inquiry quiet and away from the public — unless it all results in a conviction. And if your cronies and pals control the board in charge of said inquiry, how likely are we to see a *conviction*?
