Uncategorized

Ana Sol Gutierrez Files for Public Financing in Council District 1

By Adam Pagnucco.

Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez, who has served District 18 since 2002, has created a public financing account for a run in Council District 1.  While Ana is known for running up big vote totals in Wheaton, she actually lives in Chevy Chase and is eligible to run in the increasingly jam-packed D1 race.  Ana is known for her passionate work on behalf of immigrants and her enthusiastic support for the Purple Line, the latter being unusual among District 18 state legislators.  Her run for council will have a huge impact on both the District 1 and District 18 races, subjects on which David Lublin and I will have plenty to say in the near future.

Share
campaign finance

Why Charity and Public Financing Don’t Mix

Adam Pagnucco was very kind in his discussion of problems regarding County Council Candidate Brandy Brooks’s desire to split funds raised for her campaign with disaster relief charities. He ascribed positive motives to the candidate and described her idea as ethical but not legal in contrast to behavior by some that is not ethical but nonetheless legal.

Charitable contributions from campaign funds, however, are heavily circumscribed to charitable events that are closely related to campaigns, such as buying tickets for an event or an ad in a program, for a number of good reasons.

The first is to avoid the public having to fund a candidate’s chosen charities on top of funding their campaign—an idea that Our Revolution Montgomery County Ed Fischman thought was great in his original, later altered, post sharing Brooks’s idea. Beyond the considerable cost, the County did not adopt public financing to fund charities but to encourage behavior that limits the influence of large contributors and reins in spending.

Next, one can imagine candidates throwing fundraisers in the guise of raising money for charity as a means of meeting the threshold to receive matching funds for public financing. This would obviously subvert the intent of the law, which was to force candidates to raise money in relatively small amounts from a wide range of people. As a result, qualifying for matching funds would no longer demonstrate a certain level of grassroots support.

The definition of charity is also quite wide with many organizations engaged in activities much more controversial than disaster relief. One can, for example, set up 501(c)(3)—an organization that can accept tax-free charitable contributions—to educate people about the dangers of abortion or the benefits of abortion remaining a legal option.

On the other hand, how would government assess Brooks’s nice proposal to donate money for disaster relief in Sierra Leone if the charity is not a legally registered American organization and not subject to scrutiny? It’s a very worthy cause but hard for either officials or citizens to assess.

Donors might also start trying to claim a portion of campaign donations as tax write offs. My guess is they would be on shaky ground because there would be little concrete evidence that the money went to a legal charity beyond a candidate’s promise to spend it that way. Nevertheless, as Donald Trump has demonstrated vividly, not everyone fulfills promises to give to charity but many are willing to try to claim dubious tax benefits.

Unscrupulous people have organized charities in which the bulk of the money goes to employees, often relatives, rather to the charity’s avowed focus. Again, clearly not Brooks’s focus here, but a real problem that the State would need to guard against.

Relatedly, mixing charity and campaign finance would further burden government with trying to keep track of what portion of donations are charitable contributions and if they were then donated in a legal fashion. This is a task they are completely ill-equipped to conduct and would require more money and staff.

In short, this is a great example of how a well-intentioned idea can prove very problematic.

Brooks and Our Revolution Responses

Brandy Brooks gave a response on the Seventh State’s Facebook page that shows a candidate dealing with a campaign issue in a calm, measured way designed to reassure voters. Most will commend her commitment to adhere to the law and will (like Adam Pagnucco and myself) not think that she ever intended otherwise.

On the other hand, her plan to spend money on the legally allowed activities, such as buying tickets to events, does not comport with what most think of as disaster relief. A tendency to jump in without thinking through an idea can give voters pause, though her measured response and a willingness to correct problems shows character and limits any damage.

Our Revolution Montgomery County Chair Ed Fischman’s strong accusations against Adam Pagnucco and passionate use of naiveté as a defense on this page earlier today are less helpful. Voters like candidates with passion but also people and organizations, such as Our Revolution, to know what they’re doing.

Share
Uncategorized

Our Revolution Responds

Edward Fischman of Our Revolution Montgomery County responds to yesterday’s post:

Adam Pagnucco wrote a piece here in The Seventh State that starts with a legal conclusion that isn’t clear. It accuses Brandy Brooks’ campaign of breaking the law. Ms. Brooks has discussed the matter with the State Board of Elections and has obtained definitive guidance on how to achieve the charitable goals she set out to accomplish with her Power 100 promotion.

I am writing because Mr. Pagnucco’s piece curiously dragged me into the matter, because I shared her promotion in a post on social media (editor’s note: posted above). We are in a strange era where the act of sharing a post on Facebook post becomes news in itself. So be it.

There is an important lesson or two in these events. First, politics is a game played for keeps. Those of us who have become involved in grassroots organizing may be unprepared for the consequences, but it seems we must be careful about what we share in social media when we are promoting a cause or a candidate we are interested in. If we embellish in sharing a candidate’s own carefully crafted online postings, we must be careful that we are not misstating anything or we risk hurting the cause, organization or candidate we wish to promote. I goofed.
There must be, however, a concomitant obligation for those who seek to be opinion-makers and newsmakers in blogging about politics. Mr. Pagnucco’s piece used my mistake to call out Brandy Brooks’ campaign. That was without basis in fact, fairness or good sense. Even a cursory effort to inquire would have led Mr. Pagnucco in a different direction.

After I posted in a Facebook group to share Ms. Brooks well-intended fundraising effort to facilitate charitable donation by her supporters, one councilmember helpfully raised a concern to me about it. That accomplished two things. First, it forced me to look at what I’d written and realize that I’d badly mischaracterized Ms. Brooks’ own promotion of this effort. I corrected that within an hour of the original posting — and noted that I was correcting my own error.

The other thing that this councilmember’s outreach achieved was it spurred me to find a way to connect with Ms. Brooks campaign to raise that councilmember’s concerns about whether Ms. Brooks’ page adequately explained the program in a way that would be one hundred percent kosher. By the end of the day, I had managed to make contact and share the concern. The next day — Saturday — I also sought the candidate at a public event over the weekend, to make sure she understood why I thought it was important for them to speak to the State Board of Elections to make certain the effort was conducted consistently with state financing laws and regulations.

I am impressed with Brandy Brooks’ candidacy. I have no role with the campaign, and certainly do not represent her. Mr. Pagnucco wrote it was “unclear” if I am connected with the campaign. There’s an unspoken implication that i might be. Whatever his role in writing on this site, Mr. Pagnucco has worked in journalism and should know better. He could have asked me — or asked the Brooks campaign — about whether I was connected to the campaign, and about the nature of my post. I would have told him that I did not know Brandy Brooks 2 months ago and before this and interacted with her less than an handful of times. Also, I could have pointed out to him that I had revised my Facebook pose, to correct my error in describing the Power 100 effort.

My description was a mistake, but it is no way newsworthy. I was deeply concerned when I realized what I’d mistakenly described the campaign’s proposal for the donations — but thought I’d done very little harm, as it received one “Like,” before I corrected it. Finding my error reposted at the Seventh State is…both surprising and embarrassing, but my reputation is not my aim in writing here. I do not want my error to reflect badly on Brandy Brooks’ campaign.

After the piece was published, Brandy reached out to me to tell me not to worry about any of this — and thanked for me trying to be helpful in sharing information about the opportunity to support her campaign and charities she felt worthy. She has explained to me what steps she is taking to remain compliant with Maryland’s campaign financing laws.

More importantly though, she has shown me incredible grace and empathy, reaffirming my initial impressions of her. Grace and empathy are qualities that too often seem missing in our society in our politics and in our government. These were the qualities that motivated Ms. Brooks’ intention to encourage charitable support for disaster victims.
Those of us who opine in public forums could all use an injection of grace and empathy. That should be our starting point. When those qualities are replaced by cynicism, we are all made smaller.
Share
Adam Pagnucco, campaign finance, Council At-Large

At-Large Candidate’s Proposal Breaks Campaign Finance Laws

By Adam Pagnucco.

Council At-Large candidate Brandy Brooks, who is participating in MoCo’s public financing system, would like to help natural disaster victims.  That’s a laudable goal.  But she is proposing to spend campaign contributions to do so.  The problem is that’s illegal under state and county campaign finance laws.

On her website and on Facebook, Brooks promotes an initiative that she calls “Power 100,” in which she invites 100 contributors to donate a combined $2,500 to her campaign, half of which would be paid out to a number of charities helping natural disaster victims.  The charities include organizations helping victims of Hurricane Harvey, Hurricane Irma, a mudslide in Sierra Leone and floods in South Asia.

Brooks supporter Ed Fischman went a step further in a posting on the Our Revolution in Montgomery County Facebook page, asserting that public matching funds would be used for disaster relief.  To be fair, it’s unclear whether Fischman speaks for Brooks and Brooks has not yet qualified for public matching funds.

State and county campaign finance laws prohibit these kinds of expenditures.  According to the State Board of Elections’ Summary Guide, there must be a nexus between campaign account expenditures and the promotion of a candidate’s campaign for those expenditures to be legal.  The guide specifically addresses charitable contributions, stating:

Generally, campaign funds may not be used solely for charitable purposes. Maryland law requires campaign funds to be used for the purpose of supporting or opposing a candidate, question, or political committee. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that contributors give to campaign committees for one important reason – they want to support the committee’s candidate, question, or political party. When campaign funds are spent for a non-campaign related purpose, it frustrates the intent of the contributor.

However, there are instances when a charitable donation is permissible because it is for a campaign purpose. For example, a candidate may permissibly use campaign funds to attend a charitable event since attending the event increases the candidate’s visibility and allows the candidate to network with potential voters and donors.

ง 13-247 of state election law does allow certain kinds of charitable contributions to be made by accounts that are closing and liquidating their assets, a case that clearly does not apply to Brooks.

Additionally, Montgomery County’s public campaign financing law states, “A participating candidate may only use the eligible contributions and the matching public contribution for a primary or general election for expenses incurred for the election.”  This statement is repeated in the county’s summary of the law.  No one could construe helping disaster relief victims as a primary or general election expense.  It’s noteworthy that the county’s language applies not just to public funds but also to individual contributions made under the public financing program.

Your author really hated to write this blog post but it had to be done.  Generally speaking, when we have examined campaign finance issues in the past, we have sometimes seen behavior that may not be ethical but is legal.  This case is the opposite: what Brooks is doing comes from the best of intentions but does not comply with the law.  Brooks is free to discuss the plight of disaster victims all she wants.  She could also organize a private fundraiser for victims separate from her campaign account.  But if she goes ahead and uses her campaign funds for disaster relief contributions, she will risk sanctions from the state, the county or both.

Share
Council District 3, Shane Robinson, Valerie Ervin

Robinson, Platt Endorse Shnider in Council District 3

Montgomery County Council District 3 candidate Ben Shnider has been endorsed by Delegates Shane Robinson (D-39), Andrew Platt (D-17) and the leader of a hotel employees local union.  Former Council Member Valerie Ervin (D-5) has also offered praise for Shnider’s candidacy.  We reprint Shnider’s press release below.

*****

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

September 15, 2015

Contact:  Ilya Braverman

Email:     ilya@shniderforcouncil.com

Website: https://www.shniderforcouncil.com

Progressive Leaders Endorse Ben Shnider for Montgomery County Council in District 3

Delegates Robinson and Platt join Unite Here Local 23 in endorsing Shnider’s council campaign ahead of kick-off event

Rockville, MD – On Saturday, Sept. 16 at 1 PM, Ben Shnider’s campaign for Montgomery County Council will host a canvass kick-off event at the Lincoln Park Community Center in Rockville.

Among those in attendance will be several notable community leaders who are endorsing Shnider’s campaign for progressive change in District 3.

  • Delegate Shane Robinson (D-39), Chair, Montgomery County House Delegation:

“I’ve known Ben for years and have seen him in action. I’m confident he’ll work tirelessly to ensure all members of our community can afford to live and thrive in Montgomery County. I know he also shares my commitment to keeping pesticides out of the Chesapeake watershed and a solid waste management strategy that moves aggressively toward zero-waste. I’m proud to endorse his campaign.”

  • Delegate Andrew Platt (D-17):

“I hear from families that I represent in Rockville and Gaithersburg every day who are struggling to keep up with the skyrocketing cost-of-living. I’m endorsing Ben’s campaign for County Council because I know he’ll be a tireless advocate for these working families.”

  • Bert Bayou, President, Unite Here Local 23:

“Our 1,000+ members in Montgomery County are hungry for leaders who will work with us to ensure we’re treated fairly on the job and paid a living wage. We’re confident Ben will be such a leader and enthusiastically endorse his campaign.”

In addition to these three endorsements, former County Councilmember Valerie Ervin said the following about Ben’s candidacy:

  • Former County Councilmember Valerie Ervin (D-5):

“I’m thrilled Ben is running and can’t wait to join him for his kick-off. Ben’s a talented organizer and a principled progressive who would be a passionate advocate for the underserved on the County Council. It’s time to pass the torch to the next generation of progressive leaders in this county. Ben is such a leader.”

About Ben:

Ben Shnider is a civic activist running to represent District 3 on the Montgomery County Council. He’s running to ensure that all families can afford to live and thrive in our community. Ben has dedicated his life to fighting for progressive values. Prior to running, he worked as an organizer for then-Senator Barack Obama’s historic 2008 Presidential campaign, launched the political arm of the advocacy organization Bend the Arc, and served as Political Director for the pro-diplomacy group J Street. Ben is a former Board Member for the Montgomery County Action Committee for Transit and serves as Vice Chair of Rockville’s Human Rights Commission.

He lives with his wife, Sheri, and their rescue dog, Twist, in Rockville’s King Farm neighborhood. To learn more about Ben, visit www.shniderforcouncil.com

Share
redistricting

Looking Ahead to Redistricting the General Assembly, Part I

Today, I begin a series looking at the likely impact of redistricting the General Assembly based on the latest population estimates for 2020. Note that the estimates are based on the population–not the population after the prison population has been redistributed to their homes as required by Maryland law.

Western Maryland

This region of the State was slightly underrepresented–at least before the prison population was redistributed–with two districts after 2010 but will merit exactly this number in 2020. District 1A, centered on Garrett, may need to take in a bit more of Allegany with Garrett comprising just over two-thirds of the district.

District 1B can remain wholly within Allegany but District 1C may need to move further into Washington County to make up the numbers depending upon how the lines are drawn. The remainder of Washington will remain District 2.

Eastern Shore

Except for Wicomico, all Eastern Shore counties will merit very slightly less representation in Annapolis in 2020. The changes, however, are so small that few alterations should be expected unless mapmakers want to realign boundaries for other reasons, such as efforts to shore up or to weaken Sen. Jim Mathias (D 38).

District 38’s subdistricts could also be rearranged. Prior to 2010, there were two instead of three subdistricts with the smaller of the two centered on Somerset. Democrats will surely want to keep District 38A and to keep it attached to African-American sections of Worcester in the hopes that—if Democrats ever bother to invest in upping Somerset’s abysmal Democratic turnout—they could win a second delegate seat on the Shore. For now, it remains heavily Republican with incumbent Del. Otto winning easily with 60% in 2014.

District 37A will need to remain in place to protect African-American representation and satisfy the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. Democrats will want to keep it as it is the only district on the Shore certain to elect a Democrat.

 

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Ike Leggett, Minimum Wage

Will There Be a Deal on MoCo’s Minimum Wage?

By Adam Pagnucco.

The question of whether Montgomery County will have a $15 minimum wage has simmered for months.  After County Executive Ike Leggett vetoed Council Member Marc Elrich’s bill last January, the county commissioned an ill-fated study on the effects of a wage hike that has been discredited.  But Elrich, not waiting for any study, introduced a new bill that was little different from his previous one.  The Executive has now announced his terms for signing it.  We reprint his letter to the council below.

We summarize the differences between the bill and the Executive’s terms below.

Advocates for the bill reacted harshly to the Executive’s letter.  They sent out the following press release today.

*****

Economists, Community and Labor Groups Slam Executive Leggett Memo Say: “No More Delay Tactics, Working Families Need a Strong $15 Minimum Wage Now”

After Failed Study, Leggett Makes 2nd Attempt to Deny Low-Wage Workers a Living Wage

Rockville, MD- A coalition of economists, community and labor groups today condemned Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett over his memo requiring County Council members to follow a set of criteria that would dramatically weaken Council’s $15 minimum wage legislation. The group also demanded that Leggett suspend his attempts to amend an irredeemable study and sign a strong bill before the end of session. Leggett’s minimum wage “study,” was widely criticized and eventually halted by the Executive himself.

The statement below is attributable to Maryland Working Families, the National Employment Law Project (NELP), 32BJ SEIU, Jews United for Justice, Progressive Maryland and CASA.

“In one of the nation’s wealthiest counties, County Executive Leggett is making a second attempt to avoid raising the wage like so many other economically prosperous cities have done successfully. His youth exemption would keep thousands of working men and women under the age of 20 in poverty, leaving them to continue struggling to support themselves and their families. County residents are counting on the Council and the Executive to resist corporate lobbyists whose self-interests are out-of-sync with the needs of working families. It’s time to stop looking for excuses and raise the minimum wage by passing and signing a clean bill, without delayed implementation or exemptions.”

Research has shown that overwhelmingly, cities that have raised the wage have not experienced job loss and the local economy continues to prosper. Moreover, a wage increase can reduce reliance on public assistance from a safety net that faces extreme cuts from the Trump administration, placing a heavier burden on local taxpayers.

With more than 163,000 members in 11 states, including 18,000 in the D.C. Metropolitan Area, 32BJ SEIU is the largest property service workers union in the country.

*****

So will there be a deal?  Under normal circumstances, the answer is yes.  The Executive is recommending a combination of delays and relatively modest adjustments for some categories of workers.  He is not proposing a fundamental overhaul of the bill.  A properly functioning legislative process would smooth out these details, probably by splitting the differences, and result in a 9-0 vote and a signed bill.  That’s how Rockville works most of the time.

But the circumstances are anything but normal.  Three Council Members are running for Executive and five more are running for reelection next year.  The two Council Members who are Executive candidates and are sponsoring the bill must decide if they prefer a signed bill or a campaign issue.  The bill advocates must decide whether they want another upheld veto which would cause further delay and take their chances with a new Executive and council.  These decisions, which are ultimately political in nature, will determine whether there is a deal on minimum wage.

Share
Adam Pagnucco, Council District 1, Facebook

Friedson Rules Social Media in District 1

By Adam Pagnucco.

Political handicapping is a very subjective exercise.  That said, there are a handful of objective measures that give clues to the state of a race: fundraising, endorsements, surrogates, communications (like number of mailers sent and TV time purchased), and more.  The jury is still out on the importance of social media followers.  But if Facebook followings matter at all, Andrew Friedson is waaaaaay ahead on that measure in the Council District 1 election.

As of Monday, September 11, here are the Facebook followers on each of the District 1 candidates’ campaign pages.

Andrew Friedson: 4,822

Pete Fosselman: 461

Bill Cook: 224

Reggie Oldak: 154

Other candidates: no pages

That’s right, Friedson has almost six times as many followers as his competitors COMBINED.  And they have all been running for months before he got in.

One reason why Facebook followers are discounted by many is that they don’t reflect actual voters in the relevant jurisdiction.  They can come from all over Planet Earth.  So your author asked Friedson to provide a geographic distribution of his Facebook followers.  According to data from his page, roughly two-thirds of Friedson’s followers reported cities of residence.  Of those, 1,490 lived in Maryland, 971 lived in MoCo and 462 lived in the District 1 areas of Bethesda, North Bethesda, Potomac and Kensington.  An additional 700 reported living in D.C., but some of those people could actually live in the Maryland suburbs.

This is an impressive campaign page following for someone who just declared for the race a month ago.  It reflects Friedson’s ability to tap into a number of networks, including his friends and family as a MoCo native; his college network from the University of Maryland (where he was a class President); his professional network from his time as an aide to Comptroller Peter Franchot and Congressional candidate David Trone; and his non-profit networks stemming from his service as a Board Member on the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and the MoCo Collaboration Council for Children, Youth and Families.  These are real assets for any candidate for office.  And Friedson can leverage them through social media to raise money, spread his message and build name recognition in a way the other candidates can’t (yet) match.

Reggie Oldak has shown early success in the public campaign finance system but Andrew Friedson is off to a fast start.  Let the rest of the field beware!

Share
District 1, Montgomery County

O’Malley Endorses Fosselman

Former Gov. Martin O’Malley has endorsed former Kensington Mayor Pete Fosselman in the District 1 Council race:

Pete Fosselman is a results-driven leader who has the know-how and experience to accomplish big things for the people of Montgomery County, Throughout his distinguished career in public service, Pete developed a reputation as a consensus builder who knows how to get things done on important issues like economic development, education, smart growth, and a better quality of life for Maryland’s seniors.

It’s a nice signifier that Pete Fosselman is a major contender for the  seat being vacated by Roger Berliner. It’s not a complete bolt from the blue as Fosselman and O’Malley have long been friends.

Fosselman also served in O’Malley’s administration as Deputy Secretary of State–a position to which Gov. Larry Hogan reappointed him. Currently, he works as the planning coordinator for the White Oak Science Gateway project for County Executive Ike Leggett.

Share

Maryland Politics Watch