NC lawmaker returns lobbyist money, following public scrutiny

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.

2025-08-12

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.

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.

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.

Politics, money and secrecy

However, whether or not the elections board does launch an investigation will be a secret. Several years ago the legislature changed the state’s public records laws to ensure that any and all details about campaign finance investigations are kept from the public, unless they result in a conviction.

Hall said in an interview he hasn't heard from the Board of Elections about his complaint. In it, he pointed to a 1999 federal court appeals court ruling in a North Carolina case, which established that the state has an interest in prohibiting lobbyists from giving money to legislators while the legislature is in session.

In that ruling, the court wrote: “Prohibiting lobbyist contributions and solicitations while the General Assembly is in session serves to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption” and that preventing corruption “is a compelling state interest because it distorts both the concept of popular sovereignty and the theory of representative government.”

If the elections board takes no action on Hall's complaint, it could establish a new loophole: Lawmakers would be free to temporarily claim they're running for some other office, rake in cash from lobbyists while voting on bills affecting those lobbyists' clients, and then switch their campaigns back in time to run for reelection to the legislature. Hall said he hopes the board agrees that would not follow the spirit of the state's anti-corruption laws, several of which passed in the mid-2000s following the corruption scandal that sent former N.C. House Speaker Jim Black, a Democrat, to prison.

Melissa Price Kromm, who leads the group North Carolina For The People Action, has spent years tracing the influence of corporate money in state politics. The ability of businesses and special interest groups to sway legislation by paying lawmakers’ campaigns, she said, has led to North Carolina passing new laws that, in her opinion, often don’t reflect public opinion or the broader public good, particularly on the environment and tax policy.

At the same time, the legislature has also taken action to stop the public from being able to know who’s paying them.

Beyond making campaign finance investigations secret several years ago, the legislature also passed a new law last month shielding the identity of people who donate to charities. While supporters framed it as a way to protect people from cancel culture over which causes they support, the bill was pushed by pro-business political groups. Many groups that buy political ads and find other ways to support candidates are technically registered as charities.

The new law, Kromm said, is going to make it even easier for businesses and wealthy individuals to funnel money to politicians without the public ever knowing — including foreigners who would otherwise be banned from meddling in American elections.

“It’s about letting deep pocketed special interests secretly fund elections,” she said.

Democratic Gov. Josh Stein vetoed that bill, but a handful of Democrats sided with all Republicans in overriding his veto and passing the bill into law. Stein said it would not only boost dark money in politics but would also make it easier for people to commit tax fraud.

“The public is demanding more transparency for political spending, so laws giving more privacy are going the wrong direction,” Kromm said. However, she added, public opinion hold much weight in the legislature since so few legislative districts are competitive. Nearly all 170 legislative districts in North Carolina are deep-red or deep-blue seats where the only real competition comes during low-turnout party primaries.

“Until we can get rid of gerrymandering, a lot of people’s voices will just not be heard,” Kromm said.

That’s where the state Supreme Court race comes in.

Gerrymandering and the courts

Stevens is running for Supreme Court against Democratic Justice Anita Earls. The court currently has a 5-2 Republican majority so a Stevens win would shift it to 6-1 and give GOP lawmakers another close ally on the court, whose justices already include a former Republican state senator, Tamara Barringer, and Phil Berger Jr., whose father is the state Senate leader.

The Supreme Court hears many lawsuits with political implications, including lawsuits over gerrymandering. When Democrats controlled the court, they ruled that the legislature couldn’t gerrymander the state’s political districts. But voters flipped the Supreme Court to GOP control in the 2022 elections, and that new majority acted immediately to overturn that precedent and allow the legislature to re-gerrymander their own seats as well as the 14 U.S. House of Representatives seats.

The next round of redistricting will happen in 2031. So Democrats are aiming to flip back control of the state Supreme Court before then, and Republicans are likewise pushing to hold onto the court.

Democratic Justice Allison Riggs won the 2024 Supreme Court race, despite a ruling by that court’s Republican majority that likely would’ve overturned her victory — but which was later blocked as unconstitutional in federal court.

Because of Riggs’ victory, Democrats will have a chance to flip control of the Supreme Court in the 2028 elections when three Republican-held seats will be up for election. But first up is the 2026 race, which could pit Earls against Stevens. If Stevens wins, then Democrats would only be able to flip the court in 2028 if they flipped all three seats.

Each woman might still face a 2026 primary election challenge, but no other candidates have emerged yet. And each are the clear party favorites.

Earls, who has $481,000 in her campaign, is heavily backed by fellow Democrats at the state and national levels.

Stevens, who had $151,000 in her campaign — minus the $8,300 from the lobbyists which Shumaker said has recently been returned — has raised that money largely from fellow Republican state legislators, as well as the spouses of some Republican justices on the Supreme Court.