Governor vetoes campaign-finance, public masking House bill

Gov. Roy Cooper vetoed Friday — as expected — a controversial N.C. House bill that would loosen campaign-financing laws and significantly restrict public mask wearing for health and safety reasons.

House Bill 237 is titled “Various Criminal and Election Law Changes” in its latest version.

The Democratic governor had until Saturday to veto the bill, sign it or let it become law without his signature.

The Republican super-majorities in both chambers have the votes to override the veto at full attendance.

“This legislation creates a gaping loophole for secret, unlimited campaign money in the middle of an election year,” Cooper said in a statement.

“While voters are kept in the dark, this scheme allows anonymous out-of-state billionaires to flood North Carolina with campaign contributions to rescue extreme right-wing candidates that Republicans now fear will lose.

“The legislation also removes protections and threatens criminal charges for people who want to protect their health by wearing a mask,” Cooper said.

House Bill 237 cleared the Senate by a 28-0 vote June 6 within three hours of the posting of the new version. All Republicans present voted in favor, while the 12 Democrats present withheld their vote by walking out in protest of having limited time to examine the campaign finance language.

The House voted 69-43 in favor on June 11 along party lines.

Sen. Danny Britt, R-Scotland, and Senate sponsor of HB237, focused on criminal masking claims in his response to Cooper’s veto.

“Bad actors have been using masks to conceal their identity when they commit crimes and intimidate the innocent,” Britt said. “Instead of helping put an end to this threatening behavior, the governor wants to continue encouraging these thugs by giving them more time to hide from the consequences of their actions.

“I look forward to casting a vote to override this veto and allowing those with actual health concerns to protect themselves and others.”

A potential veto override veto could take place as soon as Wednesday.

The House has placed on the floor calendar the previous two Cooper vetoed bills of the 2024 session: House Bill 834, titled “Juvenile Justice Modifications;” and House Bill 198, titled DOT Legislative Changes — AB.”

A surge of harder-to-trace out-of-state money flowing into North Carolina’s high-profile 2024 election races — foremost for governor — would be allowed in HB237.

The governor’s race between Democrat Josh Stein, the state’s attorney general, and Republican Mark Robinson, the state’s lieutenant governor, is projected to be one of the closest and costliest in the country.

According to the four most recent polls for N.C. listed on www.538.com, Robinson holds either a 2- or 1-point lead in two polls, Stein with a 1-point lead in a poll and a tie in the fourth.

Raleigh TV station WRAL reported that as of February, Stein had raised $19.1 million with $12.7 million left to spend, while Robinson had raised $10.7 million with $4.5 million left to spend.

Stein launched recently a statewide ad campaign targeting some of Robinson’s controversial statements on race, gender, abortion and the economy.

The insertion of state campaign finance law changes into HB237 has been pitched as either leveling the playing field on corporate and union donations, or opening another floodgate for out-of-state dark money into high-profile 2024 election races.

Lauren Horsch, spokeswoman for Senate leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, said the campaign finance language “looks to undo a collusive decision the partisan Board of Elections made during the 2020 election that benefited certain political organizations that were aligned with Democratic groups.”

Current state law prohibits corporations, unions, other business entities, professional associations and insurance companies from providing funding directly to a political candidate or campaign. The latest version of HB237 does not change that.

However, those groups can provide such funds to federal political fundraising committees known as 527 groups — the number representing the federal tax code. Among 527 organizations are the Democratic and Republican governors’ associations.

Those 527 groups are allowed to accept unlimited donations as well as provide unlimited amounts to their candidates. As such, the 527 groups can serve as funding middlemen for corporations, unions and other groups.

“Under the provision in the law being considered, these 527 groups could make donations to the North Carolina Republican party or North Carolina Democratic Party, which can in turn use these funds to benefit Republican and Democratic candidates for governor or other state offices,” said John Dinan, a political science professor at Wake Forest University.

Rep. Sarah Crawford, D-Wake, said the number of North Carolinians affected by the masking part of HB237 could reach 2 million when counting immunocompromised individuals, those that assist them, and workers who require masking to perform their jobs outdoors.

A compromise reached between House and Senate Republican leadership narrowly defined exemptions as allowing individuals ages 16 and older to wear a medical or surgical grade mask for the purpose of preventing the spread of contagious disease — with the condition of removing it upon request by law enforcement.

Other changes require those wearing a mask in public to temporarily remove it upon request by the owner or occupant of public or private property to allow for identification. The bill also contains a masking exemption for religious institutions.

Since the initial revamping of HB237 by the Senate in May, there has been outcry and confusion about what the ban would mean for people who have to wear masks because they have autoimmune diseases or are under doctors’ orders to do so.

Among the concerns of individuals who spoke with the Journal or sent constituent letters to their legislative representatives is that anti-mask groups will try to harass and intimidate public mask wearers for health and safety reasons by pointing them out to law enforcement as breaking the law.

Rep. Marcia Morey, D-Durham, said HB237 essentially puts law enforcement officers into the unnecessary role of healthcare providers for how they determine whether the mask wearer is actually doing so for health reasons.

Berger told The News & Observer of Raleigh on May 23 he believed the health and safety exceptions “swallows the rule, and basically is something that continues to allow people to wear a mask and violate the law.”

The reason there was the need to create the pandemic public-masking exemptions is that it has been illegal in North Carolina for those age 16 and older to wear a mask in public settings via a 1952 statute aimed at the Ku Klux Klan.

Rep. John Torbett, R-Gaston, and Sen. Ralph Hise, R-McDowell, have said some bill opponents are trying to raise unnecessary fears among the public, and there have been few, if any, arrests for public masking laws that targeted the Ku Klux Klan.

Both say the proper focus on HB237 should be on heightening criminal penalties for individuals committing a crime while wearing a mask, with Torbett stressing that “those who need to wear a mask can continue to wear a mask.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Amos Quick, D-Guilford, said HB237 does not provide enough clarity on who is authorized to be a business owner or store managers in order to require the temporary lowering of medical masks in public.

According to the UNC School of Government, HB237 changes “are not to be interpreted to limit, replace or conflict with available protections or remedies under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or any other applicable federal or state laws.”

It’s unclear whether the solution clarifies or muddies public-health concerns over masking, particularly from individuals with severe or chronic health issues who are uncomfortable with being without a mask even momentarily.