North Dakota Taxpayer Dollars Are Being Used For Overtly Political Purposes

“If Measure 2 passes North Dakota will go from a position of envy to a laughing stock.”

That’s what North Dakota Association of Counties staffer Terry Traynor told a convention in Bismarck recently, talking about the constitutional measure which will be on the June ballot to abolish property taxes. Mr. Traynor and his organization have been outspoken in opposition to the measure.

Now, we’ve debated Measure 2 at length here on SAB. I, personally, am for it. I know that many of you are not. But setting that argument aside for a moment, we should ask whether or not it is appropriate for a group like the NDAC to be weighing in on an issue like this given that they’re funded by taxpayer dollars.

Some twenty counties belong to this association, using our tax dollars to pay their membership fees. The NDAC would argue that just a small part of their revenue comes from the taxpayers. Regardless of whether or not that’s true, that they get any taxpayer dollars at all makes their political activities in opposition to a constitutional measure inappropriate.

Taxpayer dollars should not go to political groups. The NDAC, given that it regularly engages in advocacy, should no more get taxpayer dollars than the National Rifle Association. It’s just not appropriate. Especially given that, in the case of groups like the NDAC, what we get is taxpayer funds going to lobbyists who, in turn, lobby the government for more government.

And why do political subdivisions like counties need lobbyists for anyway? Do these counties not have commissioners? Do the cities not have mayors? Are there not legislators who represent these areas? Isn’t it their job to see to the needs of the constituencies they represent, and to communicate those needs and wishes to other levels of government?

The NDAC is hardly the only group that benefits mightily from taxpayer dollars. According to the state’s spending database, the Chamber of Commerce (also very active in political advocacy) has received over $450,000 in dues payments from state agencies since 2007.

That sort of thing is inexcusable, and I write that as someone who agrees with the Chamber of Commerce on most issues.

The debate over Measure 2 will rage on until the matter is settled on the June ballot, but whatever the outcome of that vote we need to take a long and hard look at some of the groups and associations that get “dues” payments from the government only to turn around and actively engage in advocacy.