Primary Time!

It's election time again! Well, it's primary time again, and the beauty of living in almost every state in the US (except Maine), first to the post is the first line of defense for establishment candidates in state and national-level elections.

You know when people talk about the "lesser of two evils" or the "candidate they hate the least"? Now is the time to take meaningful action. I don't mean implementing Ranked Choice Voting in North Carolina, which will be a non-starter, but that your first (and arguably last) change to have meaningful input on whether you want to vote for a candidate who doesn't represent most of your views, but at least they're not actively against what you believe in is now. Right now. Primaries.

No matter what else can be said about the primary system being vague, inefficient, incredibly time-consuming (in some states), or quasi-meaningless because you're going to vote for a Democrat or Republican anyway, so how much does it matter, it's inarguable that it's a crucial inflection point for what you hope your representatives will actually try to accomplish.

"Primary-ing" candidates was pursued to great effect by the neoconservative movement 15 years ago, and the movement of the Overton window to the right because this or that candidate was not "Republican enough" dramatically changed the landscape of political discourse in the United States. It's no longer a safe assumption that an incumbent from a party defending their seat from challengers would implicitly have the support of their own party.

To make sure that your party/seat of choice actually has a candidate you may want when the "real" election happens, go vote.

NC Senate District 13 (Democratic)

We have new districts which are definitely not gerrymandered enough to toe the line after their last try got shut down. That is what it is, but we should be extra vigilant about who we're actually trying to vote for.

Patrick Buffkin

Buffkin is a longtime member of Raleigh City Council and the North Carolina Utilities Commission who specializes in utilities law. He currently represents Raleigh City Council District A (more or less the northern part of the city).

Buffkin could charitably be named Clinton or Pelosi. A look at the donors to his campaign tells the complete story. The largest donors are property developers, a former mayor of Raleigh (and her husband) -- who designated Raleigh's current mayor (a political ally) as her successor after back surgery forced her to not seek another term, the realtors association, and other "establishment" candidates. When virtually all of your top 10 donors are part of the Kane organization (owner, managing director) and most of the rest were part of the process that got us here, it's not really a question which direction he'll go.

If you aren't sure who Kane's managing director/COO is, it's Bonner Gaylord. Put a pin in that.

He is an establishment candidate through-and-through, and if that's your thing, that's great. He positions himself as such:

My work on City Council has focused on issues that make our lives better every day: housing affordability, traffic and transportation, investing in parks and infrastructure, and making government work better for members of our community.

Raleigh's rents have increased by 21% in the last year, which isn't exactly what I'd call affordable. Anybody reading this is probably familiar with Kane and their development work in the area, but I doubt if anyone would put "Kane" and "housing affordability" in the same sentence without a negative qualifier.

Broadly, let's say "if the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that crime exists only for the lower class". Kane's previous "generous" offers such as offering the city $1M so they could materialize affordable housing out of nowhere are simple gladhanding, and the deal ultimately agreed to turned out to be dramatically lower (in terms of height) than the agreement -- and some of the highest rents in downtown Raleigh. What happened to the "affordable" housing? That can was kicked down the road. Expect this to continue.

It's deeply concerning that Buffkin is currently representing Water Resources Inc in their petition to increase rates for the Rocky River Plantation (and another community). The same Water Resources which allowed Radium into the water supply of the same community and never remediated it? The same one which, three years later, says "we are not in compliance (no interconnection with another system or accepted alternative), but the state should not appoint an emergency operator?

It's convenient that their counsel of record is Buffkin, a member of the NCUC, who has known them all for years.

I'm not a lawyer, but a sitting member of City Council and staff member of the NCUC previously lobbied for energy companies and subsequently both represents companies regulated by that board as well as lobbies for groups which petition the NCUC. It may not merit recusal or constitute a conflict of interest/breach of ethics, but it raises eyebrows for a candidate when they have lost trust before ever taking higher office.

I've personally had enough of the hand-to-mouth "government -> lobbyist/counsel with inside connections -> $$$$" treadmill, and feel no compunction to put this person into higher office.

Lisa Grafstein

For comparison, let's look at her spending and contributions. Oh, wait, she has 50% of the donors and 33% of the expenditures, with her top donors being... herself, and a PAC which advocates for pro-choice candidates.

To be honest, there's nothing about this candidate which I can say negative things about. Her entire career has been about civil rights, worker's rights, and voting rights. Her purpose statement speaks for itself:

A constant through these experiences is that systems of power do not yield easily. I have spent decades fighting against the harms caused by bad policies. As Desmond Tutu said, “There comes a point where we have to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they’re falling in.” Even as we work to counter the harmful effects of bad policies, we need to go to the source.

I'm being asked to support someone who credibly could have been a member of the Warren Court (in terms of values and standing as a lawyer, anyway)? Yes, I'm in, absolutely.