As we wrote yesterday, we believe that state legislators are paid too little relative to their job duties. That threatens to shrink the pool of competent people willing to serve and it is one reason why we have not made a big deal about their giving up furlough days in line with state employees. But a few state legislators are genuinely wealthy and would not miss the money, so they have no excuse not to give their pay back to the general fund. Here are three who spent at least $50,000 on their own political campaigns but have turned up their noses at giving back any part of their salaries to the state.
Senator Edward J. Pipkin (R-36)
Caroline, Cecil, Kent & Queen Anne’s Counties
Self-Financing, Federal Campaigns: $2,579,057
Self-Financing, State Campaigns: $573,000
Furlough Days Given Up, FY 2009: 0
Furlough Days Given Up, FY 2010: 0 (So far)
Few people in Maryland’s history, if any, have spent more on their own political races than E.J. Pipkin. A Wall Street trader who made millions selling junk bonds, Pipkin loaned himself $573,000 to knock out six-term Democratic Senate incumbent Walter Baker in 2002. Two years later, Pipkin contributed $1,591,057, or 70% of his receipts, to his unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign against Barbara Mikulski. But Pipkin was not through trying to buy elections, giving himself another $988,000 – 92% of his receipts – to run unsuccessfully in the Congress District 1 primary against Andy Harris.
Pipkin’s ability to turn on the cash spigot is unparalleled. He once lived in a 9,792-square-foot mansion in Stevensville which he sold for $4.5 million on 9/25/06. Whether he used those proceeds to pay himself back for the race against Mikulski or to finance his race against Andy Harris – or maybe both – is unknown. But Pipkin hasn’t gone to the poorhouse. His new spread in Elkton is right next to “The Club of Patriots Glen,” described as a “must-play course” by Washington Golf Monthly.
Pipkin lives by the rules of the super-rich: do what you want, when you want. And while other legislators send their pay back to the state, Pipkin feels no such obligation. He is just too rich for furloughs.
Delegate William Anthony McConkey (R-33A)
Anne Arundel County
Self-Financing, Federal Campaigns: NA
Self-Financing, State Campaigns: $200,950
Furlough Days Given Up, FY 2009: 0
Furlough Days Given Up, FY 2010: 0 (So far)
Tony McConkey is a lawyer, real estate broker and property manager who spent $107,950 to get himself elected to an Anne Arundel Delegate seat in 2002. He followed up with another $93,000 in self-financing in 2006.
It’s a mystery how McConkey makes his money since he spends so much time in court as a defendant. He has been sued in 22 different cases in Prince George’s and Anne Arundel County courts since 1991. Among the parties who have sued him are the IRS, the State of Maryland and Prince George’s County, all of whom filed tax liens against him. The state’s lien totaled $12,703.54; the other amounts are not listed on the dockets.
The most infamous anti-McConkey suit was filed by Pasadena resident Teresa Milligan, who alleged that he tricked her into selling her house to him when it was threatened with foreclosure in 2006. Two years later, McConkey filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy to delay his jury trial. The jury ultimately found him guilty of violating state law, but only required him to pay $10,800. A triumphant McConkey proclaimed, “I feel vindicated.” A judge later hiked the penalty to $109,000 in damages and attorneys fees.
Unlike Pipkin, McConkey may have a good excuse for not surrendering furlough pay to the state. He could very well need the money for the next lawsuit.
Senator Andy Harris (R-7)
Baltimore and Harford Counties
Self-Financing, Federal Campaigns: $0
Self-Financing, State Campaigns: $65,000
Furlough Days Given Up, FY 2009: 0
Furlough Days Given Up, FY 2010: 0 (So far)
Andy Harris is a three-term Senator who is an obstetric anesthesiologist by trade. He earns a comfortable living that has enabled him to make one $10,000 contribution and four different $10,000 loans to his state campaigns. Unlike Pipkin, he did not self-finance his run for the First District Congressional seat.
Harris is one of the most conservative Senators in Maryland, especially on economic issues. He has lead-sponsored bills calling for a super-majority to raise taxes, a super-majority to pass new spending and a reduction in the sales tax. He describes himself on his website as “a leading advocate for taxpayer rights” and “a fiscal conservative, fighting to keep taxes low and limit government expansion.” Besides running for Congress, Harris is best known for waging his “Porn War” against the University of Maryland.
Andy Harris is anti-spending except when the state’s money is headed into his pocket. Like Pipkin and McConkey, he has not given back furlough days to the state last year or this year.
Some legislators who have not given back furlough days say they will donate their pay to charity instead. Delegate H. Wayne Norman (R-35A) made that argument while comparing his state government to the bankrupt General Motors. There are two problems with that position. First, payment to a charity is inherently unverifiable unless the legislator produces a copy of a canceled check. Second, conservatives like Pipkin, McConkey, Harris and Norman rant endlessly about the need to reduce government spending. Paying a charity rather than returning furlough money redirects spending rather than reducing it. It’s a hollow argument with little credibility given that the legislators’ wallets are involved.
So why make excuses? Act like a conservative, give back the money and cut the budget. Otherwise, these fellows are conservatives only with regard to other people’s needs and are free-spending liberals when it comes to their own.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Too Rich for Furloughs
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Pipkin’s ICC Gambit
Why is Republican Senator E.J. Pipkin (R-36) sponsoring a bill to stop further spending on the Intercounty Connnector, a high-profile project that is a top priority of the business community? We can think of several reasons, all relevant to the next Congressional District 1 race – a contest in which Pipkin may very well run again.
1. Opposition to “Government Waste”
Like ICC opponents in Montgomery County, Pipkin can claim that the ICC is a “wasteful” expenditure given the state’s recent cutbacks in transportation projects. Many Montgomery ICC enemies say that the project’s money should be spent on transit instead, but Pipkin would have a different goal in mind.
2. Against Montgomery County, for the Eastern Shore
Pipkin can make an argument that many outside Montgomery County embrace: Montgomery gets too much transportation money. It is getting the $2.4 billion ICC, plus two out of three of the state’s major new transit lines, plus a large annual subsidy to WMATA. Pipkin can say that other projects in the “neglected” Eastern Shore are due for financing. This will be a popular argument in District 1. It also adds a touch of populism to go against the state’s biggest, and supposedly wealthiest, jurisdiction.
3. Pro-environment
If Pipkin makes it out of the Republican primary, his anti-ICC bill will form part of a nice pitch to the environmental movement. Maryland environmentalists are convinced that the ICC will promote global warming and increase stormwater runoff. In fact, Governor O’Malley’s support for the ICC was the biggest black mark on his mid-term evaluation by the Maryland League of Conservation Voters. This fits with Pipkin’s past efforts to depict himself as a pro-environment, pro-Bay Republican and will make him more competitive against Frank Kratovil in a general election.
The bill’s co-sponsor list is interesting. It includes Democrats James Brochin (D-42), George Della (D-46), Brian Frosh (D-16), David Harrington (D-47), Paul Pinsky (D-22), and Jamie Raskin (D-20) and Republicans Richard Colburn (R-37) and Nancy Jacobs (R-34). Frosh, Pinsky and Raskin are three of the most liberal Senators in Maryland and Jacobs is one of the most conservative Senators. Democratic Delegate Barbara Frush (D-21) is the sponsor of the House version of the bill.
Regardless of the policy implications of stopping the ICC, this bill is a very astute move for Senator Pipkin. Have the Democratic co-sponsors considered whether they should be helping Pipkin - and perhaps even strengthening him - for a possible 2010 showdown against Frank Kratovil?
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Death Penalty Repeal Dies in the Senate
The Maryland Senate has spoken: there will be no repeal of the death penalty this year. But we learned a few valuable things from the process.
First, Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) issued this description of today’s events:Earlier today, we finished the debate on the death penalty repeal, probably for the year. Yesterday evening, an attempt to “recommit” the repeal bill to the Judicial Proceedings Committee, a parliamentary maneuver that almost always signals the end of a bill's chance for passage, failed by a vote of 23 to 23. (One anti-repeal senator was absent.) With the votes to kill this bill with this maneuver in hand, the Democratic opponents to the repeal offered the governor a compromise this morning: accept the bill as amended yesterday and no further attempts to weaken or stop the bill would be offered. After an hour of discussion in the Senate, this position was essentially ratified when the bill was passed on to third reading. A final vote will come on Friday. The Senate President was clear that no changes from the House would be entertained later in the Session.
Here are a few things we take away from this experience:
This is a disappointing outcome for those of us who favor repeal. We can find solace in the fact that the changes in the amended bill will reduce the number of executions and significantly diminish the chances of innocent people being executed. However, this “compromise” does not address the serious racial and geographic disparities that exist in the way death penalty prosecutions work. People prosecuted in Baltimore County are twelve times more likely to be subject to the death penalty than those prosecuted in other parts of the state. In addition, while the vast majority of murder victims in our state are minorities, all of the people on death row were convicted of murdering whites. These issues will need to be addressed in the future as this effort continues. As evidenced by the votes, we are just one or two votes short of being able to win a different outcome. And, I am sure that Governor O'Malley will continue to lead this fight over the next few years.
As additional developments occur, I will certainly let you know. I deeply appreciate the hundreds of e-mails I received about this issue. I wish I could report a bigger victory, but at least progress was made this year and a full debate did finally break out on the Senate floor.
Sincerely,
Rich
1. Senate President Mike Miller proved his vote-counting skills once again. He knew from the start that repeal would not pass the Senate but he gave the Governor and death penalty opponents a fair shot.
2. Governor O’Malley is willing to dig in and fight hard on what he sees as a matter of principle, even if it means going against a substantial part of the electorate and annoying Mike Miller. Agree with him or not, the Governor showed some guts on this one.
3. Senator Andy Harris (R-7), who has already declared his intention to run for Congress again, has made a gigantic mistake on this issue. As conservative blogger Brian Griffiths has pointed out, Harris missed a key vote on sending repeal back to committee, which would have effectively killed it. And who made the motion to kill the bill? None other than Senator E.J. Pipkin (R-36), Harris’s primary opponent for Congress last year. We’ll have more on Pipkin next week.
4. Even though his district may not be as liberal as most in Montgomery County, Delegate Craig Rice (D-15) took a politically courageous risk in opposing repeal. Montgomery is full of anti-death penalty activists, but Rice’s letter to the Senators makes for compelling reading.
The real question now is what the House of Delegates will do with the Senate’s bill, which restricts use of the death penalty but does not eliminate it. Miller has indicated that he will not go to conference to reconcile different versions of the bill. But the House will have its own ideas of what to do on the issue. Generally speaking, neither chamber reacts well to a “take-it-or-leave-it” bill from the other chamber. When I asked House Majority Leader Kumar Barve (D-17) about how the House might proceed, he answered:Even though we impose a lot of discipline on the House Floor, we consider Abortion and the Death Penalty as “conscience” votes. We don’t whip these issues and we don’t really care how people vote (except that committee members keep their votes consistent on the floor and committee). So, we’re happy to have the House committee and House chamber do whatever they feel is appropriate. If Miller has a problem with that, it’s his problem, not ours.
That response means the death penalty debate may be far from over.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Rep. Gilchrest Faces Another Challenger
There have been rumors for awhile, but tomorrow it becomes official: GOP State Sen. E.J. Pipkin will join State Sen. Andrew Harris in challenging the reelection of fellow Republican Congressman Wayne Gilchrest. Pipkin gained statewide visibility back in 2004 during his unsuccessful run to replace Barbara Mikulski in the U.S. Senate.
But is this really everything it appears? Is Pipkin really angling to knock Gilchrest out of Congress? Or is this a plan to actually help Gilchrest?
Pipkin would likely divide the anti-incumbent primary vote to Gilchrest’s benefit. Considering the number of prominent Republicans – including former Governor Ehrlich – who have already come out in support of Harris, Gilchrest may feel sufficiently endangered to ask Pipkin to help him out this way.
And Pipkin has nothing to lose by running, since he doesn’t have to vacate his own state senate seat to do it.
If I were Gilchrest, this is the sort of divide-and-conquer plan I would come up with.
On the other hand, this may very well be exactly what it looks like: Pipkin challenging a vulnerable Congressman so he can take his place.
Either way, it should be an interesting primary to watch.
