NC Senate District 8
Tim White, Libertarian challenger
Career: Financial planner
Education: Accounting
Q: What qualifies you to serve in the North Carolina legislature?
A: I’m not running for the North Carolina legislature because I think government has all the answers — quite the opposite. I’m running because I believe too many decisions that affect our daily lives are being made by people far removed from the citizens who have to live with the consequences.
As a financial advisor, I've spent my career sitting across the table from working families, retirees, small business owners, and people who simply want the freedom to build a better life for themselves. Those conversations have taught me government works best when it is limited, accountable, and focused on protecting individual liberty rather than trying to manage every aspect of our lives.
What qualifies me most is real-world experience. I’m not a career politician. I’ve built a career helping people make important decisions, solve problems, plan for the future, and navigate challenges. I understand what it means to balance a budget, run a business, pay taxes, and live with the impact of government policies. I believe North Carolina needs more citizen legislators who bring practical experience instead of political ambition.
As a Libertarian, I believe individuals, families, and communities are generally better equipped to make decisions for themselves than government bureaucracies. My goal would be to protect personal freedom, promote fiscal responsibility, reduce unnecessary regulations, and ensure the government remains a servant to the people rather than the other way around. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do promise to listen, think independently, and stand up for the rights and freedoms of the people I represent.
Q. What is a bill you would like to sponsor or co-sponsor and what is a bill you want to repeal — or even amend? Why?
A: If elected, one bill I would be proud to sponsor or co-sponsor would be a comprehensive Occupational Licensing Reform Act. Too many North Carolinians face unnecessary government barriers when trying to start a career, launch a small business, or move to our state and continue working in their profession. The government should protect public safety, but it should not create needless red tape that limits economic opportunity. I would support reducing licensing requirements where public safety is not at risk and expanding recognition of licenses from other states.
I would also strongly support Constitutional Carry legislation, allowing law-abiding adults to carry a concealed firearm without first obtaining a government permit. The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, and I believe citizens should not have to ask the government's permission to exercise that right. North Carolina has considered several Constitutional Carry proposals in recent years, and I believe this is an issue where individual liberty should prevail.
As for repealing or amending a law, I would work to reform North Carolina's ABC liquor control system. Our state still operates under a largely government-controlled system created in the aftermath of Prohibition. I believe adults should be free to purchase legal products in a competitive marketplace rather than through a government monopoly. Modernizing or privatizing liquor sales would increase consumer choice, encourage competition, and reduce government involvement in the marketplace.
More broadly, my legislative philosophy is simple: Whenever possible, decisions should be made by individuals, families, and businesses rather than government agencies. If there is a choice between more freedom and more control, I will almost always choose freedom.
Q: What will you do to hold industry accountable for pollution of toxic chemicals, such as PFAS or 1,4 dioxane, in the water or air? Will you support enforcing additional maximum contaminant levels of PFAS compounds, aside from PFOA or PFOS; how, if so?
A: I believe that no individual, business, or government entity has the right to damage someone else's property, health, or quality of life. Clean water and clean air are not partisan issues, and companies that contaminate our environment should be held accountable for the harm they cause. I support free markets, but free markets only work when businesses are responsible for the consequences of their actions and cannot shift the costs of pollution onto their neighbors and communities.
Regarding PFAS, 1,4-dioxane, and other emerging contaminants, I support science-based standards that are transparent, achievable, and tied to demonstrated health risks. If the evidence shows that additional PFAS compounds pose significant risks to human health, I would support establishing appropriate contaminant limits and requiring polluters to meet them. At the same time, I believe regulations should be based on sound science and measurable outcomes, not politics.
My focus would be on holding polluters accountable rather than placing the burden on taxpayers. Companies that contaminate water supplies should be responsible for cleanup costs, remediation efforts, and damages to affected property owners. Too often, residents are left paying higher utility bills while the entities responsible escape accountability.
North Carolina (especially District 8) has seen firsthand the concerns surrounding PFAS contamination in the Cape Fear River and other waterways. Our priority should be protecting public health, ensuring transparency, requiring timely disclosure of contamination, and enforcing the principle that those who cause harm should bear the cost of fixing it.
Ultimately, I believe we can protect both economic growth and environmental quality by enforcing property rights, demanding accountability from polluters, and using sound science to guide our environmental policies. Clean water and clean air are fundamental to the health, prosperity, and freedom of every North Carolinian.
Q: Is the public school allotment formula sufficient or does the legislature need to change it? Explain what your plan is for this issue.
A: I do not believe the current public school allotment formula is serving every student as effectively as it could. While North Carolina spends significant resources on public education, too much of the funding system is driven by bureaucracy and administrative decisions rather than the individual needs of students. The goal should be to ensure that education funding follows the student, not the system.
This issue is also personal for me. My daughter, Kristabella, is 12 years old and attends a charter school in Bolivia. Like any parent, I want her to receive the best education possible, and I've seen firsthand how important it is for families to have options. Education is not an abstract policy debate to me. It's something that affects my own family every day. That experience has reinforced my belief that parents should have a meaningful voice in their children's education and the freedom to choose the learning environment that best meets their needs.
My plan would be to simplify the funding formula, increase transparency, and give local communities greater flexibility in how education dollars are spent. Parents, teachers, and local school leaders generally understand their students' needs better than policymakers in Raleigh. I support giving school districts more control over resources while holding them accountable for results.
I also believe we should continue expanding educational options for families. Every child learns differently, and a one-size-fits-all approach does not work for everyone. Whether a family chooses a traditional public school, charter school, private school, homeschool, or another educational setting, parents should have the freedom to make the best decision for their children. Funding mechanisms should recognize that reality and focus on student success rather than preserving any particular system.
At the same time, we must ensure that rural schools and districts with higher concentrations of low-income students have adequate resources to provide a quality education. Educational opportunity should not depend on a student's ZIP code. Any reforms to the allotment formula should focus on directing resources where they are needed most while reducing administrative waste and increasing accountability.
My goal is not simply to spend more money or less money. My goal is to ensure that education dollars are spent effectively, that parents have meaningful choices, and that every student has access to a quality education that prepares them for success in life.
Q: State law allows law enforcement agencies, including the State Bureau of Investigation, to store data captured by license plate reading cameras (Flock cameras) for up to 90 days. Since the CEO of Flock cameras has now recommended agencies reduce the time camera data is stored down to seven days, would you make it a priority to change state law to follow this recommendation?
A: Yes, I would support reducing the retention period for license plate reader data, and I would be open to making that a legislative priority. Law enforcement should have access to tools that help solve crimes and locate dangerous criminals, but the collection and storage of data on law-abiding citizens should be limited to what is truly necessary.
I believe the government should not retain information on innocent people any longer than needed. If even the CEO of Flock has suggested that a seven-day retention period is generally sufficient for legitimate law enforcement purposes, then North Carolina should seriously evaluate whether the current 90-day standard is excessive. The longer data is stored, the greater the risk of misuse, unauthorized access, data breaches, or the creation of a system that can effectively track the movements of citizens who are not suspected of any crime.
My preference would be to establish clear safeguards that protect both public safety and individual privacy. Those safeguards could include shorter retention periods, strict access controls, audit requirements, and penalties for misuse of the data. If law enforcement can demonstrate a legitimate investigative need to retain specific data beyond the standard period, there should be a documented process for doing so.
I support giving law enforcement the tools they need to catch criminals, but I also believe that protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens is one of the government's most important responsibilities. We should never accept the idea that every citizen's movements should be tracked and stored simply because technology makes it possible. A free society requires both security and privacy, and our laws should respect both.
Q: Do you support how the film grant program currently operates? Do you think the $31-million annual cap on award disbursements should be lifted? Do you think the General Assembly should allocate more money to the program?
A: I do not believe the state should be in the business of picking winners and losers in the marketplace. While North Carolina's film grant program has helped attract productions and create jobs, I am generally skeptical of targeted incentives that provide special treatment to one industry, while other businesses compete without government assistance.
The better approach is to create an economic environment where all businesses can thrive through lower taxes, reasonable regulations, a skilled workforce, and a predictable business climate. If North Carolina is a great place to do business, film companies, manufacturers, technology firms, and small businesses alike will choose to invest here without requiring taxpayers to subsidize their decision.
Because of that philosophy, I would not support lifting the current $31 million annual cap or allocating additional taxpayer dollars to the program. In fact, I would support conducting a thorough review to determine whether the program is delivering a measurable return on investment for North Carolina taxpayers. If a subsidy cannot justify itself based on the jobs, economic activity, and tax revenue it generates, then those funds should remain with taxpayers rather than being directed to a specific industry.
That said, I recognize that the film industry can bring significant economic benefits to local communities, including jobs for crew members, hospitality workers, restaurants, and small businesses. If independent analysis demonstrates that the program provides a substantial net benefit to the state, I would be willing to have an open-minded discussion about how it is structured. My focus, however, would be on creating a level playing field rather than expanding government incentives.
I don’t want to make North Carolina attractive to one industry through special favors. My goal is to make North Carolina attractive to all industries by protecting economic freedom, reducing unnecessary government interference, and allowing businesses to succeed based on the value they create rather than their ability to secure government grants.
Q: Would you support rolling back the sales and use tax exemption for data centers to build in North Carolina? Explain.
A: Generally, I do support rolling back or phasing out special tax exemptions that favor one industry over another, including the sales and use tax exemptions currently offered to data centers. My philosophy is the government should get out of the way so there is a fair and competitive business environment, not pick winners and losers by offering special incentives to select industries.
I also recognize that data centers bring significant investment, infrastructure development, and jobs to North Carolina. Before making any changes, I would want to carefully evaluate the economic impact of these exemptions and compare the tax revenue being forgone against the jobs, local investment, and long-term economic benefits being generated.
My preference would be for North Carolina to move toward a tax system with lower rates and fewer special carve-outs across the board. Instead of giving targeted tax breaks to a handful of industries, we should work to make our overall tax climate competitive for every business, whether it's a technology company, family farm, manufacturer, small business, or startup. A level playing field is both fairer and more consistent with free-market principles.
I am also increasingly concerned about the strain large data centers can place on local infrastructure, including electricity, water resources, and land use. If taxpayers are bearing significant costs to support these facilities while receiving limited benefits in return, that is something the legislature should address. Businesses should pay their fair share of the infrastructure costs associated with their operations rather than shifting those costs onto local communities and taxpayers.
I would like to ensure that North Carolina remains attractive for investment while treating businesses equally under the law. I do not favor corporate welfare, whether it is for data centers, film companies, professional sports teams, or any other industry. The best economic development strategy is a strong economy, reasonable taxes, limited regulations, and a government that lets businesses compete on their merits rather than on their ability to secure special tax treatment.
Q: The current gas-tax funding system for the NCDOT no longer seems to efficiently support necessary projects – including the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge replacement. Is tolling the answer; what other funding mechanisms would you support? Would you vote on legislation to allow the Turnpike Authority to toll the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge if it comes before you?
A: North Carolina clearly has a transportation funding challenge. The gas tax is becoming a less reliable source of revenue as vehicles become more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles become more common. We need to explore funding solutions that are fair, sustainable, and do not place an excessive burden on local taxpayers.
As a general rule, I believe the people who use a service should help pay for it. That's why I am open to tolling in certain situations. However, I am very concerned about tolling the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge because it would effectively create a daily tax on local residents who rely on that bridge to get to work, school, medical appointments, or conduct business. The people of southeastern North Carolina should not be expected to shoulder the majority of the cost for infrastructure that benefits the entire state and regional economy.
One alternative I think deserves serious consideration is tolling Interstate-95 at the Virginia and South Carolina borders. Every day, thousands of out-of-state travelers and commercial vehicles pass through North Carolina using our roads and bridges while contributing little toward their maintenance. A border tolling system would allow the state to capture revenue from tourists, interstate commerce, and through traffic that benefit from our transportation network instead of relying primarily on North Carolina residents to pay the bill.
I would also support examining NCDOT spending priorities, reducing bureaucratic waste, pursuing available federal infrastructure funding, and evaluating public-private partnerships before imposing new costs on local taxpayers. The government has a responsibility to ensure existing transportation dollars are being used efficiently before asking citizens to pay more.
If legislation to toll the Cape Fear Memorial Bridge comes before me, I would be very skeptical unless it can be clearly demonstrated that all other reasonable funding options have been exhausted and that the burden on local residents is minimized. As someone who lives in this region, I believe we need a solution that keeps our economy moving without unfairly penalizing the people who cross the bridge every day.
Q: Would you vote to implement an independent commission to draw legislative and congressional lines? Why or why not?
A: One of the biggest frustrations many voters have is the perception that politicians choose their voters rather than voters choosing their politicians. Regardless of which party is in power, I believe the redistricting process should inspire public confidence and produce districts that are drawn fairly, transparently, and in accordance with the law.
As a Libertarian, I am naturally skeptical of concentrating power in the hands of any group, including politicians. That's why I am open to an independent redistricting commission that removes much of the map-drawing process from elected officials who have a direct stake in the outcome. However, simply creating a commission is not enough. The commission must be genuinely independent, operate transparently, hold public hearings, and be prohibited from drawing maps that favor any political party, incumbent, or special interest group.
I would want districts to be drawn using objective criteria, such as population equality, geographic compactness, keeping communities together when possible, and compliance with federal voting rights protections. The goal should be competitive elections and meaningful representation, not predetermined outcomes.
We have to be cautious about creating another unelected bureaucracy that lacks accountability to voters. Any commission should have strong oversight, clear rules, and complete transparency so the public can see exactly how decisions are being made.
My position is simple: Voters should choose their representatives, not the other way around. If an independent commission can help restore trust in the electoral process and produce fairer maps while remaining transparent and accountable, I would support it. My focus would not be on helping one party or another. My focus would be on ensuring every North Carolinian has confidence that their vote matters and that elections are as fair and competitive as possible.
Q: In terms of economic development, North Carolina gets high marks for business, but middling and lower marks for worker satisfaction and quality of life. What would you do to improve these metrics for state residents?
A: North Carolina has done an excellent job attracting businesses, but economic development should be measured by more than just corporate relocations and job announcements. The real question is whether working families feel they have opportunities to build successful, fulfilling lives here. If we're going to improve worker satisfaction and quality of life, we need to focus on the things that directly impact people's day-to-day lives: good jobs, affordable housing, quality education, safe communities, and the freedom to keep more of what they earn.
It is my strong belief that the best way to improve quality of life is to empower individuals and communities rather than expand government bureaucracy. That means reducing unnecessary regulations that drive up the cost of housing, making it easier for small businesses to start and grow, reforming occupational licensing laws that prevent people from entering a profession, and ensuring that workers have access to educational opportunities that match the needs of today's economy.
This issue is very personal to me. I am a veteran, a small business owner, and a father raising my daughter, here in North Carolina. I understand firsthand the challenges that come with building a business, meeting payroll, navigating regulations, and competing in today's economy. My brother, John, is also a veteran and owns and operates a local small business, The Pit restaurant. Between the two of us, we've experienced many of the obstacles that entrepreneurs face when trying to turn an idea into a successful business.
One of my biggest concerns is the government too often gives special treatment to large corporations while small businesses are left to navigate the same regulations and costs without armies of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists. Economic development should not be about handing out incentives to a select few companies. It should be about creating an environment where every business, from a family-owned restaurant to a technology startup, can compete and succeed on a level playing field.
I believe one of the best ways to improve conditions for workers is to create more competition for their talent. When businesses have to compete for employees, wages rise, benefits improve, working conditions get better, and workers have more opportunities. The best protection for workers is often not more government mandates, but a strong economy where employers must earn the loyalty of their employees because workers have choices.
I would also focus on affordability. Many North Carolinians are feeling the squeeze from rising housing costs, healthcare costs, insurance premiums, and everyday expenses. Economic growth doesn't mean much if families cannot afford to enjoy the benefits of that growth. The government should be looking for ways to remove barriers that increase costs rather than adding new burdens that make life more expensive.
Ultimately, my goal would be to make North Carolina not only one of the best states for business but also one of the best states to live, work, raise a family, and retire. Success should not be measured solely by how many companies move here, but by whether the people who already live here have the opportunity to build a better life. As a veteran, a business owner, and a parent, that's the future I want for my family and for every North Carolinian.