Baltimore County Executive candidate John Olszewski Jr. is running this TV ad on Baltimore area TV stations.
Friedson: Ease the Squeeze
By Adam Pagnucco.
Council District 1 candidate Andrew Friedson has sent out a mailer discussing the need to “Ease the Squeeze” in Montgomery County. Friedson writes:
We’ve all felt the Montgomery County Squeeze. It’s the squeeze on families facing higher living and childcare costs despite stagnant wages, on commuters stuck in the second worst traffic congestion in the country, and on parents whose kids are squeezed in overcrowded schools. It’s the squeeze on young workers and new families who can no longer afford to live here, and on seniors struggling to maintain a quality home and a dignified livelihood without the support they need to get by.
Montgomery County is a special place, but we can’t afford to ignore the change that’s happening all around us because it’s putting the squeeze on all of us.
I’m running for County Council to Ease the Montgomery County Squeeze with forward-focused leadership dedicated to growing a modern economy so we can make our community more attractive to move here and more affordable to stay here.
This is Friedson’s core campaign message. Will it work?
Ben Jealous’s Need to Claim Credit for Marriage Equality is Just so Wrong
It’s a strange day when a straight man takes credit for marriage equality in Maryland but Ben Jealous is that guy.
I’m certainly happy that the NAACP moved to endorse marriage equality on his watch. It was a good decision and showed leadership. But it is a far cry from claiming to be the critical guy who made marriage equality happen.
In debates and on twitter, Jealous and his campaign have repeatedly cited the Baltimore Sun editorial honoring him as Marylander of Year as evidence to back up his claim. Indeed, it’s a generous editorial:
“Maryland is a better state — and ours is a more perfect union — because of Ben Jealous and his commitment to justice, equality, and the dignity of every child’s home,” Governor O’Malley said. “Here in Maryland, he was an indispensable part of repealing the death penalty, passing the Maryland Dream Act, ensuring civil marriage equality and expanding access to voting.”
When it comes to his being “indispensable” on marriage equality, however, Jealous and his campaign have been categorically unable and unwilling to provide any evidence to back up the claims of the editorial.
When the Jealous campaign tweeted a link to the editorial at me, I read it and then asked which legislators’ minds he had changed. The reply is revealing:
In other words, Jealous cannot identify a single legislator who changed their mind thanks to his efforts. I followed up by asking how many community organizers he had placed on the ground, as he claimed that had made the difference:
Personally, I preferred the Taylor Swift version of his reply. But again, it’s revealing. Rather than answer the hard-hitting question, he attacks the questioner. It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to accuse me of “pride” when he’s the guy claiming to have gotten marriage equality and numerous other legislative initiatives done.
So ultimately, beyond the editorial and the nice quote from Martin O’Malley of the sort that politicians tend to give when asked about someone receiving an award, we’re left with a whole lot of bupkis for evidence.
As someone who was actively part of Equality Maryland’s legislative lobbying team and Co-President of Equality Maryland during the referendum fight, I have some knowledge on the question. Jealous never showed up at any of the strategy sessions held with key legislators that I attended.
Jealous was certainly never mentioned when it came to recruiting key votes on the issues. Carrie Evans, the Executive Director of Equality Maryland, played a key role in recruiting at least one Republican to a yes vote. Rep. Jamie Raskin, then a state senator, played a similar role in wooing the vote of a colleague on the fence.
Most importantly, I know that Sen. Rich Madaleno, who I support, spent years indefatigably working on this issue long before it was fashionable. As part of a long-term strategy, he built legislative capital and support to get the bill on the floor and passed. So many outsider candidates like to denigrate Annapolis politics, yet how do they think bills become laws and why then are they running for office?
Moreover, Rich Madaleno focused his energies so heavily on raising money for the marriage campaign that his own campaign account was sufficiently low to attract a challenge from deep pocketed Dana Beyer. (I should also mention that Ben Jealous’s running mate, Susie Turnbull, was very active in assisting the effort to win the 2012 referendum.)
None of the leaders of Equality Maryland, or any other incredibly kind and giving people who worked hard on the bill, have ever claimed to have been the key person in getting marriage equality accomplished. While I feel I did my bit, I also know that many were on the scene long before I arrived and also personally saw the self-effacing involvement of many good people.
One example I remember often is that of Del. Ben Barnes. He carried the bill for years in the House before it had a real chance of becoming law. Nevertheless, when asked to step aside for other sponsors in order to help advance the bill, he did so without any hesitation whatsoever. That’s someone who will never get much public credit but deserves it. The late Sen. Gwendolyn Britt similarly sponsored the bill in the Senate until she passed.
I do want to thank two straight African-American men for their incredibly helpful support: President Barack Obama and the late former NAACP President Julian Bond. President Obama’s timely evolution on the issue in advance of his own 2012 reelection bid created a critical and noticeable bump in the polls among African-American voters. When I asked Julian Bond if he’d be willing to appear in pro-marriage ads (he had the office next door to me at AU), he said yes immediately. I’ve also never seen anyone look so embarrassed when I thanked him in his office just before I got legally married.
Back to pride for a moment. If Ben Jealous wants to spout quotes on pride at me, he might think on another one before claiming credit for being the critical person in a long-term effort of someone else’s civil rights movement: “Pride goeth before a fall.”
Asian Pacific American Dems Endorse Blair
The Coalition of Asian Pacific American Democrats (CAPAD) has endorsed David Blair for County Executive. Their endorsement statement emphasizes economic issues, including the need to “support minority small businesses.” The county has thousands of businesses owned by people of East Asian and South Asian descent. We reprint Blair’s email below.
Leventhal Promises Tax Cut
By Adam Pagnucco.
In lengthy remarks on his County Executive Facebook page, Council Member George Leventhal has promised “a significant reduction in the energy tax” which he says “harms our competitiveness.” He also took on critics of the county’s business climate, saying:
Relentless criticism of, and negativity about, our county’s business climate can itself be harmful to the business climate, since so much about consumer spending and investment decisions is psychological – the “animal spirits” of the marketplace.
We reprint his entire statement below.
*****
When I am elected County Executive, I will immediately take very seriously the concerns I have heard about the need to make it easier to do business in the county. I will appoint a blue-ribbon task force on business process reform. The group will include individuals who have established successful businesses in the county; those who understand any impediments to establishing or expanding businesses; and tax. legal, and county planning experts whom I will task with producing a series of recommendations within six months.
The first budget that I will submit to the County Council will contain a significant reduction in the energy tax (which harms our competitiveness). I will appoint new leadership in key departments that have been cited as impediments to business growth and formation, including the Department of Permitting Services and the Department of Environmental Protection (The Planning Department is not under the County Executive’s supervision, but it is also the source of many complaints, and also needs to be reviewed). I will meet personally with a wide range of employers, large and small, to conduct my own qualitative review, and commission an even wider range of focus groups to get input.
But let us remember: We remain a very wealthy county, and many of the business owners who most vociferously raise concerns are doing very well. Recently, one of my Democratic competitors told a group of about 40 local small businesses that he was surprised to find there were that many people still doing business here, who had not fled to other jurisdictions. I know he was joking, but that kind of talk is irresponsible.
Those who seek to lead the county must be positive forces for change – and must be careful not to spark a panic. Let’s remember President Franklin Roosevelt’s admonition that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Whomever is elected County Executive will need to promote our county’s excellent attributes to attract jobs and investment. Relentless criticism of, and negativity about, our county’s business climate can itself be harmful to the business climate, since so much about consumer spending and investment decisions is psychological – the “animal spirits” of the marketplace.
I will never describe this affluent, attractive county as a bad place to do business. Indeed, the tradition of those successfully elected here has been optimism – it used to be a cliché to say that Montgomery County was a “great place to live, work and raise a family.” That’s still very true, but at least half the Democrats running for County Executive have adopted a different theme: “don’t invest here, it’s a disaster area.” Whomever is elected will find that turning a big ship is a slow process – that no matter who is Executive, altering a complex structure of taxes and regulations takes time, requires the assent of other elected leaders in the state legislature and County Council, and will encounter enormous push-back from unions, the PTAs, and other interest groups. I am more than ready for that challenge.
Some things are more important than winning an election. Let’s not burn the whole house down because we want to renovate some of it.
Council At-Large Fundraising History
By Adam Pagnucco.
Last week, we wrote about fundraising in the Council At-Large race. Today we put that in perspective. How do today’s campaigns compare to the campaigns of the past?
There are two big differences between this year’s Council At-Large race and its three predecessors: 2006, 2010 and 2014. The first is the presence of public financing. The second is the number of open seats. In 2006, there was one open seat vacated by Steve Silverman, who ran for County Executive. In 2010 and 2014, all four incumbents ran again. This year, there are three at-large vacancies – something that has never happened before.
One thing that all four cycles have in common is the importance of fundraising. Public financing may have changed the mode by which fundraising occurs, but it did not reduce the centrality of fundraising to the prospect of winning. Raising a lot of money doesn’t guarantee success, but it’s hard to win without it!
Below is a chart showing fundraising for Council At-Large candidates over the last four cycles. Candidates shown include incumbents, winners and all others raising at least $150,000. Contributions to 2018 candidates go through the Pre-Primary 1 report, which was due on May 22. Incumbency, endorsements by the Washington Post and MCEA and place of finish are also shown.
Since 2006, all candidates who raised at least $240,000 won with one exception: Duchy Trachtenberg. In 2010, Trachtenberg – then a first-term incumbent – committed one of the craziest decisions of all time by sitting on $146,000. Rumor had it that she had polls showing her winning and had decided to save her money for a future race, perhaps for Executive. Her fellow incumbent, George Leventhal, edged her out for the fourth spot by 3,981 votes. If Trachtenberg had spent her full sum, she might have been able to send out at least another three mailers and history could have changed.
On the other side, no one raising less than $230,000 has won since 2006 with one exception: Marc Elrich. Love him or hate him, Elrich is the exception to a lot of rules in MoCo politics and he has always vastly outperformed his fundraising. Becky Wagner (2010) and Beth Daly (2014) were good candidates but they couldn’t quite raise enough money to break through, even with substantial self-financing.
This year, the folks whose fundraising is in the same ballpark as prior winners are Hans Riemer (the race’s sole incumbent), Evan Glass, Bill Conway and Will Jawando. Gabe Albornoz and Hoan Dang are close. The others on this chart are below Daly and Wagner. All of this year’s candidates will raise a bit more money because these figures only go through a month before the primary. But those in public financing – everyone except Delegate Charles Barkley and Ashwani Jain – have already raised most of their funds for this cycle. Public financing does not allow for last-second $50,000 loans or bundled corporate checks to pay for a final mailer or two.
Money isn’t everything – just ask David Trone. But it has a role and public financing has not changed that. As we go down to the wire in the at-large race, money matters as much as ever.
Would You Pay to Support This Mailer?
By Adam Pagnucco.
George Leventhal’s campaign is soliciting contributions to finance a mailer and it promises to be a doozy. They sent out this blast email:
Hey there,
We’re just one month away from the Maryland Primary on June 26. That means we’ve got just one month until Democrats from Takoma Park to Damascus elect our next County Executive.
That’s one month to make sure every voter from Poolesville to Burtonsville sees the super ad that’s been the talk of the town for wonks across the county.
And we’ve got one month to make sure this indelible image pops up in the mailbox of every primary voter in the county:
As one of our grassroots, people-powered campaign’s superstar supporters, George wanted to make sure you were one of the first get a peek at his new mailers.
That’s because you’ve always been our secret weapon and his superpower in this race. We simply couldn’t be this close — within striking distance of victory — without your support.
Here’s the thing: Demand is so high for the “MoCo Avengers” ad that we’ve had to divert some funds from our mailer campaign. That’s great news — but only if we can make up the difference.
To cover that gap — and ensure we can still get the full mailer program out to our targets — we need to raise $1,300 dollars between now and when they go to print next Friday.
Wait a minute. Has Leventhal been endorsed by Greater Greater Washington? We don’t see anything on their site.
Oh, who cares. This is too good. Your author might have to donate to Leventhal now!
Update: We have verified that Greater Greater Washington has indeed endorsed Leventhal. Their blog post is not up yet.
Another Mail Firm, Please?
By Adam Pagnucco.
A couple days ago, we received a mailer from Council At-Large candidate Hoan Dang. We like Dang very much and might vote for him. But we hate this mailer for three reasons.
First, the cover doesn’t spotlight the candidate’s name or image. The key function of any mailer is to fix the candidate’s name in the mind of the recipient and couple it with a relatable image. In the case of a positive mailer like this one, a good image would be the candidate, perhaps with family members and a diverse group of supporters. This cover doesn’t do that. Its biggest word is “What,” which could mean anything. The candidate’s name is in relatively small print and his picture doesn’t appear.
Next, the mailer does not open easily to the interior content. It was secured by thick tape, preventing your author from opening it without either a) taking a certain amount of time to do it carefully or b) ripping or otherwise destroying the mailer. Dear mail firm guy: if you make it hard to open the mailer, most folks won’t open it. You have just wasted the candidate’s money. All tape of this kind should just be banned. Aside from the difficulty of opening it, we don’t have an issue with the interior other than the word “What” is waaaay bigger than the much more important words “Hoan Dang.”
Finally, check out the large amount of empty space on the back. It’s not obvious from our image, but the empty space goes all the way to the right side of this page and accounts for a majority of the back cover. Dang is a handsome fellow with a pleasant smile. You want to have a large shot of that smiling face, not a tiny one. All the empty space shows that there was plenty of room to print that.
We are not criticizing Hoan Dang. He’s a good candidate and a great guy. But this mailer does not do him justice. He deserves better than this! If there’s any opportunity to do so, he should get another mail firm.
Campaign Finance Reports: Council At-Large, May 2018
By Adam Pagnucco.
Today, we look at the Council At-Large candidates. As with yesterday, we start with a note on methodology. First, we calculate total raised and total spent across the entire cycle and not just over the course of one report period. Second, we separate self-funding from funds raised from others. Self-funding includes money from spouses. Third, for publicly financed candidates, we include public matching fund distributions that have been requested but not deposited in raised money and in the column entitled “Cash Balance With Requested Public Contributions.” That gives you a better idea of the true financial position of publicly financed campaigns.
Below is our fundraising summary for the Council At-Large candidates.
First, a few random notes. As of this writing, five at-large candidates – Craig Carozza-Caviness, Ron Colbert, Paul Geller, Richard Gottfried and Darwin Romero – have not filed May reports. Lorna Phillips Forde did file a May report and requested matching funds, but her report contains many duplicated entries and is a big mess. We are not printing her numbers until they get straightened out. Michele Riley has given herself a combined $21,000 in two loans and one contribution, which exceeds the $12,000 self-funding maximum allowed in public financing. That needs to be corrected or otherwise remedied.
Now to the numbers. In the pre-public financing days, winning at-large candidates generally raised $250,000 or more with the notable exception of Marc Elrich. Four candidates are in that territory: Hans Riemer (the only incumbent), Evan Glass, Bill Conway and Will Jawando. Gabe Albornoz and Hoan Dang are not far off. Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39) has not raised quite that much, but he started with a big war chest built over years of little competition in his district. The cash on hand leaders are Glass, Riemer and Barkley, who are virtually tied, followed by Conway and then Jawando.
In evaluating differences in cash position, we don’t find variances of $20,000-30,000 very significant. That’s because candidates schedule their expenditures differently. Some have spent a bit more before the deadline and some held back to show a bigger balance. What we do find significant is the difference between candidates who have close to $200,000 available for the final push – Riemer, Glass, Barkley and Conway – and those who have half that amount or less, such as Albornoz, Dang, Marilyn Balcombe, Jill Ortman-Fouse, Mohammad Siddique, Ashwani Jain, Danielle Meitiv, Seth Grimes and Brandy Brooks. (Forget about those who have $25,000 or less.) The latter group of candidates now faces very tough decisions on resource usage. A mailer to super-Dems can cost $35,000-$45,000 depending on how the universe is defined. So a candidate with $100,000 on hand might be able to squeeze out two or three mailers and that’s about it. Is that enough to stand out given all the other races going on?
Institutional endorsements also play a role. Several of the lesser funded candidates, especially Brooks and Meitiv, have some good endorsements that could help them. We think the biggest beneficiary will be MCPS teacher Chris Wilhelm, who has more cash on hand than Albornoz, Dang and Balcombe and also has the Apple Ballot. If the teachers mail for Wilhelm, that could effectively close the gap a bit between him and the top-funded candidates.
For what it’s worth, the conventional wisdom is that Riemer will be reelected, Glass and Jawando will join him and the last seat will come down to Conway or Albornoz. We’re not ready to buy that for a couple reasons. First, among the seven County Councils that have been elected since the current structure was established in 1990, only one – the 1998-2002 council – had zero at-large female members. Combine that with the fact that 60% of the primary electorate is female and it’s premature to write off all the women running. Second, this is an unprecedented year. We have never had public financing before and we have never had so many people running at-large. What seems like conventional wisdom now could seem very unwise in the blink of an eye! So we expect surprises in this historic election.
Next: the council district races.
A Quick Note on Mailers
By Adam Pagnucco.
In the wake of our printing Evan Glass’s Watchdog mailer, we were promptly contacted by numerous other candidates, including several in his race, asking why their mailers were not also posted. Rather than respond to more texts and calls than we can answer in a day, let’s respond once here.
We love political mail on Seventh State. Yes we do! We put up Glass’s mailer because it was different and we liked it. Most mail is not different. Your author has a collection of MoCo political lit going back to 1986 (and a few older ones too). It’s almost all the same. “I believe in strong schools!” “I will fix traffic congestion!” “New leadership for a new day!” “Experience you can count on!” And so on. There are lots of endorsement logos. The words “progressive” and “leader” are very common. It’s all sooooooo safe and predictable. The only thing that has changed is that in some districts the mail from long ago would sometimes say, “I am the best Democrat to beat the Republicans!” We wiped out all MoCo GOP office holders in 2006 so that no longer needs to be said.
These candidates want their mail posted. Would you be willing to pay for an intern who can do it for us?
So if you want us to put up your mail, be interesting. Be different! Use a sense of humor. Stand out. Say something that other candidates don’t say. Say something that’s directly relevant to the circumstances of your race rather than blandly generic. Or if you want to put out a particularly awful piece, we might post that too!
Here’s an example of lit we would definitely put up: Comptroller William Donald Schaefer, 2001.
There is so much more mail coming than we can ever post so we need to pick the good ones – or at least the different ones. And if you’re not standing out to us, you’re probably not standing out to the voters.