Politician X is a happy man. His advocacy for Issues A, B and C is wildly popular. His constituents adore him. He basks in praise every single day, with only a few complaining misanthropes – likely from the other political party – who can be safely ignored. He can do no wrong and is a lock for reelection.
How does he know this? Because he has a few dozen friends on Facebook who tell him so!
Politician Y is a happy woman. Her advocacy AGAINST issues A, B and C – the very things X is promoting – is also wildly popular. Her constituents shower praise on her every ten minutes and there is no way she can lose. Higher office surely beckons.
How does she know this? Because her Facebook friends are just as adoring as X’s friends.
X’s world is just as real – and just as unreal – as Y’s world. Look at two examples.
In Montgomery County, Robin Ficker’s term limits charter amendment is a hot local issue. Those County Council Members who criticize it are lionized by the huge majority of their Facebook friends who weigh in. Judging by their comments, there is no way that term limits will pass. But go to Robin Ficker’s page and the world changes. He is surrounded by dozens of people – sometimes much more when he runs ads – who encourage him to keep it up. Judging by what is said on Ficker’s page, the voters will surely approve term limits by an overwhelming margin.
It happened again at the state level when Governor Larry Hogan issued an Executive Order mandating that public schools start after Labor Day. Critics of the order who based their opposition primarily on educational considerations were egged on by three-quarters or more of their Facebook friends who commented. But the Facebook pages of Hogan and the policy’s original architect, Comptroller Peter Franchot, swarmed with supporters who celebrated the order. Each side is convinced they’re right. Each side is convinced they will be vindicated – both on the policy merits and politically – in the end. And each side is backed up by enthusiastic supporters, so how can either of them be wrong?
Why does this happen?
Social media is a great tool for political communications, but it is subject to two forms of bias that can mislead politicians.
Friend Bias
Politicians’ Facebook pages almost never contain representative samples of the public. For the most part, Facebook friends or fans are personal friends and acquaintances mixed with people who are inclined to support the politician. Those who are indifferent or hostile to the politician, but still vote, are much less likely to enroll on the politician’s page. The effect is akin to an elementary school play, in which the audience is comprised of parents and relatives of the children who are performing. Those children can do no wrong! Friend bias can be overcome to an extent by running ads from a fan page, as this will attract viewers who do not have a relationship with the politician. But don’t run an ad unless you’re prepared for what the outside world thinks!
Comment Bias
While a relatively small number of loud voices tend to dominate social media, the vast majority of folks don’t like to fight in public. So when Politician Y puts up a political statement, those who agree will say “Yes!” and those who don’t will be more likely to stay silent. The latter people simply don’t want to be flamed and drawn into name-calling, shaming or other nastiness. Some of them may have another matter before the politician and don’t want to risk retaliation. The combination of friend bias and comment bias creates a powerful illusion of mass approval even when it’s not there.
This is high-tech tribalism. Every politician leads a tribe – the few dozen (or for the higher-ranking ones, several hundred) people who publicly agree with them on almost everything. This tribalism is so rigid that disagreeing tribes are barely acknowledged to exist. When they are, they are depicted as misguided and inferior. Politicians who lap up public adulation like cats who lap up milk love it. And some are deceived by it.
There’s a lesson to be learned here. Social media is a valuable political, communication and organizing tool that is still evolving. If you can use it to get a couple thousand people to support your cause – and there are examplesoutthere – good for you. But if it results in the same group of a few dozen people always saying Yes to what you’re proposing, don’t believe that it represents genuine public opinion. If you do, then you’re vulnerable to REAL public opinion catching up with you!
Anti-immigration group Help Save Maryland (HSM) has a political agenda which it characterizes as “Working to make our elected officials accountable to the citizens of Maryland.” More specifically, the group seeks to make the State of Maryland inhospitable to illegal immigrants through influencing a variety of public policy decisions. HSM, like any other group, has a First Amendment right to express its political views. But it also claims a tax-exempt status with the federal Internal Revenue Service and that could be a problem.
Non-profit organizations may file with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to obtain tax-exempt status. One such category is governed by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which allows non-profit organizations (and contributions to them) to be exempt from federal taxes if they are organized for one or more of the following purposes: religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, educational, fostering amateur sports competition and the prevention of cruelty to children or animals.
Help Save Maryland.org is a multi-ethnic, grass roots, citizens’ organization with members state-wide. As a volunteer, nonprofit 501(c) 3, we accept donations (tax-deductible) to help defray our costs. Let’s work together through outreach and other activities to educate fellow Marylanders regarding the financial, social and economic costs of illegal immigration. Please donate by credit card online or postal mail your tax deductible donation to:
Help Save Maryland
PO Box 5742
Rockville, MD 20855
In return for being exempt from federal taxes, the IRS imposes restrictions on political activities that may be undertaken by 501(c)(3) non-profits. The first is an absolute prohibition on advocating for or against candidates in elections. The IRS states:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
HSM has broken this rule at least three times. In January 2008, the organization formally endorsed GOP candidates Andy Harris (CD1) and Steve Hudson (CD8) for Congress. In May 2009, HSM advocated for the defeat of Nancy Navarro in the 2009 Council District 4 special election. In an email to its supporters, HSM stated plainly, “We need your help this Saturday and Sunday May 2 & 3 in Montgomery County. HSM is fighting the election of Democratic Candidate Nancy Navarro for County Council in a District 4 special election scheduled for May 19.” The group called for volunteers to help defeat Navarro. And in June 2009, HSM openly called for the defeat of four state legislators for allegedly supporting illegal immigrants: Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17) and Delegates Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18), Sheila Hixson (D-20) and Saqib Ali (D-39).
Help Save Maryland makes endorsements for Congress.
Organizations with 501(c)(3) status are allowed to engage in other forms of political activity, but restrictions apply. On the topic of lobbying by 501(c)(3) groups, the IRS says this:
In general, if a substantial part of the activities of your organization consists of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, your organization’s exemption from federal income tax will be denied. However, a public charity (other than a church, an integrated auxiliary of a church or of a convention or association of churches, or a member of an affiliated group of organizations that includes a church, etc.) may avoid this result. Such a charity can elect to replace the substantial part of activities test with a limit defined in terms of expenditures for influencing legislation. Private foundations cannot make this election.
A general question for the reader. Check out HSM’s website. Do you see anything OTHER than propaganda there??
Any attempt to influence any legislation through an effort to affect the opinions of the general public or any segment thereof (grass roots lobbying), and
Any attempt to influence any legislation through communication with any member or employee of a legislative body or with any government official or employee who may participate in the formulation of legislation (direct lobbying).
There are exceptions, including “making available the results of nonpartisan analysis, study, or research” and “examining and discussing broad social, economic, and similar problems.” HSM no doubt would claim that its activities fall within these areas. But take a look at content like this attack on Gold Star father Khizr Khan as a “Muslim Brotherhood agent who wants to advance sharia law” and decide for yourself if this qualifies.
The IRS’s monetary limits on allowable lobbying expenditures, including “grass roots expenditures” intended to “affect the opinions of the general public or any segment thereof,” are complicated. For small non-profits with limited resources, a key rule is “the lobbying nontaxable amount for any organization for any tax year is the lesser of $1,000,000 or 20% of the exempt purpose expenditures if the exempt purpose expenditures are not over $500,000,” with different limits for larger organizations. Clearly, any organization that spends most of its resources on lobbying, including grass roots activities to affect public opinion, would have problems complying with this provision. HSM’s gathering of signatures for Robin Ficker’s term limits amendment, its email on the petition’s behalf and its defense of Donald Trump are definitely intended to “affect the opinions of the general public.” And more broadly, an individual perusing HSM’s website and blog would have difficulty spotting content that is NOT political in nature.
Help Save Maryland has every right to express political opinions. That’s not the issue here. But it does not have a right to engage in little other than political activity while being exempt from federal taxes and collecting tax-exempt contributions. Your author is no tax lawyer, but from the facts presented above, it seems possible that Help Save Maryland’s activities may run afoul of the IRS’s 501(c)(3) rules.
Help Save Maryland, a non-profit organization opposed to illegal immigration, sent out the following email on Friday, September 9 calling for its supporters to counter-protest an anti-Trump rally in the District. Note the email’s overtly political message. We will have more to say about this in an upcoming blog post.
*****
Members of the Hispanic illegal immigrant community, bused in and fed by their pimp handlers from CASA of Maryland, National Council of La Raza (The Race), and other taxpayer subsidized “citizen hate groups”, are holding a rally in front of the new Trump Hotel in DC on Monday, September 12, from 12 noon – 4PM. You can count on members of the DC City Council, always opposed to private sector investment and job creation, to be their as well.
Despite the fact the Trump Corporation has refurbished and remodeled the entire Old Post Building on 12th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, turning an eyesore into a new luxury hotel in record time and under budget, these groups are going to rally against the opening of this new landmark Trump Hotel.
I guess CASA and others were opposed to the many construction workers, Black, Hispanic and others who actually worked day and night on the project for over 1 year, rather than collect welfare, food stamps, free healthcare, housing and more like their illegal immigrant clientele. Same opposition I suppose for the hundreds of minority workers who will run and maintain this new hotel.
The Anti-Trump Rally Facebook page says 600 people are signed up as attending.
Facebook link:
https://www.facebook.com/events/175161309556207/
The Counter Protest, also from 12 noon- 4pm, will be to show our opposition to the illegal alien’s support for open borders, uncontrolled illegal immigration, and mass refugee resettlement. We fully support legal immigration and private sector job creation.
If you can make it, we will be on the opposite side of Pennsylvania Ave., near the Fogo de Chao Restaurant. Location is corner of 12th and Pennsylvania Ave, NW. Short walk from the Metro Center Station – Red, Blue, Orange lines at Metro Center.
Bring signs, Gadsden flags (the illegals love them), US flags, banners, etc. There will be some extra signs on site.
Last week, Governor Larry Hogan caused a splash in Ocean City with his new Executive Order mandating a post-Labor Day start for public schools. A few Democrats, led by Baltimore City Senator Bill Ferguson, Montgomery County Delegate Eric Luedtke and Montgomery County Senator Rich Madaleno, have pushed back hard. The two sides occupy their natural political territory: Hogan touts the economic benefits that employers in resort areas could receive from busy Labor Day weekends, while the Democrats reassert their traditional defense of public schools (whose officials overwhelmingly oppose the order).
Some Democratic lawmakers are spoiling for a fight, but wiser heads should prevail. If the Democrats try to overturn Hogan in the next general session, they will be handing the Governor a nice win for three reasons.
A post-Labor Day start is popular.
The Governor’s use of polls, especially those showing his high job approval ratings, clearly gets under the Democrats’ skin. But Hogan is not the first politician to leverage polls to his advantage and he certainly won’t be the last. Three different polls taken by Goucher College in the fall of 2014, the spring of 2015 and the fall of 2015 find support for starting school after Labor Day at 71%, 72% and 72% respectively. The most recent poll finds support at 69% or above for every gender, racial, age and party group isolated, including 72% approval among Democrats. Support for starting school after Labor Day is about even with support for sick leave and redistricting by an independent commission (another signature Hogan issue) and is above support for legalizing marijuana and opposition to fracking.
The Democrats are divided.
A number of Democrats have sponsored at least one of threerecentbills mandating Labor Day school start times. They include the following five Senators and nineteen Delegates:
Senator John Astle (Anne Arundel)
Senator Ed Kasemeyer (Baltimore County/Howard)
Senator Katherine Klausmeier (Baltimore County)
Senator James Mathias (Eastern Shore)
Senator Jim Rosapepe (Prince George’s/Anne Arundel)
Delegate Curt Anderson (Baltimore City)
Delegate Darryl Barnes (Prince George’s)
Delegate Kumar Barve (Montgomery)
Delegate Pamela Beidle (Anne Arundel)
Delegate Eric Bromwell (Baltimore County)
Delegate Mark Chang (Anne Arundel)
Delegate Diana Fennell (Prince George’s)
Delegate Barbara Frush (Prince George’s/Anne Arundel)
Delegate Tawanna Gaines (Prince George’s)
Delegate Cheryl Glenn (Baltimore City)
Delegate Keith Haynes (Baltimore City)
Delegate Anne Healey (Prince George’s)
Delegate Sheila Hixson (Montgomery)
Delegate Carolyn J. B. Howard (Prince George’s)
Delegate Aruna Miller (Montgomery)
Delegate Sheree Sample-Hughes (Eastern Shore)
Delegate Theodore Sophocleus (Anne Arundel)
Delegate Jay Walker (Prince George’s)
Delegate Alonzo Washington (Prince George’s)
In addition to those Democrats who support the Governor’s position (even if they’re not happy with implementing it through an Executive Order), many more will be loath to vote against something that has more than 70% public support. If the General Assembly leadership tries to ram through a bill next year overturning the Executive Order and they cannot get enough votes to override a veto, that would be a nightmare scenario. The Governor would look strong on a popular issue and the Democrats would look weak – VERY weak.
It’s a regional wedge issue.
If the Democrats try to overturn Hogan, understand what that could look like to Marylanders who live near places like Deep Creek Lake and the Eastern Shore: an effort by politicians from MoCo and the City to prevent economic prosperity in their areas. As one Democratic lawmaker who is not from the resort counties told us, “The jurisdictions that need the tourism are desperately in need of local government revenues, they are among the poorest in the state. To ignore that borders on public policy malpractice.” Governor Hogan wants to depict Democrats as pointy-headed, urban elitists who don’t care about the rest of Maryland. Democrats need to be careful about giving him ammunition for that argument.
Some may point out that Labor Day is not as strong a voting issue as education, transportation and taxes (the latter being OWNED by Hogan) and that the numbers may move as school systems rearrange their calendars. Fair enough: poll numbers can and do move, with those on marriage equality being the prime example. But making them move far enough and fast enough to justify a legislative response will likely require a massive PR campaign to do it. Who is going to wage such a campaign? It won’t be the Democrats themselves, whose communication capacity is dwarfed by the Governor’s – a problem on which no apparent progress is being made. It probably won’t be the state teachers union, which opposes the Executive Order but told the Post that overturning it was not a focus of theirs in the next general session. If not the Democrats or the teachers, who else is going to do this work?
Hogan WANTS the Democrats to fight him. There’s a reason why he did this through an Executive Order and a press conference rather than simply having the State Board of Education do it for him. The Governor wants this story to go on for months to maximize his benefits from it. So does the original architect of the issue, Comptroller Peter Franchot, whom the high priests of the Democratic establishment regard as an apostate. Do General Assembly Democrats really want to give these two a bigger win than what they already have?
Let’s remember the Governor’s goals here. First, he wants to increase his reelection vote percentage above the 51% he received last time. Second, he wants to get enough Republicans elected to the General Assembly so that his vetoes can be upheld, thus forcing Democrats to negotiate with him on virtually everything (including redistricting). The easiest way to do that is to pick up seven GOP seats in the House of Delegates, which the Republicans did in 2014. And third, he would like to eradicate the Democratic Party from all areas outside the Baltimore-Washington corridor, a feat that is already dangerously closeto reality. If the Governor can accomplish all three objectives, he will change Maryland into a genuine two-party state, at least at the level of state and local government. And he thinks the Labor Day issue will help him get over the top.
The Governor is dangling the bait. Will the Democrats take it?
By Adam Pagnucco. (Editor’s Note: As always, this post–and endorsement–reflects the views of the author. No broader support or opposition to David Moon is meant by this post or note.)
I still remember the day I first met one of the great masterminds of MoCo politics.
It was March 2008. A group of us gathered at SEIU Local 500’s headquarters to discuss how to help Nancy Navarro win the upcoming Council District 4 special election. The room was full of progressive activists, ace operatives and labor people, most of whom had lots to say. Your author, not being shy, ranted and raved with the best of them. Off at the end of the table sat a quiet, scrawny little guy who looked like he weighed about 80 pounds. He stared into his computer and said almost nothing during the two hour meeting. I elbowed the attendee next to me and asked, “Who’s that?” “Oh, that’s David Moon.”
Moon was already a household name among MoCo activists at that point, having been the campaign manager behind Jamie Raskin’s 33-point State Senate victory two years before. But he was just getting started. Moon’s skills were put to the test during the two special elections that followed as he endured a close loss by Navarro the first time, followed by an even closer win the next year. I had been involved with union organizing and political campaigns during my time in the labor movement, but I had not met many campaigners of his caliber before. Moon was simultaneously creative and disciplined – a rare combination for anyone. He would do the tedious, mind-numbing work of producing the walk sheets and handling the follow-up data entry, and then turn around and come up with something new on the fly. He could think big picture and then slap Apple Ballot stickers on lit all night. He seemed to live on Diet Coke and junk food. If you wanted to find him, the best way was to locate the largest pile of empty cans and wrappers and see who was sitting in the middle of it. Most remarkable of all, Moon was almost without pretense. All campaign managers have egos and some are unbearable. But Moon would meet any suggestion, whether brilliant or stupid, with a shrug and grab the good ones while quietly disposing of the clunkers.
The David Moon of today was still evolving in the 2008-2010 period, but even then you could see where he was headed. Most operatives are motivated by some combination of the thrill of winning, wanting a job with the victorious candidate, wanting to run for office themselves or just the fun of the game. None of that was enough for Moon. He had a Plan, and it was wildly ambitious. He wanted to build a base for true progressivism in Montgomery County. And by that I don’t mean just electing people who toss goodies to liberal interest groups while trying to move up the ladder. Moon’s vision was to combine the political and economic forces of new residents, economic development, labor rights, people of color, environmentalism, smart growth and political reform into a movement for real change. For a while, he did that through running other candidates’ campaigns and working with organizations like Action Committee for Transit, Communities for Transit, Casa de Maryland and FairVote. But like most good quarterbacks, he eventually called his own number and ran for office himself. He outwitted, outlasted and outplayed a number of capable opponents on his way to Annapolis.
As a Delegate, Moon has not backed away from any of the causes he supported early in his career, but he picked a focus: social justice. Most freshman Delegates regard the House Judiciary Committee as a backwater. They have to deal with the dominance of crusty old committee chair Joe Vallario and they can’t get the fundraising connections that members of other committees can (especially Economic Matters). But Moon wanted to be on Judiciary; in fact, he actively lobbied for it because it is the place where criminal justice issues are decided. And that’s where Moon has planted his flag.
Moon has been nothing less than a prophet on unfairness in the criminal justice system. When he was running for Delegate, he wrote:
It’s time for a grown-up conversation about our criminal justice system. Maryland leads the nation in marijuana arrests, and black residents of Montgomery County are over 3 times more likely to be arrested for possession than white residents. This costs us between $100-$200 million a year and ruins the lives of young people by barring them from employment, student loan eligibility and more. Let’s look at the evidence and start rolling back the failed “War on Drugs” in Maryland.
Months later, the Baltimore riots erupted partly as a result of these issues. Moon has been advocating on them ever since. He has introduced numerous bills to rein in justice system excesses. In 2015, he passed a bill through the House that would have excluded possession of a small amount of pot as a reason for parole violation. (It died in the Senate.) He has proposed letting voters decide whether to legalize marijuana and fought against efforts to recriminalize it. Slowly but surely he is helping criminal justice reform advance, and in the years to come, the work of Moon and his allies will pay off.
Moon’s work on criminal justice has produced something that’s uncommon for MoCo legislators: growing collaboration on a key priority with lawmakers from the City of Baltimore and Prince George’s County, who often co-sponsor his bills. Moon has also helped create an informal group of cooperating progressives who resist reactionary bills no matter their source – even including the Democratic leadership. A progressive caucus is a long-time dream of the left, but Annapolis leaders have always prevented it through a combination of pressure and cooptation. Such tactics do not work on the indefatigable Moon. He will not and cannot be deterred.
David Moon is an unusual elected official. His experience as one of MoCo’s top campaigners has given him the ability to pursue big picture goals through patience, methodical assemblage of leverage and the implementation of tactics designed to build momentum. He has demonstrated that capacity throughout his entire career, both in office and out. He has worked on nearly the entire spectrum of progressive issues. His priorities are perfectly in line with District 20 Democrats, who are probably the most progressive constituency in the entire state. He is the natural heir to Jamie Raskin. While I can appreciate the perspective of those who would like to appoint a caretaker to serve out the rest of Senator Raskin’s term and there are other good people available, the prospect of sending Moon to the upper chamber has too much upside to resist.
Brad Botwin, Director of the anti-immigration group Help Save Maryland, has sent out the following email promoting term limits.
*****
UPDATE ON THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY TERM LIMIT PETITION – CITIZENS WORKING TOGETHER CAN SUCCEED!
Recent e-mail I received on the status of the Term Limit Petition which will revitalize the MoCo County Council and County Executive if passed this November 2016 by the voters. The professional politicians are getting nervous!
Dear Concerned Voter:
Thank you for signing the non-partisan term limits petition for Montgomery County.
We did it! You and nearly 18,000 registered voters in Montgomery County signed the term limits petition (only 10,000 signatures were required). The signatures were submitted on August 8, which means you’ll be able to vote on the term limits question on the November 2018 general election ballot. When passed — and we need your vote to pass the measure — it will limit County Council members and the County Executive to serving no more than three consecutive terms, or 12 years.
One week from today, on Wednesday, August 24, you will have an opportunity to support term limits at a Montgomery County Charter Commission hearing.
Here is information about the hearing: http://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=16281
In order to testify, you must notify the commission in advance by e-mailing them at: charterreview.commission@montgomerycountymd.gov
If you can’t attend, but still want to convey your support for the term limits petition; email the commission at the same e-mail address in the previous sentence.
If you don’t want to speak out publicly on the 24th, please come to the hearing and stand with your neighbors in support of term limits for the County Council and County Executive.
If you want to know how you can help or need more information, let us know.
Thank you,
Montgomery County Citizens group in support of Term Limits sohenc@gmail.com
*****
The gmail account above belongs to Sharon Cohen, a member of the Montgomery County Republican Party’s Central Committee. This reinforces the central role played by both Help Save Maryland and the Republicans in pushing Robin Ficker’s terms limits charter amendment.
The state’s election law requires groups advocating on ballot questions to register with the State Board of Elections and file campaign finance reports. According to the state’s summary guide on campaign finance laws, “Once the petition process to place a question on the ballot is completed, a ballot issue committee must be formed before money is collected or spent to promote the success or defeat of the ballot issue.”
So far, no committee on Montgomery County term limits has registered with the state. Hopefully, any group advocating on the issue will obey the law, file reports and show their funding. Voters may find that information useful as they consider whether to support term limits.
It was the spring of 2008. Five-term County Council Member Marilyn Praisner, who had represented District 4 since 1990, had passed away and eight candidates were running for her seat. One of them was a woman. One of them was a person of color born in another country.
Her name was Nancy Navarro.
At that time, District 4 included most of US-29 north of Downtown Silver Spring to the Howard County border and the areas south of Olney, east of Rockville and north of Wheaton. It had little in the way of restaurants or shopping. There was the aging, emptying business district in Burtonsville. There was the decrepit, asphalt-covered shopping center in Glenmont. Here and there, small and mid-size retail strips clung to the sides of New Hampshire Avenue and other major roads. A tiny colony of fast food and lowbrow restaurants had just sprung up on US-29 at Tech Road. Walkable urban shopping was nowhere to be found. If residents wanted that, they would have to drive to Downtown Silver Spring to get it.
None of this was an accident. For years and years, the civic leaders and activists who dominated the district’s politics had worked hard to keep development out. Mrs. Praisner was their champion. They regarded development as a bad thing, attracting both traffic and “undesirables.” But newer residents, including people of color, wanted the restaurants, jobs and shopping that most other people around the county had. Colesville resident Nancy Navarro was one of them, and soon she became their champion.
Navarro stood out during the 2008 special election, and not just because of her gender and heritage. The other seven candidates running for Mrs. Praisner’s seat, including her husband Don, adhered to her vision of little or no growth. (Don Praisner’s campaign slogan was literally “Fulfilling the Vision.”) Navarro instead talked about the benefits of economic development, such as creating jobs for residents and giving them amenities that they had not previously had. Navarro was also supported by many in the business and real estate communities and the public employee unions. None of this sat well with the old guard, who regarded developers as evil and unions as tax-happy. Navarro quickly became a target.
The March debate at the Aspen Hill library typified the direction of the campaign: nearly every other candidate concentrated their fire on Navarro. Their attacks centered on the allegation that she was allegedly a “tool” of developers and unions. (It didn’t help that MCPS Superintendent Jerry Weast invited union leaders to his house to get them to endorse Navarro.) But there was more to it than that. To Navarro’s supporters, the implication of this “tool” argument was that women and people of color were supposedly not intelligent or strong enough to make up their own minds, and that when they made common cause with others, they would inevitably fall under their “control.” Furthermore, while Don Praisner’s supporters criticized Navarro for taking contributions from developers and businesses, Mrs. Praisner had done the exact same thing for years. Later, it was revealed that Don Praisner himself accepted money from a property owner in the district seeking redevelopment.
Much of this is par for the course in the rocky world of political campaigns. After all, opposition to change frequently arises in politics and outrage can be selective. But with Navarro on the ballot, it mutated into something far darker: a toxic stew of racism and xenophobia. Don Praisner defeated Navarro in the 2008 Democratic primary and would serve on the council for less than a year before he passed away. When Navarro returned to run again in the 2009 special election, the forces of extremism were prepared.
Most bizarre of all was an email sent to Navarro’s campaign asking about her immigration status. The author wrote, “I am informally involved with a group of Independents and we are trying to identify a candidate that we feel comfortable endorsing. It would be great if you could put the rumors to rest and provide information as to when (what year) and where, which state, Ms. Navarro received her naturalization or citizenship. Thank you.” In fact, the author – who used a fake name – was a GOP activist who wrote for the party and had testified against drivers licenses for illegal immigrants.
Robin Ficker was involved too. The 2008 GOP nominee, Mark Fennel, was a Ficker protégé, had spread the Hugo Chavez rumors and threatened to unleash “the Dogs of War” on Navarro. In 2009, Ficker “moved” to District 4 to run for the seat and promptly began sending out illegal flyers. During a televised campaign debate, Ficker waved a set of decade-old tax liens against Navarro and her husband in his opponent’s face. Ficker did not use Help Save Maryland’s race-baiting tactics directly, but he did not repudiate them either.
Given this history, it’s no surprise that Help Save Maryland’s participation in Ficker’s term limits initiative was spurred in part by a desire to knock off Navarro. The group has never made its peace with Navarro’s election and has sent out numerous emails slamming her over the years. Supporters of term limits have many motivations, but Help Save Maryland is quite clear about theirs: they want to slam the county’s gates shut to “illegal aliens.”
Will any of this make a difference in the current debate over term limits? Probably not. Few voters have heard of Help Save Maryland and understand what the group believes. Even Ficker is less infamous now that his NBA heckling days are mostly over. In any event, voters are more likely to see term limits through the prism of their own perceived self-interest rather than how they impact specific elected officials.
But make no mistake: the treatment of Nancy Navarro during the 2009 special election is a shameful blot on the county’s political history. It must not be forgotten. It must not be repeated. And hopefully, her successors will be treated with the honor and respect that all upstanding candidates deserve.
In the latest development in the county’s continuing liquor monopoly saga, the County Executive has established a task force to explore options for scaling back or eliminating the monopoly. One condition applies: the monopoly earns money for the county and the Executive does not want to lose it. Last February, he told Bethesda Magazine, “I have no problem with privatization per se, but we need to make sure the county’s residents and taxpayers are protected on the financial issue.”
That’s a reasonable point of view. Here’s a proposal to End the Monopoly without taking a financial hit.
First, let’s recall that the goal of last winter’s End the Monopoly campaign was never to abolish the Department of Liquor Control (DLC). Rather, we were seeking to allow private sector competition with the DLC at both the wholesale and retail levels. Licensees would be able to buy from the county, private wholesalers or both and consumers would be able to buy all beverages, including spirits, from county stores, private stores or both. That does not mean that DLC would get wiped out. Indeed, it has one competitive advantage that no private wholesaler has: it is a one-stop shop for all alcoholic beverages. Some licensees are willing to tolerate DLC’s problems in return for the convenience of dealing with one bill and one truck. DLC’s Acting Director claims that their performance is improving and the county employee union President told the latest meeting of the task force that he has spoken to dozens of retailers who wish to stay with DLC. If they are correct, private competition will not eliminate DLC, but it could reduce its revenues.
The closest relevant example to what would happen if DLC were exposed to competition is Worcester County, Maryland, which opened up its spirits monopoly in 2014. Worcester’s DLC Director testified to the MoCo Delegation that within a year, the county had lost 42% of its wholesale business to private competition but had kept 96% of its retail business. Now Worcester County’s monopoly was run far more poorly than MoCo’s DLC as it was found guilty of massive violations of state law back in 2010, so MoCo’s DLC could fare much better with competition. But for the sake of argument, let’s use its experience as a starting point.
Any analysis of what would happen to MoCo’s DLC under competition must recognize that the liquor monopoly makes two payments to the county: a direct return to its general fund and debt service paid on bonds guaranteed by liquor profits. Potential shortfalls in both those areas must be addressed.
The General Fund
DLC’s operating profits, projected to be $20.7 million in FY17, are paid directly into the county’s general fund. That amount accounts for 0.4% of the county’s $5.3 billion operating budget. What would happen to those profits if the private sector were allowed to compete with DLC? According to the county’s Office of Legislative Oversight, DLC’s FY14 revenues were split pretty evenly between wholesale ($136 million) and retail ($127 million) operations. If Worcester County’s experience occurred in MoCo, 42% of the wholesale revenue and 4% of the retail revenue would be at risk from competition, so DLC’s total revenue would decline by 24%. If DLC’s operating costs scale with its operating revenues, its net income would fall by $5 million.
Second, new tax revenues will be available in a world of competition. The state’s Bureau of Revenue Estimates released a report last year finding that if DLC were completely abolished, $22.8 million in tax revenues would be generated, mostly from customer repatriation. (That is actually larger than DLC’s return to the county’s general fund.) The problem is that only $1.8 million would accrue to the county in local income taxes, while the rest would go to the state (primarily through sales taxes). The solution is to have the state share its incremental revenue increase with the county for a period of time. After all, if the county is giving up a financial asset, it should share in the returns from that.
A formula could be constructed that ties incremental increases in state revenue from alcohol sales in MoCo to DLC’s reduced income. For example, in Year X, if DLC earns $5 million less than its baseline and the state earns $6 million more than its baseline, up to $5 million could be returned to the county. The formula should cap returned receipts to the county at the amount that the state gains so that the state doesn’t lose money. And it could be temporary and transitional since at some point MoCo would be expected to behave like nearly all other counties in the nation and pay its bills with no liquor monopoly.
The math is clear: it’s entirely possible for the county to suffer no net losses at no cost to the state with incremental revenue sharing and a few more liquor stores.
The Bonds
The county has issued three tranches of revenue bonds guaranteed by liquor profits, the last of which matures in FY33. The outstanding balance on the bonds is $114 million as of June 30, 2014 and DLC is projected to pay $10.9 million in debt service on them in the current fiscal year. If the liquor profits available to pay for these bonds were to disappear, another source of revenue must be found to replace them.
Such a revenue source can be easily found in the county’s budget: county cable franchise fees. Federal law allows local jurisdictions to charge cable companies in return for using public right-of-way. The maximum amount allowed by federal law – 5% of cable bills – is contained in the franchise agreements the county negotiates with Verizon, Comcast and RCN. Because cable bills rise every year, the county gets more money out of this as time passes. Also, because this money is unencumbered by DLC’s employee and capital expenses, it is not subject to cost changes like DLC’s profits are. Cable franchise fees are actually a more stable revenue source to guarantee bonds than are liquor profits.
According to the county’s cable budget, the county is projected to collect $17.7 million in cable franchise fees in FY17. Of this amount, $3.8 million is passed on to the Cities of Rockville and Takoma Park and the Maryland Municipal League in compensation for use of municipal rights of way, leaving $13.9 million available. The county has obtained legal advice holding that the county can do virtually whatever it wants with the 5% cable franchise fees.
How is the cable money currently spent? Most of it is given out to the PEG (public/education/ government) TV channels. The two largest are the county’s in-house news channel, County Cable Montgomery, and the non-profit Montgomery Community Media, which is also financed by private sector contributions. The problem is that no one knows how many people actually watch this programming. The huge majority of their YouTubeclips get a few dozen views each at best. Is this truly worth millions of dollars of public money?
The county could easily retire its current liquor bonds and replace them with new bonds that are guaranteed by both liquor profits and cable franchise fees. Liquor profits would be the first source of debt service payment, with any shortfall covered by cable fees as a supplement. Even if liquor profits entirely disappear, the $13.9 million in annual cable fees – an amount that has been growing steadily for years – could cover the $11 million in annual debt service by themselves. And over the long term, this arrangement would be temporary as the bonds will eventually be paid off.
There you have it. Through a combination of a few more stores, incremental revenue sharing with the state and restructuring of the liquor bonds, the county could free itself from its liquor monopoly with no significant financial consequences. No new taxes or fees are necessary. And the county would see the creation of new jobs, more income, more economic activity and greater competitiveness with its neighbors as a result.
It’s a huge opportunity. Will Montgomery County go for it?
On Monday night, July 11, some MoCo residents received the following robocall.
I’m Tara Huber. I live in Montgomery County and I’m a county worker in child protective services. My job is to protect the vulnerable children in the county and can be very stressful. My job is made even more stressful by the fact that the County under the leadership of Council President Nancy Floreen has failed time and again to give me and my co-workers the right tools to effectively do our jobs. Floreen has mismanaged the county budget to such an extreme that we don’t have enough staff or tools to manage the high case loads. Protect your Montgomery. Call President Floreen at 240-777-7959 and tell her you expect better management of our tax dollars. Paid for by UFCW Local 1994, 600 South Frederick Avenue Gaithersburg Maryland 20877.
This is a new shot fired by MCGEO, the county employee union, in its on-again, off-again conflict with the County Council. But it’s a risky one that could backfire.
First, some background. MCGEO has a number of problems with the council, including:
The council’s trimming of employee benefits during the Great Recession.
The council’s vote to end effects bargaining for the police union, which was later upheld by voters.
The introduction of legislation by Council President Nancy Floreen that would change collective bargaining procedures in ways that the union claims would weaken its ability to negotiate.
These events and more have caused MCGEO President Gino Renne to tell the Post that his union might support Robin Ficker’s term limits amendment. And on the night before the hearing on Floreen’s collective bargaining bill, the above robocall went out. None of this is a coincidence. Indeed, the union is gearing up for battle. And no one, whether friend or foe of MCGEO and its fearsome President, has ever claimed that the union backs down when it is under threat.
The problem is that the robocall has little merit and such tactics may provoke the council to do even more against the union’s interest.
Montgomery County has a gigantic Health and Human Services (HHS) budget. In FY16, HHS had an approved budget of $289 million, with 1,359 full-time positions and 327 part-time positions. Children, Youth and Family Services, for which the robocall speaker (a MCGEO Vice-President) works, had an FY16 approved budget of $79 million with 525 full-time equivalent positions.
Using FY09 data, your author found that Montgomery County had the biggest HHS budget (along with housing) of any local jurisdiction in Maryland. On a per capita basis, MoCo spent more than double the state average and lagged only the City of Baltimore. MoCo spent more than 8 times on HHS and housing than did Prince George’s County. From FY10 (the peak year prior to the recession) through FY16, MoCo’s HHS budget grew by 13%. And as for the County Council specifically, it adds millions of dollars on top of the Executive’s recommended budget for HHS every year. Below is a list of the HHS items added by the council to the Executive’s budget this year, financed with a nine percent increase in property taxes.
It’s hard to argue that the council pinches pennies on HHS. MCGEO has pooh-poohed the tax hike on its website. What would the union like to see? Does the council need to raise property taxes by 20% to get its approval?
There is more. MCGEO is considering supporting term limits for county elected officials. Fair enough. The union has some legitimate grievances and any union would fight against a breaking of its collective bargaining agreement. But let’s remember that the collective bargaining bill detested by MCGEO only had two sponsors at introduction, Nancy Floreen and Craig Rice. That doesn’t speak well of the bill’s chances under normal circumstances. But if MCGEO amps up its tactics and really does come out for term limits, could it actually help to recruit votes for Floreen’s bill? After all, what do term-limited Council Members have to lose? And let’s not forget that this council will decide on funding two more MCGEO annual compensation packages before the next council is seated.
In May 2011, when the County Council met to pass a budget that included cuts to employee benefits, a group of nine clowns appeared in the audience. One of them wore a name tag with the first name of the Council President. The police union refused to admit responsibility but was widely blamed. Less than two months later, the council voted unanimously to repeal the police union’s right to bargain the effects of management decisions.
The Washington Post’s legendary editorial from 1988 says it all: Anyone But Robin Ficker. The only problem with it is that it’s nearly thirty years old. And the scourge of Montgomery County has been plenty busy since then!
Robin Ficker is well known to elected officials and veteran activists because of his forty-year rampage through the county. But for those who have not yet encountered him, or have been exposed to him only through his most recent attempt to pass term limits, here are Four Facts about the man local politicians hate the most.
He is a World-Class Heckler
If there is ever a Heckler Hall of Fame, Robin Ficker would be a charter member. He has all the tools of heckling: a booming voice, boundless energy, a rapacious hunger for attention of any kind and absolutely no fear. For many years, he was indisputably the Number One heckler in the NBA, harassing opponents of his beloved Washington Bullets from directly behind their bench. Ficker once explained the key to his heckling technique to ESPN.
It’s important to really read up on the opposing team and follow the game very closely, so that you’re conversant with the psychological weaknesses of the other team,” advises Robin Ficker, the Bethesda-based attorney who was once the NBA’s preeminent heckler.
Ficker has been continually running for office for more than 40 years. The list of offices is nearly endless: U.S. Senate, U.S. House, Maryland Senate and House, MoCo Executive, County Council and school board. (Does anyone know if Ficker has run for President?) He once considered running for Governor and sought out a running mate through a classified ad that said, “Prefer female who is tax-cutting Republican, ambitious, intelligent, fearless, adventurous, hardworking and young (age 30 by 01/07) with flexible schedule to traverse Maryland.”
His campaign style is sadly familiar to wincing voters: thousands of illegal signs placed in public rights-of-way and self-funded illegal mailerslacking authority lines. District residency requirements mean little to him. Former Gazette columnist Blair Lee wrote in 2008, “In one election, he circumvented the ban against posting his orange ‘My Friend Ficker’ election signs on utility poles by hanging them 20 feet high on every other pole. We’re talking about a guy who, in the dead of night, climbs hundreds and hundreds of utility poles nailing up his lawn signs.”
Ficker’s electoral taint applies not only to himself, but to others. The Post once reported that “he started a write-in campaign for Edward M. Kennedy in New Hampshire in 1972 only to learn his funding had come from the Nixon White House, which wanted to discredit Edmund Muskie, then considered a threat to Nixon.”
His One Term in the House of Delegates was an Epic Disaster
Early in his political career, Ficker actually got elected to the House of Delegates as a Republican from District 15. Annapolis quickly regretted it. His colleagues said, “they have never met anyone who lives for publicity the way Ficker does.” His “long, protracted questions, sometimes about the most minor issues” provoked “a considerable amount of exasperation at times.” The Post noted that his “gadfly politics and long speeches often emptied the House chamber in Annapolis.” Speaker Ben Cardin said this of Ficker: “I would be glad to make a contribution to Robin’s campaign… As long as he runs for the Senate or Congress or anything but the House of Delegates, I stand ready to help.” Possibly his only meaningful accomplishment was to help kill D.C. voting rights.
Ficker’s name on a bill was regarded as the kiss of death. Even his support could kill a bill. One lawmaker moaned, “The bill is dead…. I mean, if I had a bill I wanted killed the first thing I’d do is persuade Robin Ficker to speak for it.” On another occasion, a Delegate begged Ficker not to speak on behalf of his bill. Ficker did it anyway. The Delegate retaliated by breaking his microphone.
There were many stories about Ficker during his four years in the statehouse. Here is one from the Post.
Ficker shares a suite of offices with fellow Montgomery Republicans Constance A. Morella and [Luiz] Simmons. When the three moved in, Morella’s name, as the top vote-getter, was on top. Ficker switched the names. Somebody switched them back (Morella says she knows nothing about the incident.) Ficker switched them again. When they were switched one more time, Ficker had the final word–he bought a tube of Krazy Glue and glued his nameplate in on top.
Ficker was unperturbed by his notoriety. “At least I know I’m noticed. There are a lot of people in Annapolis who would like some recognition.”
Ficker was defeated in 1982 by Democrat Gene Counihan, much to the relief of Annapolis. To this day, Counihan proudly embraces the nickname he was given by his grateful colleagues:
The Ficker Kicker.
Ficker running for Montgomery County Council in 2009.
He is Frequently in Trouble
Ficker has been in trouble repeatedly ever since he was expelled from West Point in 1963, in part for “speaking abusively to hospital personnel while being treated for a broken leg.”
It’s hard to track all the Ficker Incidents. Most of them have to do with his misconduct as an attorney. Should we begin with 1988, when Maryland’s Attorney Grievance Commission accused Ficker of an ethics violation for advertising his expertise in palimony suits even though the state does not allow palimony? (He was later cleared, but a judge said the ads were in “bad taste.”) Or how about 1990, when the Court of Appeals reprimanded him for failing to show up at the trials of two clients? In 1995, the Attorney Grievance Commission slammed him when he “allegedly left clients stranded without representation in court and in one case sent a novice lawyer who was unfamiliar with the case into the courtroom.” There is also Ficker’s 1996 conviction of battery and malicious destruction of property in connection with a traffic accident involving a pregnant woman. The woman testified that Ficker “exploded in anger,” “was out of control,” and broke her sunglasses after he bumped her car and she tried to get contact information from him. After Ficker appealed, he was acquitted of destruction of property and the battery charge was dropped.
Ficker’s law license was suspended in 1998 and 2007 for violations of competence and diligence. Here’s what the Court of Appeals wrote after the second suspension.
As we observed initially, this is the fifth time that Ficker has run afoul of his obligation to manage his office in a proper manner. He was warned twice by this Court, in 1990 and in 1998, and, despite his claimed improvements, seems not to have learned enough from those warnings. As the result of his cavalier attention to proper office management (1) one client (Robertshaw), facing incarceration, was virtually abandoned until the eve of trial and then was represented by an associate who had not read the entire file, who was unaware that his client had two prior convictions, and who first presented the available options to her in the lobby of the courthouse on the day of trial, (2) another client (Paulk), facing criminal charges that could have resulted in incarceration, was abandoned on what she assumed would be a trial date and which, only by fortuitous circumstance unknown to her or Ficker, had been limited to an advice of rights proceeding, and (3) a third client (Ponto) ended up having an arrest warrant issued against him. We see in these violations an inexcusable lack of concern on Ficker’s part for the welfare of his clients, an unwillingness, after four warnings, to make the necessary improvements to his office management. Accordingly, we believe that the appropriate sanction is an indefinite suspension from the practice of law, with the right to reapply for admission no earlier than one year from the effective date of the suspension.
Would you want to be represented by this man?
A Ficker mailer from his recent campaign in Congressional District 6.
So given all of the above, why did Ficker’s anti-tax charter amendment pass in 2008, and why is his latest term limits amendment favored to pass? The answer is that MoCo’s elected leaders overreach, especially on the issue of raising taxes. By and large, the county’s electorate appreciates the role of government in solving problems and maintaining a high quality of life. But county leaders have approved six major tax increases in the last fifteen fiscal years and voters are getting tired of it. That’s why they voted to limit property tax hikes in 2008, and the County Council responded with a nine-percent increase this year. It’s almost impossible to give someone like Ficker the political high ground, but that’s what has happened. And it appears that elected officials will pay the price.
But as for Robin Ficker himself? The voters have made their decision on his many runs for office over the course of decades, and it’s not going to change now:
