Former Montgomery County Council Member Cherri Branson established a campaign committee on June 20. Branson told us she intends to run for County Council At-Large.
Branson had been the subject of speculation for a possible run in District 5 against incumbent Tom Hucker. Her decision to run at-large might leave Hucker with no opponent. Her campaign committee is currently not enrolled in public financing. She joins an increasingly jam-packed field of at-large candidates with more on the way.
The Montgomery County Police Department has reported that two men, one of whom worked for the county’s Department of Liquor Control (DLC), were arrested for a series of liquor thefts from trucks parked at the county’s warehouse. The Washington Post and Bethesda Magazine also reported the story. Note that this was not only an inside job but that DLC’s security procedures were so inadequate that the suspects were able to commit eight different thefts before being caught! But neither the Post nor Bethesda Magazine fully examined the history of criminal, unethical and suspicious activity at DLC.
3. In March 2015, the county’s Inspector General found that DLC’s warehouse was run with sticky notes. He said “as many as 154 cases a day go missing without anyone investigating why.”
Next year, elections will be held for County Executive, County Council and the state legislature. Which candidates will stand up against DLC and advocate for ending its monopoly status once and for all?
Montgomery County’s 2018 primary is now roughly a year away. Many uncertainties have yet to be decided. But one thing is for sure: the two most influential people in the election are not on the ballot. One is the current occupant of the Oval Office. The other is a retired County Council Member whose towering legacy will affect everyone running for county office one way or another. He is the last person who would ever make such a claim, so we will do it for him. He is Phil Andrews.
Andrews was a former Executive Director of Common Cause who ran unsuccessfully for council at-large in 1994 but was elected after defeating an incumbent in District 3 four years later. Early in his career, Andrews was a progressive darling, passing a living wage law and a restaurant smoking ban in his first term. Later, he became known for fiscal prudence and authored the county’s public campaign financing law in his last year at the council. Andrews finished third in the 2014 County Executive Democratic primary with 22% of the vote and is now employed by the State’s Attorney’s office.
Andrews’s shadow looms large over the coming election in three ways.
Public Campaign Financing
During his career, Andrews never accepted campaign contributions from PACs or developers. He wrote the county’s public campaign financing law in part to allow candidates following his example to be competitive with traditionally financed rivals. The growing number of candidates who are using it testifies to its popularity. One at-large council candidate, MCPS teacher Chris Wilhelm, even has a petition demanding that all county candidates enroll. One thing is for sure: all county candidates, whether they use it or not, will have to deal with its political implications.
During his time in office, Andrews was surrounded by colleagues who freely accepted money from PACs and developers. Now some of those same people are enrolling in public financing. Andrews must feel like a country pastor welcoming reformed sinners to church.
Opposition to Tax Hikes
After having been in office for a few years, Andrews became concerned that growth in the county’s budget was unsustainable. He began opposing what he viewed as excessive spending, especially on union contracts, and started working against tax hikes. In 2008, Andrews teamed up with at-large Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg to reduce the size of a proposed property tax hike. Two years later, he voted against a county budget partly because it raised the energy tax.
The conventional wisdom is that opposition to the 2016 tax hikes was responsible for passing term limits, although the truth is probably more complicated than that. Still, the majority of Democrats voted for term limits and that fact is not lost on new candidates for office. Several of them are leery of more tax hikes and more than one will make an issue of it during the next election. One potential at-large candidate recently told your author, “I will be the hardest vote to get for any tax hike.” Reggie Oldak, running in District 1, has said, “We can’t keep increasing property taxes.” Neil Greenberger, the County Council’s now-former spokesman, openly denounces the 2016 increases. There will be others making similar arguments.
How many components of Phil Andrews’s 2014 message will show up in next year’s election? Our bet: lots.
Temperament and Demeanor
In our conversations with those who are running or thinking of running for county office, we have often asked who their favorite Council Member is. Hands down, the winner is Phil Andrews. That choice is made regardless of ideology and even whether the candidate is using public financing. The most common reason cited is his temperament and demeanor in office.
“Phil was a grown-up,” said one candidate. Another said, “He could disagree without fighting. It was never personal.” A third said, “He never BS’d you. He told you what he thought and that was it.” That’s all true. His lack of pretentiousness is also mentioned. Indeed, Andrews chose to conduct his first interview with your author years ago in the most humble venue imaginable: the council cafeteria. No steak or cocktails for him (or sadly, for me)!
Andrews looks particularly good in comparison to those politicians who argue with constituents or block them on Facebook. In one respect, that was easy for him: Andrews was almost never on social media. Even so, your author has yet to find a constituent who describes Andrews as being anything other than polite and cordial. Regardless of his personal feelings – and there were certainly some who tried to get his temperature up – Andrews never took the bait.
While some candidates will cite Andrews on the campaign trail and perhaps even seek his endorsement – probably fruitlessly – there will never be another one exactly like him on the council. His combination of tax skepticism, willingness to do battle with labor, resistance to factionalism, total invulnerability to peer pressure and raw humility is an unusual one in local politics. But Andrews will be able to look at the next council and see fragments of his influence everywhere, with different pieces appearing in different members. Somewhere deep in the rectory, the country pastor just might smile.
District 5 County Council Member Tom Hucker filed for reelection to his current seat on June 19. Hucker’s decision ends speculation that he was considering the at-large race, in which he would have been a formidable contender. It may also lead 2014 District 5 candidate Evan Glass, who came very close to winning, to run at-large. What is currently unknown is whether Hucker will have any challengers. Below is his filing from the state’s candidate list.
As we have previously written, the position of spokesperson for an elected official – or in Greenberger’s case, nine of them – is a position of trust. Elected officials must believe that their communications personnel will represent their positions and actions fairly towards members of the public, who after all will determine if those officials are reelected. That’s hard to believe when the spokesperson is a candidate who is running for the same office held by the elected officials he is supposed to represent. In at least one case – incumbent Council Member Hans Riemer – Greenberger is running in the exact same contest. (Disclosure: your author is Riemer’s former Chief of Staff and regularly worked with Greenberger.) That means Greenberger is supposed to be trusted to represent Riemer fairly during his day job while he could very well criticize him or his positions on the campaign trail after hours. The same situation could apply to District 5 Council Member Tom Hucker, who may run at-large.
This is not a hypothetical scenario. Greenberger is already running against last year’s tax hikes, telling MCM, “This county cannot take another property tax hike… I will guarantee no budget in the four years I’m in office will exceed the charter limit. That’s a guarantee.” He also told the Sentinel, “The number one thing is, no matter what their incomes, people are still feeling the pain of the big tax increases – actually the two tax increases of last year… And I don’t think they need any more tax increases in the next four years.” Your author has some sympathyfor Greenberger’s opinions. But the fact is that all nine of the Council Members Greenberger represents in his day job voted for the tax hikes and those who are running again will be defending them on the campaign trail. And yet their own spokesman is contradicting them.
There is more. Greenberger runs the council side of the county government’s cable channel, County Cable Montgomery (CCM). He even hosts his own county TV show. He is also a liaison between the council and Montgomery Community Media (MCM), a non-profit that covers the county and receives county funding. In those capacities, Greenberger will be in a position to influence the coverage his opponents – including those who employ him – receive. It’s a huge conflict. But Greenberger ignores that. According to the Sentinel, “Greenberger said he plans to continue to work his job while he campaigns for County Council, saying there is not a conflict of interest because his job is not political nor is he required by law to quit.” That’s a questionable contention at best. Many communications from elected officials to the public have a political dimension to them. Elected officials who issue communications making themselves look bad may not be elected for long!
Neil Greenberger interviews one of his nine employers – and future political rival – Hans Riemer on his county television show in 2011.
The natural reaction of elected officials who face the prospect of their own spokesperson publicly critiquing them is to stop using the spokesperson altogether. Think about it – who on Earth would want to employ a critic or outright opponent to write press releases about them? Here’s where the situation becomes problematic for taxpayers. Greenberger was paid $148,091 in 2016. If Council Members stop going through him and start relying exclusively on their own personal staff for communications, there is a possibility that his ability to perform his day job would be impaired.
These are not garden-variety conflicts, folks. Greenberger’s compensation as well as the media outlets he influences directly and indirectly are publicly funded. That leads us to ask what safeguards will be put in place to prevent any potential use of public resources to benefit a specific candidate, especially if it comes at the expense of others.
Greenberger has as much right to run for office as anyone else. He is also a merit staffer and can’t be fired for political activity after hours. But given the above facts, Greenberger should request a transfer to a less politically sensitive position and the job of council spokesperson should be converted to an at-will appointment. Should he fail to act accordingly, voters should consider his sense of judgment on this issue when they decide how to cast their votes.
Congressman John Delaney, who is mulling a run for Governor, is continuing to raise money for Congress. On June 15, he sent out the email below asking donors to contribute $3 or more per month to his federal account. As of this writing, Delaney has not yet opened a state account. This comes on top of three recent federal fundraisers for Delaney, including one held at his home in Rehoboth Beach.
The obvious question is: if Delaney indeed plans to run for Governor, why is he still raising money for his federal account?
Former NAACP President and CEO Ben Jealous is running for Governor on a progressive message. That’s a good thing for both the Democratic Party and the state. But part of his message appears to be a claim that he was a big player in progressive achievements that were actually accomplished by others. That’s a problem.
In a blast email dated May 31 and titled “Unlocking the American Dream,” Jealous recites his history as a community organizer, his ties to the City of Baltimore and his parents’ efforts to desegregate the city’s schools and downtown business district. Jealous has a compelling story that deserves respect and consideration, especially by progressives.
After discussing his parents’ civil rights activism, he wrote this.
It was that tradition of fighting for a better life for your neighbors and yourself that motivated this campaign.
In 2012, Maryland had a bounty of civil rights ambitions; we were going to pass the DREAM Act, abolish the death penalty, pass marriage equality, expand voting rights and pass sensible gun safety reform. It was quite the undertaking, but that didn’t stop Maryland.
We went for it, and we won all of them. Because we know our individual movements are stronger together.
That’s the spirit this state needs. A spirit to make our existing movements stronger by combining efforts, to defend our communities, our healthcare, our environment, our working families, students, and seniors.
The operative pronoun here is “we.” Readers of this email might think that Jealous was a key player in passing the DREAM Act, marriage equality, death penalty repeal, voting reform and gun safety. But he wasn’t. Jealous was head of the national NAACP at the time. He was not a leader in state politics. In fact, other than residency and family history, Jealous has few ties to politics and government in Maryland.
Many, many people worked together to accomplish the progressive victories listed in this email. Most of these wins took years to get done. Elected leaders who worked hard on these issues include former Senator and now Congressman Jamie Raskin (marriage equality and the death penalty), former Senator and now Attorney General Brian Frosh (guns), Senators Victor Ramirez and Paul Pinsky (the DREAM Act), Senator Joan Carter Conway (voting rights), Delegate Kathleen Dumais (guns and the death penalty), Delegate Luke Clippinger (marriage equality and guns), Delegates Maggie McIntosh, Anne Kaiser, Kumar Barve and former Delegate Keiffer Mitchell (marriage equality), Delegate Sheila Hixson (the DREAM Act and voting rights), former Senator Lisa Gladden and Delegate Sandy Rosenberg (the death penalty) and former Governor Martin O’Malley, Speaker Mike Busch and Senate President Mike Miller (all of the above). Lots of others in elected office and in progressive advocacy groups played critical roles. One key leader on many of these issues, Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18), is planning on running for Governor. (Disclosure: if Madaleno declares, your author will support him.) None of these people did it alone. Politics is a team sport, as everyone who did the nuts-and-bolts work on all of these issues knows.
Jealous could have written, “Progressives in Maryland passed the DREAM ACT, marriage equality and gun safety. They did the right thing and I applaud them. Our campaign is about returning our state to a progressive path. Join us.” But he didn’t.
Here’s a question for the veterans of all these progressive wins: how do you feel about that?
Evidently frustrated by having his message eclipsed by the stunning behavior of President Donald Trump, thin-skinned Governor Larry Hogan is now lashing out at constituents on Facebook.
One person posted – politely – on President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty.
Hogan accused her of “spouting off.”
Hogan wasn’t done, saying, “You obviously have no idea what you are talking about” and referring to her comments as an “off topic, incorrect rant.”
Another constituent expressed support for the General Assembly’s bill providing for multi-state redistricting, which Hogan vetoed. Hogan said she was part of a “tiny minority” and encouraged her to “stop liking our page.”
And that wasn’t enough. Hogan came back for more even as outraged constituents pushed back.
When another constituent asked about the Paris climate treaty, Hogan responded, “You are not only off topic but ill informed.”
When asked about the climate treaty again, Hogan said, “Yes. We are leading the nation on this subject. Pay attention.”
Facebook can be an unruly environment for political discussion. Constituents are real, live people and don’t always restrict their remarks to the topics favored by politicians. Elected officials and candidates have a right to ban racist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, sexist, profane or libelous commentary from their pages. But none of the above comments fall into those categories. None of them warrant the rude responses written under the Governor’s name.
Governor Larry Hogan is now sending out fundraising letters for his reelection campaign. Much of the language is consistent with what we have heard from the Governor before and would be standard for many Republican candidates. But the solicitation ends with a fear-mongering assault on immigration that is perfectly consistent with the GOP in the Era of Trump.
Hogan’s four-page letter starts as you might expect. He discusses “failed liberal leadership” and people being “sick and tired of politics as usual.” He refers to himself as “simply a small businessman, concerned citizen and lifelong Marylander who was fed up with the never ending tax and fee increases and status quo politicians in Annapolis.” He then goes on to describe how he changed all that by passing three budgets with no tax increases, reducing or eliminating fees and getting rid of “job-killing regulations.” Amusingly, he claims, “I was not a politician when I ran for Governor in 2014… and I am not one now.” So far, this is unremarkable. This has been the Governor’s message for years and we would expect this to show up in a fundraising letter.
But then he closed with this.
We have to fight back. Maryland’s future depends on it.
With so much at stake, I am reaching out to committed commonsense conservatives from across the state. You are one [sic] our state’s most loyal activists and I could really use your help. Will you please do me the honor of joining my team to help keep moving Maryland forward and help me push back against a far left agenda and the worst instincts of an increasingly liberal and out-of-touch State Legislature?
How out of touch are they? Instead of focusing on positive change and the safety of our citizens, they have instead been focusing their efforts on trying to make our state a safe haven for criminals here illegally.
Let me be very clear: we cannot allow Maryland to become a sanctuary state. Our local law enforcement should be doing more – not less – to make sure criminals here illegally are turned over to federal immigration officials. The rule of law must come first and we will do whatever we can to stop any so-called “sanctuary bills” that would limit how jails and police could assist federal authorities.
Astonishingly, this letter was sent to a Democrat in Montgomery County.
Hogan is not telling the truth about the Maryland Trust Act, which passed the House of Delegates but not the Senate. The bill that passed the House would not have prevented jails from turning criminals over to ICE and it would not have forbidden counties from participating in the federal government’s 287(g) program to identify criminals wanted by ICE. It would have prevented jails from holding inmates past their sentence dates without a court warrant, which simply restates the policy followed by Hogan’s own state-run jail in Baltimore. It would also have prevented police from questioning people on the street about their immigration status, something that happened in Bel Air just a few months ago. Does Hogan favor detaining people past their sentence dates and having local police randomly check residents’ immigration status without cause? Perhaps he does since he inaccurately attacks this legislation as a “sanctuary bill.”
The broader point is that Hogan is using immigration demagoguery and fear-mongering to raise money. That is very different from the image he cultivates in public of being non-partisan, non-ideological and uninterested in divisive social issues. In this fundraising letter, we see the Real Hogan away from the cameras and the press podium – a politician willing to exploit fear and xenophobia to get reelected.
Governor Larry Hogan may be silent on the efforts by President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to gut health care, but his newly appointed Chair of the Maryland Health Care Commission has been anything but silent. To the contrary, Hogan’s new point man on health care has openly advocated for the destruction of the Affordable Care Act.
Robert E. Moffit, whom Hogan appointed Chair of the Maryland Health Care Commission on May 9, will now be playing a critical role in administering Maryland’s health care system. The commission is an independent agency with broad regulatory powers over health care providers in areas including IT, data reporting, performance evaluations, certificates of need authorizing new hospitals and expansions and much more. Moffit’s appointment would normally be confirmed by the Maryland State Senate, but since they do not return to Annapolis until next year, Moffit will have plenty of time to make his mark on the state’s health care system.
1. In one of many screeds against the ACA, Moffit said it was experiencing “multi-organ failure” and that “central planning is the disease.” One wonders what he thinks about other “centrally planned” health care systems like Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration.
3. Moffit enthusiastically endorsed the GOP’s plan to issue waivers to states so that they could excuse insurers from having to cover pre-existing conditions. In an article entitled “House Health Care Bill Moving in the Right Direction,” he wrote, “President Barack Obama and his allies in Congress should never have imposed centralized federal control over diverse state health insurance markets in the first place. While the best solution would be to repeal that federal overreach, the proposed waiver is a significant improvement over current law. Its practical effect is to achieve a devolution of health insurance rulemaking back to the states.”
4. Just weeks after Hogan appointed him, Moffit cheered on Trump’s budget, which called for $800 billion in cuts to Medicaid and converting it into a block grant program. Moffit wrote: “By putting Medicaid on a budget—either through a fixed allotment to the states in the form of a block grant or a per capita cap—the Trump budget would give state officials much needed flexibility in managing the program and better target services to the poorest and most vulnerable of our citizens.”
5. Last November, when criticizing the ACA’s poll numbers, Moffit wrote, “What ‘progressive’ politicians want, and their academic and media cheerleaders like, most Americans don’t want or like.” According to Gallup, the ACA’s approval rating went from 42% at the time Moffit wrote his article to 55% in April. Apparently, Americans want to have health care after all.
6. Moffit called the Republican House bill replacing the ACA “a major improvement over current law.” Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office found that the House bill would increase the number of Americans without health coverage by 23 million by 2026. The office said, “Premiums would vary significantly according to health status and the types of benefits provided, and less healthy people would face extremely high premiums.”
In selecting Moffit, Governor Hogan has broken his silence on the Affordable Care Act. Moffit’s views are longstanding, well developed and very public. If Hogan had major disagreements with him on the ACA, why would he appoint him to one of the most powerful health care positions in Maryland? Actions speak louder than words, and this action speaks volumes.
