Maryland Politics Watch: November 2009

Monday, November 30, 2009

Phil Andrews Looks Back on 2009

County Council President Phil Andrews sent out the following memo to the council reflecting on his term as President in 2009. Your author offers one additional note. Regardless of our occasional disagreement with Andrews on the issues, he has served as President with considerable class and dignity. His civil temperament is a useful model that warrants emulation from the next Council President, whoever that may be.

District 19 Race Snowballs Early

Three Delegate challengers are now raising money in the District 19 Battle Royal. But here’s the problem: there is no evidence that any of the incumbents are going anywhere.

The Rogue Superintendent, Part One

County Council Member Valerie Ervin, the Chair of the Council’s Education Committee, recently called MCPS leader Jerry Weast a “rogue superintendent.” That statement is a culmination of years of tension between the County Council and the school system that has been recently exacerbated by budget difficulties. All of that is threatening to erupt in an all-out battle with consequences for the county’s future.

The total FY10 shortfall, based on the State’s new formula, could be in the range of $95 million, while the FY11 shortfall could be in the range of $110 million. These write downs alone could bring the County's estimated FY11 budget gap, which in September was projected at $364.4 million, to well over $500 million, despite the Council's November 17 approval of a $29.7 Savings Plan for FY10. Other factors could make the gap still larger.

In other words, no part of the county government has money laying around to pay off the penalty.

How did things get to this point? Multiple sources report that the school system offered the county a deal last spring to get around the $79 million MOE requirement. The terms of the deal were that the county would pay the schools the $79 million, but the schools would agree to hold the money in reserve. That money would then be available to finance next year’s budget. The reason that proposal fell apart was that many in Rockville did not trust Jerry Weast to sit on the money. And so the ill-fated budget gimmick was instituted, initiating the fall into the hole that the county now occupies.

That brings us back to a central factor that handicaps the ability of the county to respond to adversity: a basic distrust between Weast and some of the county’s elected officeholders. We’ll look more closely at that issue in Part Two.

Friday, November 27, 2009

It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas

By Marc Korman.

It’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas, unless you live in Bethesda where the Christmas decorations went up before Halloween. But not everyone in the County wants Christmas to start so early, despite what seemed like political consensus a year ago.

Thursday, November 26, 2009

MD Governor Martin O'Malley on "Political Pulse" on Channel 16 TV in MoCo‏

Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley will be on the "Political Pulse" political talk show on:

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Post Keeps Shrinking

On November 20, the City Paper reported that the Post was laying off about ten website employees as it merged that operation with the newspaper. One of the workers was told the "numbers have been bad on the digital side and because of that, that's why they're doing it."

On November 24, Howard Kurtz reported that the Post was closing all its remaining U.S. bureaus outside Washington, including New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. Kurtz quoted Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli as saying, "We are not a national news organization of record serving a general audience. Nor are we a wire service or cable channel." Kurtz also noted that the Post's newspaper division had lost $166.7 million in the first three quarters of this year.

When is this going to end?

MoCo Government Takes Over the Redskins

Beleaguered Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder has turned over the team to the Montgomery County government. In an MPW exclusive, we bring you into a meeting of the County Council as they discuss what to do with the club.

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

State Legislators Advocate for Light Rail on CCT

A group of thirteen Montgomery County state legislators has written to the Governor asking him to select light rail for the Corridor Cities Transitway (CCT). The group includes every legislator from Districts 15, 17 and 39 - which account for the entire alignment of the project - except for Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17). Additionally, District 14 Delegate Karen Montgomery and District 14 Senator Rona Kramer signed on. Kramer, along with District 39 Senator Nancy King, is a member of the Senate's critical Budget and Taxation Committee. The County Council voted 6-3 to support light rail, with Council Members Phil Andrews, Marc Elrich and Roger Berliner supporting bus rapid transit instead.

Following is the joint letter.

Eli El: "The Devil will not break my God given WILL"

District 20 Delegate candidate Eli El continues to be unhappy with our revelations about his domestic abuse case, sending in eleven different comments to our original post on the subject. (One of the others came from an individual representing the "National Coalition of Men" urging male voters to "get out the penis vote" for El.) Following is the text of his most recent comment.

MdTA Releases More Documents on Free E-ZPasses for Legislators

The one lingering mystery from the now-cancelled free E-ZPass program for state legislators concerns the number of Senators and Delegates who had them. In August 2009, the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA) told us that 128 state legislators had free E-ZPasses but refused to release their names. On September 30, MdTA responded to our Public Information Act (PIA) request seeking those names and told us that only 71 had them. What happened to the other 57 legislators? We found out that MdTA tipped off the General Assembly about our PIA request in a September 23 letter, but we had no further details. So we sent another information request and MdTA has sent us its response.

Specifically, we asked MdTA for:

1. A list of legislators who held non-revenue E-ZPass accounts for any period of time between January 1, 2009 and September 30, 2009.

2. A list of the dates on which any of these accounts were canceled from January 1, 2009 through September 30, 2009.

3. Copies of any records of communication between MdTA and any member of the General Assembly about these non-revenue accounts from August 1, 2009 on.

MdTA responded to each of these questions as follows:

l. A list of legislators who held non-revenue E-ZPass accounts between January 1 ,2009 and September 30, 2009 does not exist. The September 30, 2009, list was provided to you as a courtesy, although the Authority was not required to do so by the Maryland Public Information Act. Under the P IA, you may only obtain an agency's existing records.

2. A list of dates on which any accounts were cancelled for Maryland General Assembly Members does not exist.

3. Correspondence responsive to this request regarding legislators and the E-ZPass nonrevenue account program, which is not privileged or otherwise not subject to disclosure, is enclosed. Some correspondence responsive to your request has been withheld pursuant to SG § 10-615(l) because it is subject to attorney-client privilege. Portions of documents have been redacted or withheld because they contain personal data provided to the Authority in connection with an electronic toll collection system that shall not be disclosed pursuant to SG § 10-616(m).

So the agency does not have any historical records on free E-ZPass use, does not know when they were cancelled prior to the program’s termination and – incredibly – claims to not be covered by the state’s Public Information Act. Moreover, the agency says that some documents are protected by attorney-client privilege. Did the agency consult an attorney in determining how to respond to our PIA request?

MdTA did send some documents that should be considered in a timeline of this matter’s development. It is clear from the correspondence that the agency, this blog and the General Assembly’s leadership interacted in a way that ultimately terminated the program. Here is how the issue progressed.

1. On August 24, we reported that 128 state legislators carried free E-ZPasses but MdTA refused to name them because of “privacy and security issues.” Two days later, we drafted a PIA request to get the names of the legislators who had them. MdTA received the request on September 1.

2. MdTA began its effort to respond to our PIA on September 2 by assembling data on legislators’ license plates that were associated with free E-ZPasses.

3. On September 23, MdTA wrote to members of the General Assembly who had free E-ZPasses alerting them about our PIA request. We obtained a copy of MdTA’s letter on our own and MdTA sent it to us in their latest PIA response.

4. On September 25, Senate President Mike Miller and Speaker of the House Mike Busch announced that they were asking MdTA to cancel the program. We posted a copy of their letter and mass press coverage ensued, including on NBC4.

5. On September 28, MdTA faxed Senators and Delegates a request seeking information about the vehicles covered by their free E-ZPasses. It is unclear why MdTA was requesting this information because the General Assembly’s presiding officers had announced the end of the program three days earlier. Below is a faxed letter sent to Senator David Harrington (D-47), one of many that were sent out.

6. Several members of the General Assembly began communicating with MdTA about this issue during this period. Here is an aide to Senator Rona Kramer (D-14) asking MdTA to make clear that the Senator never had a free E-ZPass.

Here is Delegate Rick Weldon (I-3B), who represents parts of Frederick and Washington Counties, responding that he does not have a free E-ZPass because he does not have to use toll roads to commute to Annapolis.

And here is Senator Mike Lenett (D-19) making it crystal clear that he has no free E-ZPass and pays his tolls like any other citizen of the state.

7. The thirty-day deadline for MdTA to answer our PIA request seeking the names of free E-ZPass holders was rapidly approaching by the end of September. MdTA knew it was under scrutiny by the press, and especially this blog. So did the General Assembly and its leadership. On September 28 – just two days before responding to our PIA seeking the names of legislators with free E-ZPasses – MdTA sent this letter to a state legislator allowing that person to cancel his or her free account. Who was this individual? Why is this person’s name redacted? Were any other similar letters sent? We will never know because the list of legislators with free E-ZPasses we obtained from MdTA was dated September 30. This letter is hard evidence that MdTA allowed at least one state legislator with a free E-ZPass to escape being outed on this blog.

MdTA was also in direct communication with the Speaker’s office on this issue. Here is an email from Gail Moran, MdTA’s Manager of Government and Community Relations, to Kristin Jones, the Speaker’s Chief of Staff, pointing out our blog post about the program’s cancellation.

And here is a second email on the same day from Moran asking Jones to “please call me NOW.”

8. MdTA responded to our PIA request and named 72 state legislators who had free E-ZPasses on September 30. But MdTA almost immediately contacted us to remove one name from the list: Senator Jim Rosapepe (D-21). MdTA told Rosapepe of its effort to clear his name from the list.

9. At the request of the Senate President and Speaker, MdTA terminated the free E-ZPass program effective November 1.

So what are we to make of all this?

First, we are unable to solve the mystery of why MdTA said that 128 legislators had free E-ZPasses in August and a month later claimed only 71 had them. The fact that MdTA tipped off the General Assembly to our PIA request – a step that was not required to answer us – may have something to do with it.

Second, the fact that MdTA was in contact with the General Assembly’s leadership suggests that damage control was one of its priorities. The public image of the state legislature should not be an appropriate topic of concern for the state’s toll authority.

Third, MdTA’s lack of historical records on free E-ZPasses means that the program was subject to abuse. The agency had no way to make sure that the passes were used only for official business and, more importantly, had no way to make sure that former state legislators did not have them.

And fourth, the fact that MdTA had to respond to two PIA requests to release the names of state legislators with free E-ZPasses when it could have easily emailed the information back in August says something about the agency’s regard for disclosure. So does its claim that it is not covered by the state’s Public Information Act and was responding out of courtesy. Agencies that depend on public funds, including taxes and tolls, are subordinate to the citizenry. Responding to our requests for data about the use of our resources is a basic part of any state agency’s duties.

But things could be worse. Other public officials have far less respect for the concept of open government than does MdTA. If Duchy Trachtenberg was in charge of MdTA, we would have received no response to our information request other than a press conference accusing us of having joined the KGB!

Monday, November 23, 2009

Birther Billboard Owner: "You Gotta Call a Spade a Spade"

Hilton Spurns MoCo, Gets Nice Reward From Ike

This goes into the category of stories that are difficult to believe without direct evidence. But once again, dear readers, we have it and then some!

Dana and Duchy Take on the KGB (Updated)

District 18 Delegate candidate and County Council staffer Dana Beyer has accused the county’s Ethics Commission of discriminating against her because of her transgender status and attempting to harm her political career. Her employer, Duchy Trachtenberg, has even compared the commission to the KGB. Are the heirs to the infamous Soviet spy empire really out to get them?

Beyer, an aide to County Council Member Duchy Trachtenberg, Vice-President of Equality Maryland and former candidate for District 18 Delegate, told her side of the story to this blog. She said she encountered CRG’s petition collectors on Primary Election Day, the following weekend and President’s Day (2/18), the date of the incident in question. At the Bethesda Giant, she entered the store, told the manager that the petition collectors were violating store policy (which allows the group to collect signatures on only one weekend per month), and left soon after making the statements to the group shown on the video.

Here is the video that was taken by CRG of the incident:

After emerging from the grocery store, Beyer told the signature collectors, “An email went out; you’re going to be asked to leave. Any petitions gathered today are illegal.”

Why is this a problem? As a County Council employee, Beyer is subject to the county’s ethics code. County Code Chapter 19A-4(m) defines a “public employee” as including “the County Executive and each member of the County Council” along with “any person employed by a County agency, including the director of the agency.” No exemptions appear for council staff or any other employees operating off-the-clock. Even non-paid board and commission members are treated as employees. County Code Chapter 19A-14(e) states, “A public employee must not intimidate, threaten, coerce or discriminate against any person for the purpose of interfering with that person’s freedom to engage in political activity.”

The video by itself does not prove that Beyer violated the ethics code, but it does chronicle an incident that merits scrutiny. A reasonable person could believe that Beyer intended to discourage CRG’s volunteers from gathering signatures by her unsolicited statement to them that they were engaged in “illegal” activities. That judgment most appropriately belongs to police officers rather than County Council staffers. When CRG later filed an ethics complaint against Beyer, the video would have been available to the commission to demonstrate Beyer’s methods of dealing with the signature gatherers.

As it turns out, the video was not the decisive factor in the investigation. The Ethics Commission found enough evidence of misconduct by Beyer at another grocery store on a different day to justify holding a hearing on the matter. The commission has no power to punish offenders; it may only ask the County Attorney to take its findings to the courts. Beyer blasted the commission in a press conference and filed a complaint against them with the county’s Human Rights Commission on the following grounds:

1. The commission allegedly treated her unfairly by having investigators search her work computer without her knowledge. “You can't run a government like this,” Beyer said. “If this were a murder investigation or if it was a major multimillion fraud investigation, I could understand that. But for this?” Trachtenberg, said, “The use of KGB-type tactics to undermine the function of my council office is chilling.” According to the Examiner, County Council staff director Steve Farber was not notified of the computer search, which turned up nothing.

2. The commission allegedly leaked the existence of its investigation and its findings to unspecified individuals, a violation of the confidentiality requirement for ethics investigations.

3. Beyer told the Gazette, “The Ethics Commission has made a blatant political attack on me, because I am the first openly transgender government staffer in Maryland.”

4. The commission was allegedly motivated to harm Beyer’s political career. Beyer finished fifth in an eight-person District 18 Delegate race in 2006 and ran unsuccessfully for an appointment to replace Delegate Jane Lawton after she passed away in 2007. Beyer is currently running for Delegate in 2010.

5. Trachtenberg was another target. Beyer said, “I’m a means to an end, and that’s to destroy my boss politically.”

Your author has called out a LOT of politicians and bureaucrats over the last two years. Our rule is that big allegations require big evidence. Let’s examine each of Beyer’s charges more closely.

1. Records Access
Beyer claims ethics investigators secretly searched her work computer. If that is true, Beyer’s “rights” were not infringed since neither elected officials nor public employees have any private property rights over public records in their custody. The vast majority of those records are discoverable under Maryland’s Public Information Act. We saw the dangers of record access problems first-hand on this blog, when the Maryland Transportation Authority tipped off the state legislature on our public information request concerning free E-ZPasses for state legislators, potentially allowing some users to escape detection. Beyer also questions whether the Executive Branch should be able to conduct secret searches of County Council records. That is a matter between the Executive and the Council Members rather than a council staffer. Overall, the opinion of Beyer and Trachtenberg that inquiry into public records is equivalent to any actions undertaken by the KGB reflects basic disrespect for the concept of open government.

2. Leaks
If the commission leaked the investigation and/or its findings, it did a poor job of it. No media outlet or blog reported on this matter prior to Beyer’s press conference. Your author has MANY eyes and ears in the council building yet had no knowledge of it. The only person besides Beyer claiming that there was a leak is Trachtenberg, who would have known of the investigation through Beyer herself. The commission also interviewed several witnesses to Beyer’s behavior with CRG activists, all of whom would have had reason to believe that an investigation was underway as a result. Beyer has released no evidence of leaks at the moment. She only states her belief that leaks occurred.

3. Transgender Discrimination
Plaintiffs in discrimination cases often seek to prove animus, or overt and expressed hostility to members of a protected class, by the defendant. Beyer has presented no evidence of anti-transgender animus by any member of the Ethics Commission even though she alleges it. In fact, the video of her actions contains enough evidence to warrant scrutiny regardless of her gender status. Beyer’s theory appears to be that anyone who investigates her conduct is motivated by anti-transgender prejudice. That is far outside the scope and intent of the transgender protection law that she invokes.

4. Beyer’s Political Career
Only one member of the Ethics Commission lives in District 18: Antar C. Johnson, the chairman. He is a Democrat and made one $100 contribution to Ike Leggett on 8/5/06. Two members (Rafael Borras and Stuart Rick) are unaffiliated, one (Gilles Burger) is a Republican, and one other (Nina Weisbroth) is a Democrat. No members of the commission have ever contributed to any candidates in District 18. Weisbroth has contributed three times for a total of $175 to District 14 Delegate Anne Kaiser, an open lesbian and a heroine of the LGBT community. (Is Weisbroth the kind of person who would be logically suspected of anti-transgender bias?) There is no evidence that any commission members, much less a majority, are hostile to Beyer’s political candidacy.

5. Trachtenberg’s Political Career
Let’s remember the basic character of the Ethics Commission and its staff. Every member of the commission is appointed by the County Executive and confirmed by the County Council. The commission relies on staffers supplied by the Executive Branch. Its decisions are enforced, if at all, by action of the County Attorney, who reports to the Executive. In this case, the County Attorney actually conducted at least some of the investigation of Beyer on behalf of the commission.

Trachtenberg is closer to County Executive Ike Leggett than any other member of the County Council. When she ran in 2006, she sent a mailer featuring herself and Leggett all over the county. She endorsed Don Praisner and Ben Kramer in the District 4 special elections, both of whom were supported by Leggett, and worked to get both of them elected. She regularly accompanies Leggett at events around the county and is leaning heavily on his support to win a second term. Yet she is alleging that his Ethics Commission appointees, his County Attorney and his employees are using “KGB-type tactics” against her office. Any claim that Ike Leggett is a Soviet-style spymaster who dispatches minions to suppress Trachtenberg and Beyer is utterly preposterous and especially surprising coming from a woman who is depending on him for re-election.

The charges made by Beyer and Trachtenberg against the Ethics Commission and the County Executive’s staff are difficult to believe and, for the most part, collapse upon casual scrutiny. Their allegations’ unwarranted damage to the county’s reputation is exceeded only by their warranted damage to their own reputations. Hysteria and paranoia make for great press conferences and guaranteed coverage, but they are poor qualities in individuals performing public service.

Update: In a letter rich with unintended irony, Trachtenberg is now accusing the County Attorney of undertaking “a clandestine, and evidently unlawful, search of confidential files in the office of a sitting Councilmember. And I intend on getting to the bottom of this reckless abuse of authority.” She writes to him, “The people of Montgomery County have an expectation of transparent and ethical behavior on the part of all public servants. And they deserve no less.”

The irony here is that while Trachtenberg calls on the County Attorney to be transparent, her bone of contention is the scrutiny of public records in her possession. Those records, with very limited exceptions, are accessible to the citizenry under the state’s Public Information Act (PIA). Council Members and the County Executive answer PIA requests all the time. Is Trachtenberg saying that her records alone are confidential?

Disclosure: The author is the Treasurer of the District 18 Democratic Team. This post was written without the knowledge or sanction of any District 18 elected officials or candidates.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Marc Elrich on Growth Policy

Following is an op-ed on the county's Growth Policy by County Council Member Marc Elrich that appeared in the Gazette earlier this week.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Valerie Ervin on Maintenance of Effort

Following is an op-ed on the state's Maintenance of Effort (MOE) law by County Council Member Valerie Ervin, Chair of the Council's Education Committee, that appeared in the Gazette earlier this week.

Friday, November 20, 2009

Becky Wagner Announces First Fundraiser

At-large County Council challenger Becky Wagner has selected a campaign manager and announced a fundraiser. These are the first steps in a widely anticipated run for public office.

From: Edward Cooper
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 8:39 PM
To: friendsofbeckywagner@gmail.com
Subject:

Dear Friends,

I’d like to invite you to join me at a fundraiser for Becky Wagner as she launches her candidacy for Montgomery County Council. The event will take place on Thursday, December 3rd at Imagination Stage – 4908 Auburn Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland – from 6:00pm until 8:00pm. Attached is an invitation (PDF) with all of the details.

Many of you may know Becky Wagner from her leading role in helping Montgomery County’s citizens for over 25 years. As a community leader she is authentic, pragmatic and decisive. In her role as executive director of Interfaith Works (formerly Community Ministries of Montgomery County), Becky has grown the organization into a professionally managed non-profit with strong ties to the faith, business and social service communities. She knows, first-hand, what it takes to operate a business and make payroll every two weeks. She served the residents of Montgomery County as a key staffer to Sen. Paul Sarbanes, helped to lead a large trade organization and advocated for the needy as the founding director of Rainbow Shelter, Montgomery County’s first shelter for homeless women. She’s what we need on the Montgomery County Council – a person of integrity and civility who uses her collaborative skills to pull people together and get things accomplished. And don’t just take my word for it, plenty of people are fans of Becky…Washingtonian knows of her great abilities and skills; the magazine named her Washingtonian of the Year in 2008.

I am such a fan of Becky’s that I have signed on to help her manage her campaign.

Please come out and join me on December 3rd in support of Becky Wagner. She is eager to hear about what matters to Montgomery County residents and find ways to make your county government work for you.

For more information about the fundraiser, or Becky’s campaign, please e-mail friendsofbeckywagner@gmail.com or call 301.654.9342. I encourage you to forward this e-mail message on to anyone you know who would like to see positive change come to Montgomery County.

Best Regards,
Edward Cooper

Friends of Becky Wagner
119 Forest Avenue
Rockville, Maryland 20850

The email was accompanied by this solicitation:

The Democratic primary is less than ten months away and the incumbents have been gearing up. George Leventhal and Nancy Floreen have each held several fundraisers this cycle. Marc Elrich has scheduled two in the last couple months. Duchy Trachtenberg has a new website. Challenger Jane De Winter also has a website and has been campaigning since last summer. Wagner has some catching up to do. But the gun has fired and she is off the blocks.

A Note on Maintenance of Effort

One of the points made by Blair Lee in his must-read column on the state's Maintenance of Effort (MOE) law for school funding is that Montgomery County has been paying well in excess of the state's requirements for education funding for many years. Lee is right about this in a very big way and here is the evidence supporting his view.

Follow the Money, Part Six (Updated)

So you think that Maryland political candidates have to disclose all their donors? Well, they don’t. They can legally conceal their identities by reporting “lump sums.”

Certain contributions, including ticket sales, may be reported on Schedule 1 of the Campaign Finance Report as a lump sum, pursuant to the following guidelines:

Contributions under $51 from different contributors may be aggregated and characterized on the Campaign Finance Report as “lump sum contributions.”

Ticket purchases under $251 from different contributors (provided the purchase price of each individual ticket is $50.99 or less) may be aggregated and characterized on the report as “lump sum ticket purchases.”

Once a contributor exceeds $51 or $251 through a series of contributions or ticket purchases for that election cycle, the contributor must thereafter be reported by name and address.

If you choose the lump sum option, even though you may lump receipts as described above on the Campaign Finance Reports, the books and records required to be kept by the treasurer must identify all contributors, including ticket purchasers, by name, address, date of contribution, and amount, regardless of the amount.

SBE discourages the practice:

It is recommended that you not lump sum report contributions. First, it is difficult to keep track of the aggregate for each contributor. Second, if you are using ELECTrack, you will not be able to take advantage of the automatic aggregate feature. Finally, if you are using ELECTrack or any other software, you will not have the benefit of having that contributor's information as part of your database.

Seven of our sixty-one tracked candidates have reported lump sum contributions.

Total Receipts from Lump Sum Contributions

1. Jennie Forehand, Senator (D-17): $36,251
2. Kathleen Dumais, Delegate (D-15): $8,747
3. Henry Heller, Delegate (D-19): $8,340
4. Jamie Raskin, Senator (D-20): $1,310
5. Jean Cryor, Delegate (D-15): $930
6. Craig Rice, Delegate (D-15): $51
7. Nancy Navarro, School Board/County Council: $1

Jennie Forehand is on a different level than anyone else, with 21.4% of her total receipts since 1999 reported as lump sums. That exceeds Hank Heller (15.1%) and Kathleen Dumais (6.7%) and blows away everyone else in Montgomery County.

Lump sums are most commonly used by PACs, which often rely on countless small donations from members of organizations. When candidates report lump sums, they are often in small amounts – hundreds of dollars or less. Candidate-reported lump sums of $1,000 or more are uncommon.

Forehand has reported five of them:

$14,085 on 8/1/02, labeled “contribution by checks under $51”
$7,825 on 1/12/04, labeled “total of checks of $10 to $50 from individuals”
$5,621 on 1/10/06, no label
$4,925 on 11/25/00, labeled “contributions of $50 and under – from 11/25/00 to 11/1/01”
$1,305 on 11/20/00, no label

If each of Forehand’s lump sum contributions was comprised of $50.99 checks – the maximum allowed by law – that would equal 711 contributors, each of whom would have to be identified if they contributed any more money. Our database contains just 247 identified individual contributions to Forehand over the last ten years.

Forehand’s 8/1/02 lump sum of $14,085 is remarkable. Only seven lump sums reported by candidates have exceeded it over the last ten years. And to our knowledge, only two other candidates have raised more money through lump sums than Forehand: former Charles County Sheriff Fred Davis ($117,204) and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Norman Conway ($83,377.60).

The use of lump sums might make sense in instances of large numbers of tiny contributions, as is the case with many PACs. But when a candidate employs them to shield one-tenth, one-fifth or more of his or her donor base from identification, that creates the possibility of abuse. And worst of all, nothing short of a forensic audit by SBE can detect whether a lump sum is legitimately used or not. It’s impossible for any member of the public to tell what is really going on. We will be looking for this practice in the future. Politicians, you have been warned.

Next year, elections for state and county offices will be held. We will repeat our analysis of campaign funding after the next batch of reports arrives in January and issue profiles for each reporting candidate in the county.

Update: One of our sources had this to say about one of Forehand’s lump sums:

How do you do a lump sum PROSPECTIVELY???

$4,925 on 11/25/00, labeled “contributions of $50 and under – from 11/25/00 to 11/1/01”

She deposited it on 11/25/00 and includes folks who gave like 10 months later…?

Perhaps the Senator will consider answering that question.

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Inflationary Policies

By Marc Korman.

Economists are afraid that the government’s fiscal and monetary policies will lead to an oversupply of money and runaway inflation. But out in Colorado, the opposite is taking place. Projected deflation in 2010 means the state’s minimum wage will actually decline.

Senator Jennie Forehand on "Political Pulse" on Channel 16 TV‏

MD State Senator Jennie Forehand from District 17 will be on the "Political Pulse" political talk show on:

Follow the Money, Part Five

Who is financed by Maryland residents and who is backed by out-of-state money? We know the answers and now so do you.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)