Manning is the Wake County Superior Court judge who recently made a ruling that could undermine the state's public financing of appellate court races. Benjamin is the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals judge who has become the poster child for advocates of public campaign financing.

Benjamin obtained that distinction by gaining his job with the help of $3 million poured into his race by a West Virginia coal-company executive. Then Benjamin cast the deciding vote in a case reversing a $50 million verdict against the same coal company.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June found that Benjamin, by not removing himself from consideration of the case, blocked due process of the law.

The justices came to the same conclusion of any rational person using common sense -- or anyone not hiding behind some legal distinction: Anyone who enjoys benefits gained from $3 million is going to be partial to the person who provided the money.

North Carolina's public-financing laws are intended to prevent that same scenario from happening here. They are far from perfect. To be honest, it seems a sad state of affairs when elected policymakers conclude that public money -- gained through taxes or fees -- is needed to keep corruption at bay.

Self-restraint appears hard to find as Election Day nears and you're trailing in the polls.

But in a country where courts have held that money equals free speech - even when one person's money has the ability to shout down and drown out other voices -- public financing has emerged as a small seawall trying to hold back the waves of special-interest money.

The wall is far from perfect because what's known as independent expenditure money, which doesn't go directly to candidates' campaigns, can overwhelm it. That's what happened in 2006, when a group called fairjudges.net dumped $200,000 into four appellate-court races in the final days of the campaign.

The group was run by Democratic consultants, and three of the four candidates who benefited were Democrats.

A 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision also raises questions about the long-term survival of some public financing, especially provisions like one in North Carolina that allows additional "rescue funds" for candidates when an opponent receives a sudden influx of money.

Manning's ruling attacks the law on another front. He said the $50 fee charged to lawyers to raise the money for the program violates those lawyers' free-speech rights by forcing them to provide financial support to candidates with whom they might not agree.

Manning attempted to split the baby by saying that the fee could continue to be charged by allowing lawyers to designate that their money go toward a voter guide that is also part of the program.

Of course, if all lawyers do that, there will be no money for the campaigns.

That's OK. Maybe Benjamin will move to North Carolina and run against Manning.