Progressive Maryland (PM), an umbrella organization of trade unions, civil rights groups and other progressive institutions, has released its 2010 scorecard. PM ranks state legislators on a 100-point scale, with 80 points coming from votes on nine bills and 20 points coming from a subjective “leadership” score. The bills deal with campaign finance reform, preventing SLAPP suits against activists, combined reporting, early learning for young children, shift breaks for retail employees, collective bargaining rights for childcare providers, a public labor relations board and the BOAST bill. Following are a few statistics from their rankings.
Highest Scores in the Senate, 2010
Paul Pinsky (D-22): 98
Mike Lenett (D-19): 97
David Harrington (D-47): 96
Verna Jones (D-44): 96
Nancy King (D-39): 96
Jamie Raskin (D-20): 95
Highest Scores in the House, 2010
Tom Hucker (D-20): 97
Roger Manno (D-19): 97
Aisha Braveboy (D-25): 96
Cheryl Glenn (D-45): 96
Saqib Ali (D-39): 95
Charles Barkley (D-39): 95
Joanne Benson (D-24): 95
Jon Cardin (D-11): 95
Bill Frick (D-16): 95
Sheila Hixson (D-20): 95
Adrienne Jones (D-10): 95
Heather Mizeur (D-20): 95
Karen Montgomery (D-14): 95
Doyle Niemann (D-47): 95
Kirill Reznik (D-39): 95
Justin Ross (D-22): 95
Todd Schuler (D-8): 95
Four Year Averages, MoCo Senators
Jamie Raskin (D-20): 96
Mike Lenett (D-19): 95
Rich Madaleno (D-18): 95
Brian Frosh (D-16): 94
Rob Garagiola (D-15): 92
Nancy King (D-39): 92
Jennie Forehand (D-17): 90
Rona Kramer (D-14): 51
Four Year Averages, MoCo Delegates
Tom Hucker (D-20): 98
Sheila Hixson (D-20): 97
Roger Manno (D-19): 97
Susan Lee (D-16): 96
Anne Kaiser (D-14): 95
Heather Mizeur (D-20): 95
Karen Montgomery (D-14): 95
Herman Taylor (D-14): 95
Saqib Ali (D-39): 94
Kumar Barve (D-17): 94
Bill Bronrott (D-16): 94
Al Carr (D-18): 94
Bill Frick (D-16): 94
Craig Rice (D-15): 94
Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18): 94
Kathleen Dumais (D-15): 93
Jim Gilchrist (D-17): 92
Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18): 92
Hank Heller (D-19): 92
Brian Feldman (D-15): 91
Kirill Reznik (D-39): 91
Charles Barkley (D-39): 88
Luiz Simmons (D-17): 88
Ben Kramer (D-19): 84
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Progressive Maryland Releases 2010 Scorecard
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Maryland LCV Releases State Legislator Ratings on the Environment (Updated)
The Maryland League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has released its 2010 rankings of state legislators on environmental votes, as well as their lifetime records. Here are the lifetime voting percentages for all MoCo legislators, with 100% being the maximum possible score.
Delegate Roger Manno (D-19): 100%
Senator Brian Frosh (D-16): 99%
Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18): 98%
Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20): 98%
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20): 97%
Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20): 97%
Delegate Bill Frick (D-16): 96%
Delegate Karen Montgomery (D-14): 96%
Delegate Bill Bronrott (D-16): 94%
Delegate Al Carr (D-18): 94%
Delegate Anne Kaiser (D-14): 94%
Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18): 94%
Delegate Craig Rice (D-15): 94%
Delegate Henry Heller (D-19): 93%
Senator Mike Lenett (D-19): 93%
Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17): 93%
Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18): 93%
Delegate Saqib Ali (D-39): 92%
Delegate Susan Lee (D-16): 92%
Delegate Kirill Reznik (D-39): 92%
Delegate Charles Barkley (D-39): 91%
Delegate Kathleen Dumais (D-15): 91%
Delegate Jim Gilchrist (D-17): 91%
Delegate Herman Taylor (D-14): 90%
Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20): 88%
Delegate Ben Kramer (D-19): 87%
Delegate Kumar Barve (D-17): 85%
Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15): 84%
Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15): 83%
Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17): 82%
Senator Nancy King (D-39): 82%
Senator Rona Kramer (D-14): 65%
Frosh and Prince George’s County Senator Paul Pinsky (D-22) have the highest lifetime scores of any Senators, with 99% each. Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs (R-34) of Cecil and Harford Counties has the lowest score at 8%. Delegates Elizabeth Bobo (12B) of Howard County and Roger Manno (D-19) of MoCo are the only legislators with 100% lifetime scores. Republican Delegate Warren Miller (9A) of Howard County has the lowest lifetime score of any Delegate at 10%.
Update: The scorecard was jointly developed between LCV and Environment Maryland. The document linked above is Environment Maryland's version of the scorecard. LCV has not publicly released its version yet.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Panhandlers of MoCo
Montgomery County is the Economic Engine of Maryland. The county accounts for one-sixth of the state’s population, one-fifth of its employment and tax receipts, one-fourth of its personal income and one-third of its business profit. So you would think that our economic might would make us the budget bosses of Annapolis, right?
Wrong. In terms of the state budget, we will have our hands out for years. We are, in fact, the Panhandlers of MoCo.
That status is a direct reflection of our budget problems. It is not merely because we need to close a nearly billion-dollar deficit in FY 2010, a gap that is so huge that not even massive furloughs could close it. It is also because our deficits are forecasted to be $500-700 million every year through at least FY 2016. State aid is of little help since the county’s relative wealth guarantees minimal returns on the tax dollars we pay to the state government. However, the “good news” is that if our economy continues to crater, we may actually get poorer and thus get more state money. Such is the nature of good news in bad times.
MoCo’s endless deficits are putting it on a collision course with the state’s Maintenance of Effort (MOE) law, which requires counties to at least match their prior year’s per-pupil local spending on schools to be eligible for state aid increases. MoCo asked for a waiver from MOE last year and was turned down by the State Board of Education. The state then ruled that MoCo’s attempt to comply with the rule was illegal and levied a $23 million fine against the county. MoCo’s state legislators were able to get the fine revoked, but the county - as well as other counties around the state – also wanted to loosen the process of getting waivers from MOE. An attempt to do that through legislation collapsed on the last night of the session due to “technical errors.” Those errors could wind up costing MoCo, and possibly other counties, tens of millions of dollars.
Here’s why. The county cannot afford its MOE requirement again and is applying for another waiver. But the process and the decision-makers who ruled against the county last year remain the same this year, so another denial should be expected. After all, State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick is mighty proud of Maryland’s number one public schools ranking and the last thing she wants is to let MoCo cut its school spending only to see the state’s rank fall. And so the county will be fined – again. And then the state legislators will have to get it revoked – again. And then the process will repeat – over and over again. This puts our delegation in a very bad position. What price will they have to pay to get these fines revoked? A teacher pension handoff? Big tax hikes that disproportionately hit the county? It won’t be pretty.
In the meantime, the Prince George’s state legislators did the unthinkable. When increases in relative wealth threatened to reduce their state aid, they got a wealth formula changed to give them the money anyway. As a result, County Executive Jack Johnson crowed about how the extra aid meant that his county might not have to apply for an MOE waiver. The irony here is that MoCo’s state legislators actually helped them change the formula. Now it is we, and not Prince George’s, that will be extending our empty cup to the Lords of Annapolis.
Maybe this time we should just take the fine. Even panhandlers should have some self-respect.
Monday, April 05, 2010
MoCo Delegation Defeats Prince George’s Minority Contracting Grab
In an earlier post, we detailed an attempt by the Prince George’s Delegation to acquire veto power over any changes to the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission’s (WSSC) minority contracting program. WSSC’s current program has been declared unconstitutional by its own legal counsel, but the Prince George’s legislators are eager to protect current minority contractors who benefit from it because they are significant political supporters. So the Prince George’s legislators, aided by Montgomery Delegate and Congressional hopeful Delegate Herman Taylor (D-14), wrote a bill requiring that any minority contracting changes receive General Assembly approval prior to enactment. But because WSSC serves both counties, the bill had to pass both the Prince George’s and Montgomery delegations to get to the General Assembly floor. And that proved to be its undoing.
The Prince George’s delegation passed the bill by a 19-0 vote on March 5. The Montgomery delegation first voted on the bill on March 26. At that time, the bill received eleven votes in favor and ten votes against. But it did not pass because it did not receive a majority of the Montgomery delegation’s twenty-four votes, thus relegating it to “limbo.” That was because House Chairman Brian Feldman (D-15) abstained, as chairs usually do, and Delegates Al Carr (D-18) and Tom Hucker (D-20) were absent. However, the bill’s supporters brought it up for a second vote on April 2. This time, eleven legislators voted in favor, six voted against, six abstained and one was absent. The bill thus went into limbo again and is dead for this session.
The interesting fact here is that some legislators changed their votes. They include:
Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20). She voted nay the first time and was absent the second time.
Delegate Tom Hucker (D-20). He was absent the first time and voted yea the second time.
Delegate Al Carr (D-18). He was absent the first time and abstained the second time.
Delegate Sheila Hixson (D-20). She voted nay the first time and yea the second time.
Delegates Saqib Ali (D-39) and Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18). They voted nay the first time and abstained the second time.
Delegates Bill Bronrott (D-16) and Ben Kramer (D-19). They voted yea the first time and abstained the second time.
The key votes here belong to Hucker, Hixson, Bronrott and Kramer. Hixson and Hucker supplied two new yea votes. Bronrott and Kramer deprived the bill of two yea votes it formerly had. So in both instances, the bill fell two votes short of the thirteen it needed to pass the MoCo delegation. And so the Prince George’s delegation’s plan to exert direct control over WSSC minority contracting has failed – at least for now.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
How to School Annapolis
This year was supposed to be a lean year in the statehouse. Cuts were everywhere. Furloughs and pink slips were being handed out left and right. State aid and teacher pensions were on the chopping block. But somehow, the Prince George’s County state legislators were able to bring home an extra $18 million. How did they do it?
Take a seat, folks, because class is in session!
The Prince George’s delegation, also known as “the PeeGees,” is the second-largest county delegation in Annapolis. Six Senators and eighteen Delegates represent Prince George’s County alone. Two more Senators and five more Delegates have split districts that include pieces of Prince George’s. One of those Senators is Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller, who has priorities that go far outside the county. The delegation has three standing committee chairs: House Economic Matters, House Judiciary and Senate Budget and Taxation. The group is more diverse than most people appreciate, ranging from do-gooder liberal Senator Paul Pinsky (D-22) to ethically-challenged, head-breaking Senator Nathaniel Exum (D-24) to young, wonky Delegate Justin Ross (D-22) to old, gruff House Judiciary Chairman Joe Vallario (D-27A) to smart, savvy House Economic Matters Chairman Dereck Davis (D-25), a potential future Speaker of the House. Senate Budget and Taxation Committee Chairman Ulysses Currie (D-25) is one of Big Daddy’s top lieutenants and makes sure his committee never strays too far from the boss. The Senators are all men, but a pack of young, hungry female Delegates is breathing down their necks and may someday take a couple of them out.
One spy says, “They are great street fighters. O’Malley fears them. They are the ‘victimized’ and they all believe it. They are much better at the ‘game’ – they take it personally, they take pride in ‘winning,’ and they are held accountable for playing it well by churches, etc. – not just one union.” The only sense of victimization felt by many MoCo legislators is the fact that they have not yet been elected to Congress.
As powerful as the PeeGees are, they have a problem: despite the incompetent administration of County Executive Jack Johnson, the county’s wealth is growing relative to the rest of the state. You might think that’s a good thing, but not in Maryland. The state’s wealth formulas punish economic success by diverting aid away from rich counties towards poorer ones. In the Governor’s FY 2011 budget proposal, Prince George’s was scheduled to take a 3.0% cut in aid, the biggest drop in the state. That’s just disrespectful, and no one disses the PeeGees. Here are the three things they did to turn the tables and bring home eighteen million slices of bacon.
1. Get Some Leverage
As of February 2010, 57% of Montgomery County registered voters were Democrats and the county votes overwhelmingly Democratic in every statewide election. So there has always been a sense that Democratic Governors can take MoCo for granted and hand out goodies for votes elsewhere. But 78% of registered Prince George’s voters are Democrats. Why doesn’t the same conventional wisdom apply to them?
The reason is because Prince George’s support does not come for free. They make a Governor work to get it. Three years ago, the biggest issue in the county was its deteriorating hospital system, which was on the verge of outright collapse. Governor O’Malley moved to save it by pouring tens of millions of state dollars into the system until a buyer was found. Meanwhile, the county government is trying to weasel out of its own payments to the hospital.
But the Governor’s unprecedented intervention wasn’t good enough for Prince George’s politicians as many of them withheld their endorsements last fall. (At the same time, nearly all MoCo politicians jumped on the O’Malley bandwagon despite having been screwed on school construction money the year before.) Prince George’s Delegate Dereck Davis, a power broker who chairs the House Economic Matters Committee, explained his non-endorsement to MPW this way:…I have not endorsed anyone for Governor. Quite candidly, I think it is premature to endorse anyone until after the 2010 legislative session has been completed. Then, and only then, will I be able to make an informed decision about what’s best for the community I represent.
Translation: Give us a little more, Governor. That opinion was shared by the legions of Prince George’s politicians who swarmed into potential primary challenger Wayne Curry’s birthday party. The party was a bombshell that scattered shrapnel all over Annapolis and in hindsight was one of the best things to happen for the county.
So isn’t this ungrateful behavior by the PeeGees? Of course, but it also creates the most valuable commodity in politics: leverage. And O’Malley’s promise to help the county in its quest for more aid was a direct response to such tactics.
2. Be Persistent
Prince George’s politicians have been beating the drum on state aid for a long time no matter who has been in the Governor’s office. The latest rumble started last year, when the county’s increasing wealth caused a 1.2% cut in its state aid. Exum confronted O’Malley aide Joe Brice about it:“It is clear Prince George's County has been hurt by these cuts,” he said. “We want to know what the Governor is going to do to rectify this? Because next year is 2010. And who is the Governor going to look for in his reelection campaign?”
Delegate Justin Ross followed up with a bill to change the school aid formula, telling the Post that it was a “fairness issue.” The bill was voted down by the House Ways and Means Committee, but the PeeGees had laid down their marker for 2010.
Brice responded that O'Malley would try to bring all lawmakers together and work with them on the budget.
“As long as he is aware,” Exum shot back.
This year Ross reintroduced that bill, which would have generated $39.6 million in new school aid for the counties. Prince George’s would have received $13.4 million, the most of any jurisdiction. Charles County would have been second with $4 million. MoCo would have received zero dollars. The PeeGees began sniping at MoCo in the Post over aid even though they were already getting FAR more aid than MoCo. Clearly, the PeeGees were not going to give up. O’Malley and the General Assembly leadership got the message.
3. Get Some Allies and Cut a Deal
There are three ways to get allies and cut a deal: persuasion, pressure and working out mutual gain. The PeeGees used all three to fix their aid problem.
Persuasion: The case made by Ross for a formula change involved the appropriate timing to determine wealth. Current state wealth formulas are based on tax returns filed through August 15 or September 1, but wealthy people often get extensions and file later. Ross and the PeeGees argue that undervalues the true wealth of jurisdictions with a lot of rich people in them, like MoCo, so they want to move the formula date to November 1. MoCo budget expert Senator Rich Madaleno (D-18) bought that argument, telling Ross that he had made a “compelling case” for changing at least one of the state’s formulas. Ross said, “Prince George’s County has no greater friend than Montgomery County in the legislature.” Oy!
Pressure: This is the product of the leverage and persistence discussed above. O’Malley needed Wayne Curry out of the way and the PeeGees were not going to cooperate until they got some bacon. As a result, the General Assembly’s leadership understood the importance of taking care of Prince George’s.
Mutual Gain: No budget bickering occurs in a vacuum in Annapolis. Everybody has complaints, and those who want to play ball can get some relief. This year, Baltimore City, MoCo and Prince George’s were each thrown a bone. The city got to keep the street maintenance money that some other jurisdictions were trying to take away. MoCo got to escape its Maintenance of Effort (MOE) fine. And the PeeGees got a change to the wealth formula covering disparity grants, which subsidize “poor” jurisdictions, that gave them $18 million. (They’ll be back for the much-larger education formula next year, and that will cost MoCo big-time.) So the city got to keep something it already had, MoCo avoided a fine it should never have had to pay and Prince George’s got brand new money. Who do you think made out the best?
Let’s not overstate our case. There are no LBJs running around the Prince George’s delegation and they have problems like everyone else. A few of them are deadwood, a few of them are banana-cakes and at least a couple of them are probably crooked. But as a group, they know how to squeeze the orange and get some juice to come out.
Now compare the above to our legislative “strategy” on teacher pensions. Our plan to avoid having Big Daddy stick it to us next year was to stick it to ourselves this year. Leverage, persistence, pressure, negotiation, posturing, recruiting allies, lining up votes, tough bargaining – you know, all those unsavory things that Big Daddy and the PeeGees do – well, some of our guys are too good for that. Others just don’t care because they are in Annapolis for other reasons. “Frankly, funding Ike and Nancy Floreen’s pet projects doesn’t get me out of bed in the morning,” sneers one MoCo delegation member.
Hear that? That was the bell. Class is dismissed.
Did we learn anything?
Monday, March 29, 2010
Prince George’s Delegation Seeks Veto Power Over WSSC Minority Contracting
The commissioners of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) have been told by their general counsel that the agency’s current minority contracting program is illegal. That doesn’t sit well with the Prince George’s County Delegation, which is devoted to the program and its beneficiaries. So they have a solution: they want veto power over what WSSC will do. And they are very, very close to getting what they want.
Minority contracting is big business in Prince George’s County and especially at WSSC. Prince George’s County has a history of sending aggressive defenders of the program to occupy its three seats on the WSSC’s six-member board. In fact, one of the county’s current commissioners is himself a minority contractor who has done business with the agency. The Prince George’s commissioners’ obsession with minority contracting runs so deep that the issue dominated a 12-hour board meeting held after the monster River Road pipe break last year, which was not discussed. What started as a program to protect struggling, small minority businesses decades ago has turned into a protection system for big, politically-connected companies looking to keep their piece of the pie. That’s because in thirty-two years of existence, WSSC’s minority contracting program has never graduated a single firm.
But the program has a problem: it’s illegal. WSSC’s own legal counsel told the commissioners back in January that the program was unconstitutional. The Gazette reported:According to commissioners, a legal analysis delivered to them in closed session Wednesday concluded that the WSSC’s minority business enterprise program violates the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1989 ruling, in City of Richmond (Va.) v. J.A. Croson Co., that preference programs are unconstitutional unless based on a finding that the beneficiaries otherwise lack access.
Of course, these contractors have had thirty-two years of access! And their political contributions get them a WHOLE lot more access than the average Joe on the street.
WSSC has known that its minority contracting program has had problems for at least five years but its commissioners cannot agree on how to fix it. The three Prince George’s commissioners almost always deadlock with the three Montgomery commissioners, so the current illegal program has been extended again and again. But the legal counsel’s naked declaration is forcing the issue to a head and that alarms state legislators in Prince George’s County. After all, some of them depend on minority contractors for cash and political support and their interests must be protected.
So Prince George’s County Delegate Aisha Braveboy (D-25) and Montgomery County Delegate Herman Taylor (D-14) introduced local bill PG/MC 116-10, which prohibits WSSC modification or approval of a new minority contracting program without General Assembly approval. In this case, that means approval by the Prince George’s delegation, the Montgomery County delegation and finally the General Assembly as a whole. Both lead sponsors have an angle. Braveboy has sought to cast herself as a champion of minority contractors and would like to use the issue in a potential challenge to Senator Ulysses Currie. Taylor is running for Congress against Donna Edwards and is looking for ways to build a base in Prince George’s County.
Local bills pertaining to bi-county agencies like WSSC must pass both the Prince George’s and Montgomery delegations before heading to the floor. Prince George’s approved it by a 19-0 vote. The situation is more complicated in Montgomery because the County Executive and the County Council are on record as opposing the bill. In a letter to the two delegations, the Montgomery County Office of Intergovernmental Relations wrote, “The Montgomery County Executive and Council oppose this bill because it could require the Commission to operate a program that is not legally defensible and because the Commission should have the autonomy to operate its own program.”
Most MoCo legislators care little or nothing about minority contracting. They see it as a Prince George’s issue. If Braveboy and her delegation are jumping up and down about it, why not just give it to them and try to get something for it later? So the MoCo delegation voted in favor of the bill by 11-10, but it did not pass because it needs a majority of the delegation’s twenty-four members, or 13 votes, to get approved. Delegates Al Carr (D-18) and Tom Hucker (D-20) were absent.
But the issue is not yet dead. Braveboy and Taylor are still pushing it and want a new vote, possibly today. If they can get both Carr and Hucker to vote with them, the Prince George’s delegation will get its veto power. WSSC could then fashion the world’s fairest, most legal minority contracting program but if politically-connected contractors squawk, it is going down.
That would be very, very dangerous. In the wake of its legal counsel’s opinion, WSSC is now knowingly operating an unconstitutional race-based contracting program. That makes the agency a sitting duck for any non-minority contractor looking to sue. And if there is a class action that covers a period of years, well… the liability will be incalculable. And any damages will be paid by you, the ratepayers. That’s right, you.
So who’s more important? The ratepayers? Or politicians and their cronies? We’re about to find out.
Monday, February 22, 2010
How Legislation is Decided
Here's a little tidbit illustrating how legislation really gets decided in Annapolis!
The bit concerns Delegate Saqib Ali's (D-39) local bill preventing landlords of rental housing from running credit checks on applicants who receive assistance from the county for the purpose of screening them out. The bill set off a raging scrum inside the delegation when they considered it. One of our spies (who is not Ali!) sent us a blow-by-blow account:
The spy closed with:
Frick asked why we need it. Then Ali schools Frick, then Simmons schools Ali, then Kaiser schools Simmons, then Dumais schools Ali, then [MoCo legislative analyst] Sheila Sprague schools everyone (takes Ali's back), then Rice schools the committee counsel (Elisa Ford), then Kaiser schools Rice, then Reznik schools Ali, then Dumais offers amendment to amended bill, then Kaiser agrees, then Ali schools Dumais (total smack down), then Simmons schools Ali but gets totally schooled by Ali in response (OUCH), then Barkley moves the previous question to go to a vote on the Dumais amendment, then Ali schools Dumais by killing the amendment on a vote of 18 nos, then Ali schools all by passing the bill!It was wild -- and I've never seen ANYONE school Lou before this. SMUUUUUUUUU-ACK!
Never, never again will your author allow his apolitical family members to declare that politics is boring. Why watch this?
When you can have this?
Friday, November 20, 2009
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.”
The State Board of Elections’ (SBE) Summary Guide lays out the circumstances under which lump sums can be used: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:
SBE discourages the practice:
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.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???
Perhaps the Senator will consider answering that question.
$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…?
Thursday, November 19, 2009
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.
Total Receipts from Maryland Contributors (Excludes Self and Family)
1. Steve Silverman, County Council/Executive Challenger: $2,427,826
2. Ike Leggett, County Executive: $1,165,525
3. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15): $495,469
4. George Leventhal, County Council: $478,014
5. Howard Denis, County Council: $447,130
6. Nancy Floreen, County Council: $420,955
7. Brian Frosh, Senator (D-16): $419,512
8. Ida Ruben, Senator (D-20): $346,492
9. Herman Taylor, Delegate (D-14): $321,484
10. Sheila Hixson, Delegate (D-20): $294,203
Total Receipts from Non-Maryland Contributors (Excludes Family)
1. Steve Silverman, County Council/Executive Challenger: $641,905
2. Ike Leggett, County Executive: $242,064
3. Duchy Trachtenberg, County Council: $236,671
4. Jamie Raskin, Senator (D-20): $130,346
5. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15): $127,464
6. Heather Mizeur, Delegate (D-20): $107,537
7. Howard Denis, County Council: $100,258
8. Sheila Hixson, Delegate (D-20): $97,711
9. Herman Taylor, Delegate (D-14): $87,605
10. Hans Riemer, County Council Challenger: $85,559
Percentage of Total Receipts from Maryland Contributors (Excludes Self and Family)
1. Cary Lamari, County Council Challenger: 100.0%
2. Robin Ficker, County Executive/Council Challenger: 99.1%
3. Steve Abrams, School Board/County Council Challenger: 98.8%
4. Sharon Dooley, County Council Challenger: 98.5%
5. Phil Andrews, County Council: 95.9%
6. Charles Barkley, Delegate (D-39): 94.6%
7. Jean Cryor, Delegate (D-15): 93.5%
8. Nancy King, Senator (D-39): 93.1%
9. Karen Montgomery, Delegate (D-14): 92.6%
10. Marc Elrich, County Council: 92.6%
61. Paul Griffin, Delegate Challenger: 24.5%
60. Hans Riemer, County Council Challenger: 25.6%
59. Dana Beyer, Delegate Challenger (D-18): 29.3%
58. Duchy Trachtenberg, County Council: 33.5%
57. Guled Kassim, Delegate/County Council Challenger: 38.0%
56. Bill Frick, Delegate (D-16): 47.7%
55. Reggie Oldak, Delegate Challenger (D-16): 48.2%
54. Heather Mizeur, Delegate (D-20): 54.8%
53. Ryan Spiegel, Delegate Challenger (D-17): 62.5%
52. Jamie Raskin, Senator (D-20): 63.1%
Candidates with large percentages of their receipts from Marylanders generally fall into two categories: long-time politicians with lots of local friends, and challengers with little base outside the state. Some out-of-state-backed candidates, including Dana Beyer, Hans Riemer, Heather Mizeur and Jamie Raskin, have tapped into national networks to mount a challenge.
Duchy Trachtenberg may be the only County Council Member with an ability to raise money nationally. As the then-President of Maryland NOW, Trachtenberg received significant amounts of money from California ($63,600) and New York ($61,696) in her 2002 and 2006 races. Most of that money came from big checks of $2,000 or more. Trachtenberg has received 24 of those checks from individuals in California, 22 from individuals in New York and 17 from individuals in Maryland (three of which came from herself). Since her former Chief of Staff is the new National President of NOW, that capacity may continue into 2010.
Here are the percentages of in-state receipts for each County Council incumbent, excluding contributions from self and family.
Phil Andrews: 95.9%
Marc Elrich: 92.6%
George Leventhal: 87.5%
Nancy Floreen: 87.2%
Valerie Ervin: 84.0%
Mike Knapp: 81.8%
Nancy Navarro: 77.7%
Roger Berliner: 63.7%
Duchy Trachtenberg: 33.5%
Here is a final statistic: the percentage of receipts that came from self, family and out-of-state entities. The higher this percentage, the less reliant a candidate is on financing from third-party Marylanders.
Percentage of Total Receipts from Self, Family and Out-of-State
1. Ben Kramer, Delegate/County Council Challenger: 94.5%
2. Robin Ficker, County Executive/Council Challenger: 94.1%
3. Dana Beyer, Delegate Challenger (D-18): 89.5%
4. Jeff Waldstreicher, Delegate (D-18): 82.9%
5. Paul Griffin, Delegate Challenger (D-19): 80.6%
6. Hans Riemer, County Council Challenger: 79.7%
7. Alec Stone, Delegate Challenger (D-19): 77.9%
8. Duchy Trachtenberg, County Council: 73.6%
9. Reggie Oldak, Delegate Challenger (D-16): 71.6%
10. Guled Kassim, Delegate/County Council Challenger: 68.3%
61. Phil Andrews, County Council: 4.5%
60. Sharon Dooley, Council Council Challenger: 5.8%
59. Jean Cryor, Delegate (D-15): 6.7%
58. Nancy King, Senator (D-39): 7.0%
57. Marc Elrich, County Council: 10.4%
56. Ida Ruben, Senator (D-20): 13.9%
55. Valerie Ervin, County Council: 16.0%
54. Kirill Reznik, Delegate (D-39): 16.1%
53. Cheryl Kagan, Delegate/Senate Challenger (D-17): 17.4%
52. Brian Frosh, Senator (D-16): 17.8%
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Follow the Money, Part Four
It’s time to look at self-financing. Which MoCo candidates depend on themselves the most? Let’s find out.
Total Receipts from Self (Includes Loans)
1. Ben Kramer, Delegate/County Council Challenger: $220,450
2. Mike Lenett, Senator (D-19): $164,352
3. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15): $149,428
4. Ike Leggett, County Executive: $125,000
5. Jeff Waldstreicher, Delegate (D-18): $121,442
6. Rona Kramer, Senator (D-14): $105,000
7. Robin Ficker, County Executive/Council Challenger: $91,272
8. Howard Denis, County Council: $87,000
9. Dana Beyer, Delegate Challenger (D-18): $83,203
10. Roger Manno, Delegate (D-19): $70,370
Percentage of Total Receipts from Self (Includes Loans)
1. Robin Ficker, County Executive/Council Challenger: 94.0%
2. Ben Kramer, Delegate/County Council Challenger: 93.9%
3. Mike Lenett, Senator (D-19): 67.6%
4. Jeff Waldstreicher, Delegate (D-18): 64.8%
5. Alec Stone, Delegate Challenger (D-19): 64.0%
6. Dana Beyer, Delegate Challenger (D-18): 62.5%
7. Cary Lamari, County Council Challenger: 54.5%
8. Rona Kramer, Senator (D-14): 47.9%
9. Roger Manno, Delegate (D-19): 45.7%
10. Reggie Oldak, Delegate Challenger (D-16): 41.0%
61. Kumar Barve, House Majority Leader (D-17): 0.0%
61. Bill Bronrott, Delegate (D-16): 0.0%
61. Jean Cryor, Delegate (D-15): 0.0%
61. Valerie Ervin, County Council: 0.0%
61. Jennie Forehand, Senator (D-17): 0.0%
61. Henry Heller, Delegate (D-19): 0.0%
61. Cheryl Kagan, Delegate/Senate Challenger (D-17): 0.0%
61. Nancy King, Senator (D-39): 0.0%
53. Ida Ruben, Senator (D-20): 0.0%
52. Sheila Hixson, Delegate (D-20): 0.1%
Politicians do not spend vast sums of their personal money on their own races unless they have to. And most of our leaders were in very competitive races. Rob Garagiola beat incumbent Republican Senator Jean Roesser in his first race. All of the other top ten in total self-financing receipts ran for open seats. Howard Denis won an open seat in a 2000 special election, narrowly defeated Duchy Trachtenberg in 2002 and lost to Roger Berliner in 2006. First-time candidate Mike Lenett got 52% of the vote against two incumbent Delegates in the 2006 District 19 Senate primary. Ben Kramer, Robin Ficker and Dana Beyer share a common distinction: they are the only candidates in recent MoCo history to spend $70,000 or more of their own money on a losing race.
Here’s an estimate of receipts from family members. We included people who shared a surname or a residence with a candidate, or lived in the same residence with another person who did.
Total Receipts from Family (Includes Loans)
1. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15): $49,462
2. Duchy Trachtenberg, County Council: $36,650
3. Susan Lee, Delegate (D-16): $32,016
4. Jeff Waldstreicher, Delegate (D-18): $25,200
5. Nancy Navarro, School Board/County Council: $21,565
6. Anne Kaiser, Delegate (D-14): $20,001
7. Karen Montgomery, Delegate (D-14): $17,800
8. Rich Madaleno, Senator (D-18): $16,897
9. Howard Denis, County Council: $15,550
10. George Leventhal, County Council: $14,778
We question the result for Susan Lee, given the fact that “Lee” is a common surname in the Asian community.
Total Receipts from Self and Family (Includes Loans)
1. Ben Kramer, Delegate/County Council Challenger: $220,450
2. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15): $198,890
3. Mike Lenett, Senator (D-19): $164,952
4. Jeff Waldstreicher, Delegate (D-18): $146,642
5. Ike Leggett, County Executive: $130,365
6. Rona Kramer, Senator (D-14): $110,639
7. Howard Denis, County Council: $102,550
8. Duchy Trachtenberg, County Council: $94,650
9. Robin Ficker, County Executive/Council Challenger: $91,272
10. Dana Beyer, Delegate Challenger (D-18): $85,303
We’ll look at geography in Part Five.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Follow the Money, Part Three
In our ten-year dataset of MoCo political contributions, business entities and PACs accounted for 27.1% of all receipts and labor PACs and political clubs accounted for 4.9%. Here are the leaders for each category.
Total Receipts from Business Entities (Including PACs but not Individuals)
1. Steve Silverman, County Council/Executive Challenger: $1,437,988
2. Ike Leggett, County Executive: $372,996
3. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15): $310,427
4. Sheila Hixson, Delegate (D-20): $206,779
5. Howard Denis, County Council: $187,102
6. Kumar Barve, House Majority Leader (D-17): $180,766
7. George Leventhal, County Council: $177,019
8. Herman Taylor, Delegate (D-14): $164,662
9. Nancy Floreen, County Council: $146,531
10. Brian Feldman, Delegate (D-15): $129,809
Percentage of Total Receipts from Business Entities (Including PACs but not Individuals)
1. Sheila Hixson, Delegate (D-20): 52.7%
2. Kumar Barve, House Majority Leader (D-17): 52.1%
3. Nancy King, Senator (D-39): 49.2%
4. Jennie Forehand, Senator (D-17): 46.6%
5. Luiz Simmons, Delegate (D-17): 46.4%
6. Steve Silverman, County Council/Executive Challenger: 45.8%
7. Brian Feldman, Delegate (D-15): 44.4%
8. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15): 37.8%
9. Steve Abrams, School Board/County Council Challenger: 36.6%
10. Cheryl Kagan, Delegate/Senate Challenger (D-17): 35.8%
61. Tom DeGonia, Delegate Challenger (D-19): 0.0%
61. Reggie Oldak, Delegate Challenger (D-16): 0.0%
59. Robin Ficker, County Executive/Council Challenger: 0.1%
58. Alec Stone, Delegate Challenger (D-19): 0.2%
57. Phil Andrews, County Council: 0.3%
56. Duchy Trachtenberg, County Council: 0.3%
55. Bill Frick, Delegate (D-16): 0.8%
54. Al Carr, Delegate (D-18): 2.0%
53. Dana Beyer, Delegate Challenger (D-18): 2.1%
52. Jamie Raskin, Senator (D-20): 2.7%
Many of the state legislators who lead in the business category have key positions in Annapolis. Sheila Hixson is the Chairwoman of the House Ways and Means Committee, which includes taxes and slots in its portfolio. Kumar Barve chairs the revenue subcommittee of Ways and Means and is the House Majority Leader. Brian Feldman chairs the banking subcommittee on the House Economic Matters Committee. Rob Garagiola is the only MoCo member of the Senate Finance Committee, which covers banking, insurance, slots and utility regulation, and is a possible future contender for the Senate Presidency. Howard Denis was the last Republican County Council Member and represented Bethesda, Chevy Chase and Potomac.
Total Receipts from Labor
1. Tom Hucker, Delegate (D-20): $92,427
2. Nancy Navarro, School Board/County Council: $68,231
3. George Leventhal, County Council: $62,949
4. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15): $53,123
5. Valerie Ervin, County Council: $45,072
6. Howard Denis, County Council: $41,350
7. Ike Leggett, County Executive: $34,040
8. Herman Taylor, Delegate (D-14): $31,450
9. Sheila Hixson, Delegate (D-20): $28,550
10. Mike Knapp, County Council: $26,340
Percentage of Total Receipts from Labor
1. Tom Hucker, Delegate (D-20): 49.3%
2. Valerie Ervin, County Council: 32.5%
3. Nancy Navarro, School Board/County Council: 27.8%
4. Laura Berthiaume, Delegate/School Board: 17.3%
5. Charles Barkley, Delegate (D-39): 15.4%
6. Marc Elrich, County Council: 14.2%
7. Henry Heller, Delegate (D-19): 13.7%
8. Roger Manno, Delegate (D-19): 12.8%
9. Nancy King, Senator (D-39): 10.6%
10. George Leventhal, County Council: 10.6%
Tied at 0.0%
Phil Andrews, County Council
Dana Beyer, Delegate Challenger (D-18)
Sharon Dooley, County Council Challenger
Robin Ficker, County Executive/Council Challenger
Guled Kassim, Delegate/County Council Challenger
Ben Kramer, Delegate/County Council Challenger
Cary Lamari, County Council Challenger
Reggie Oldak, Delegate Challenger (D-16)
Ryan Spiegel, Delegate Challenger (D-17)
Alec Stone, Delegate Challenger (D-19)
Craig Zucker, Delegate Challenger (D-14)
Tom Hucker founded Progressive Maryland and was its first Executive Director. He later worked for the Laborers Mid-Atlantic Regional Organizing Coalition. Valerie Ervin was a union member, organizer and educator for twenty-five years before becoming George Leventhal’s Chief of Staff. Nancy Navarro ran in two special elections in which the county’s public employee unions perceived that their contracts were endangered. Laura Berthiaume was MCEA’s choice to knock out former School Board member Steve Abrams. Elrich is an MCEA member and Elrich, Ervin and Leventhal were among the co-sponsors of the 2008 Prevailing Wage Law.
In most races, labor money has not been that significant. Labor’s strength comes from different sources, including MCEA’s powerful Apple Ballot, the unions’ ability to turn out volunteers and their efforts to communicate their endorsements to their own members.
We’ll look at self-funding tomorrow.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Follow the Money, Part Two
Let’s start crunching our colossal dataset of Montgomery County political contributions!
Here is the distribution by category of all contributions and loans received by every MoCo county and state incumbent, along with nineteen past incumbents and potential challengers, since 1999.
Individual contributions dominate the database. They account for 79.7% of all contributions and 50.4% of all money. Business entities and PACs follow, accounting for 27.1% of all money, but that is misleading. Many individual contributors are business owners, and they sometimes use their children, spouses and employees as channels for their money - a practice that we did not track. Even with this extraordinarily narrow definition, business donated more than five times the money that labor contributed (4.9%). Self-funding totaled almost $2 million and had the highest average contribution/loan level ($4,036). That reflects the fact that candidates are allowed to donate unlimited amounts to their own campaign funds, and some do!
Maryland-based entities accounted for 84.2% of contributions and 80.2% of all money, with entities in D.C. (7.2%) and Virginia (4.7%) running far behind. But many politicians collect far larger sums from out of state, and they will be revealed in time.
Here are the leaders in total receipts and receipts from individuals from 1999 through 2009.
Total Receipts (Including Loans)
1. Steve Silverman, County Council/Executive Challenger: $3,143,083
2. Ike Leggett, County Executive: $1,537,954
3. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15): $821,824
4. Howard Denis, County Council: $649,938
5. George Leventhal, County Council: $596,637
6. Brian Frosh, Senator (D-16): $510,255
7. Nancy Floreen, County Council: $503,505
8. Herman Taylor, Delegate (D-14): $471,061
9. Duchy Trachtenberg, County Council: $450,367
10. Ida Ruben, Senator (D-20): $402,518
Total Receipts from Individuals (Not Including Self or Family Financing)
1. Steve Silverman, County Council/Executive Challenger: $1,610,767
2. Ike Leggett, County Executive: $975,573
3. Brian Frosh, Senator (D-16): $406,849
4. Duchy Trachtenberg, County Council: $323,317
5. Jamie Raskin, Senator (D-20): $322,395
6. Nancy Floreen, County Council: $317,879
7. George Leventhal, County Council: $298,585
8. Howard Denis, County Council: $292,486
9. Ida Ruben, Senator (D-20): $231,448
10. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15): $201,101
Percentage of Total Receipts from Individuals (Not Including Self or Family Financing)
1. Phil Andrews, County Council: 98.8%
2. Bill Frick, Delegate (D-16): 88.1%
3. Jean Cryor, Delegate (D-15): 85.8%
4. Jamie Raskin, Senator (D-20): 84.2%
5. Saqib Ali, Delegate (D-39): 82.6%
6. Brian Frosh, Senator (D-16): 79.7%
7. Bill Bronrott, Delegate (D-16): 78.2%
8. Guled Kassim, Delegate/County Council Challenger: 75.7%
9. Marc Elrich, County Council: 73.3%
10. Heather Mizeur, Delegate (D-20): 71.9%
61. Ben Kramer, Delegate/County Council Challenger: 2.4%
60. Robin Ficker, County Executive/Council Challenger: 5.0%
59. Steve Abrams, School Board/County Council Challenger: 12.9%
58. Mike Lenett, Senator (D-19): 13.3%
57. Jeff Waldstreicher, Delegate (D-18): 15.5%
56. Luiz Simmons, Delegate (D-17): 16.6%
55. Rona Kramer, Senator (D-14): 18.6%
54. Roger Manno, Delegate (D-19): 24.1%
53. Henry Heller, Delegate (D-19): 24.2%
52. Rob Garagiola, Senator (D-15): 24.5%
Just one of the leaders in individual receipts has run in only one election: District 20 Senator Jamie Raskin, who knocked off incumbent Ida Ruben in 2006. Known as being one of the county’s leading progressives, Raskin has developed into one of its top fundraisers. Phil Andrews, the runaway leader in percentage of receipts from individuals, has long turned away contributions from developers and PACs. Marc Elrich also refuses developer financing. Some of the candidates who received the lowest percentages from individuals benefitted from self-funding. We’ll find out who they are later in the series.
Tomorrow, we’ll look at business and labor.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Follow the Money, Part One
Now it can be told. For months, we have been quietly gathering tens of thousands of records of political contributions to county and state candidates in Montgomery County. After countless hours of scrutiny, analysis and data-crunching, we are finally ready to unveil the results of our most comprehensive survey of campaign funding yet. We have followed the money, dear readers, and now we are showing you where the footprints lead.
The Democratic primary is less than a year away. In almost every part of the county, that primary determines who will hold office for the next four years. Many candidates have not announced. Very few have laid out their positions for next year. No endorsements have been made. But one item relevant to the incumbents’ record – and also some of the possible challengers – is the sources of their campaign money. Let the investigation begin!
We obtained the contribution and loan records of every incumbent holding a County Executive, County Council or state legislative office. In addition, we included these candidates who were past incumbents or challengers.
County Executive/County Council: Steve Silverman, Robin Ficker
County Council: Cary Lamari, Hans Riemer, Howard Denis, Sharon Dooley
School Board/County Council: Steve Abrams
County Council/Delegate: Guled Kassim
Senate: Ida Ruben
Delegate: Craig Zucker, Jean Cryor, Reggie Oldak, Ryan Spiegel, Dana Beyer, Paul Griffin, Tom DeGonia, Alec Stone
Delegate/Senate: Cheryl Kagan
Delegate/School Board: Laura Berthiaume
Note that former County Executive Doug Duncan, one of the most prodigious fundraisers in the county’s history, is not in our dataset. Much of his campaign contributions were collected for a Governor’s race and we do not expect him to run for a county or state legislative office in the future.
These former and potential candidates, along with the incumbents, had a combined 61,483 contribution and loan records on file since 1999. That’s two-and-a-half cycles of data. We went through every single record and divided them into the following categories:
Individual Contributions
These are checks written by individuals, who are limited to $4,000 in total contributions to one entity and $10,000 in total contributions to all entities in one four-year election cycle. We isolated certain categories of individuals as described below.
Business Contributions
This category includes business entities, which are permitted to donate directly to state campaigns, and business PACs. We do not include business owners who contribute as individuals in this category, a MAJOR caveat in our analysis. Our case studies of racetrack owner William Rickman and corrupt developer Ronald Lipscomb illustrate how business owners sometimes contribute through their spouses, children and employees, all individual donations serving a corporate design. Linking business owners to family members and corporate entities would be a worthy and illuminating exercise, but it is beyond our time constraints to do it for every candidate in the county. That said, any measure of business influence in our analysis must be regarded as a significant understatement.
Labor Contributions
This includes labor union PACs and political clubs. We did not include individuals who are union members in this category. Indeed, that information is not public record.
Political Fund Contributions
These are PAC and political clubs that usually have an overt partisan affiliation. Examples include the Maryland Democratic Party, the Hispanic Democratic Club of Montgomery County and the Potomac Women’s Republican Club.
Candidate Fund Contributions
These are funds controlled directly by candidates, who sometimes give money to allies.
Self Contributions
This category includes loans, the device of choice for self-funding candidates. Candidates and their spouses are permitted to contribute or loan unlimited amounts to their campaign funds.
Family Contributions
We attempted to determine family membership by including contributions from people with the same surname as the candidate, living at the same home address or sharing surnames with co-habitants. This is an imperfect measure when applied to candidates with common surnames, so this measure can only be regarded as an approximation in some cases.
Lump Sum Contributions
The State Board of Elections permits candidates to report contributions under $51 from multiple individuals as aggregate “lump sums” for purposes of convenience. Campaign treasurers can save lots of time with lump sums, but the practice does conceal the identities of small contributors. Few candidates use lump sums, but we will report on the ones who do.
Other Contributions
A small number of contributors did not fit any of the above categories.
Next week, we will begin our analysis of contributions. Politicians beware, because we will begin naming names!
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Why MoCo’s Helicopters Won’t Fly in Annapolis
As we revealed last week, County Executive Ike Leggett is requesting county funding to augment a federal grant for the purchase of two police helicopters. The County Council is considering the merits of that request. But whatever those merits may be, the Executive and Legislative branches must consider the political consequences of going forward. Simply put, Montgomery’s helicopters could very well throw the county’s Annapolis priorities into a tailspin.
The Executive’s request to the council was remarkably short on specifics. While his request did outline acquisition costs of $248,894 in federal grant money and $279,890 in local funding, it did not estimate the maintenance and operating costs. Council staff volunteered a rough estimate of 1-2% of the total police budget, which under the Fiscal Year 2010 budget would amount to $2.5-4.9 million per year. The Police Department estimates the operating cost at $7.9 million over five years. The county faces a $350 million budget deficit next year.
In normal times, this issue would be kicked around between the Executive and the County Council and eventually resolved. But these are anything but normal times. Montgomery County’s budget is extraordinarily dependent on the state government at the moment. Specifically, two issues will make or break us in the near term.
School Budget Maintenance of Effort (MOE)
State law requires that counties at least maintain their level of local school funding in order to be eligible for state aid increases. Montgomery County requested a waiver from this requirement from the State Board of Education this year owing to its poor economy, its fiscal problems and the tax-limiting consequences of the Ficker Amendment. The board denied its request so the county resorted to an accounting maneuver to get around the requirement. The board has requested an Attorney General opinion on the issue and it is far from clear as to whether Montgomery’s MOE compliance will be upheld.
Our sources tell us that the helicopter proposal has been in the works for at least a year. That means that while the county was crying poverty to the State Board of Education, it was already considering purchasing helicopters. The Executive Branch further postponed its funding request until after the county budget was finalized in May. The state board and other decision-makers in Annapolis may very well conclude that the county made its case for a waiver in bad faith. After all, if it was secretly considering purchasing police helicopters, how could it credibly say it was too poor to afford its MOE requirement? Whatever the ultimate mechanism for settling the MOE dispute, this will diminish the county’s leverage and cast doubt on the veracity of its budget claims, both now and in the future.
Teacher Pensions and State Aid
The state’s desperate budget situation ensures that state aid to counties, and specifically teacher pensions, will remain part of the budget discussions in Annapolis. In Maryland, the state pays pension benefits for teachers, school administrators and support staff. This is one of the few state programs that benefits Montgomery County since it pays its teachers more than other counties due to its high cost of living, and thereby generates higher benefit levels. Montgomery enjoys the highest absolute dollar benefit and the third-highest per-capita benefit of the state’s jurisdictions from this program.
In the last general session, Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller introduced a bill to phase in a handoff of teacher pension costs from the state to the counties. Montgomery would have been disproportionately damaged by that bill. Furthermore, the colossal unfunded liability in the state pension plan – which was, after all, caused by state fiscal policies – could very well be imposed on the counties. But Big Daddy’s plan is far from the worst scenario. A Western Maryland Delegate introduced a bill during the 2007 special session that would have wealth-adjusted the handoff of pensions. That proposal would devastate Montgomery’s finances just as it would protect other counties around the state.
All of the reasons above explain why our state delegation’s highest priority, as supported by County Executive Leggett, is to prevent teacher pensions from being unloaded on the counties. Our delegation must make the case that we are not as rich as the rest of the state thinks we are to have a shot at preventing a Montgomery fiscal catastrophe. But if we appear to be wealthy enough to splurge on helicopters, that case will be laughed out of the statehouse.
We asked our state legislators on an off-the-record basis what a helicopter purchase would do to their efforts to defend our state aid. Here’s what six of them said:
“My first response to that is that it may be a needed purchase, but with the fiscal climate we are all in and are going to be in for awhile, I think purchasing helicopters needs to go on a wish list for better times after we take care of the necessities. A purchase of helicopters would be a hard sell to folks in Annapolis.”
“There’s no question the helicopters are needed. The only questions concern timing and priority. At a time when we are all buckling our belts two notches tighter and the delegation is gearing up for a major battle to maintain Montgomery County’s fair share of state aid and protect teacher pensions, it is appropriate to ask whether this is the right priority at the right time.”
“In this case, like most, the merits may end up getting swallowed by the politics.”
“As we continue to struggle to make the case to our colleagues from around the state that Montgomery County streets are not paved with gold as they mistakenly believe and to argue that our needs and corresponding budget challenges are great, dubious spending initiatives at the local level such as this tend to undercut and undermine those efforts.”
“I think it flies in the face of all of our efforts to demonstrate our need for state aid. I’m sure the state is happy it didn’t fulfill our waiver of Maintenance of Effort funding for educaiton. As a county, we spent a great deal of political capital explaining why we were so poor. The state disagreed and then we proved them right. Hope we don’t have the gall to make a second such request next year, absent some new economic catastrophe.”
“It will be Exhibit A for why we ought to be cut.”
Regardless of its merit or county budget impact, this proposal will kneecap Montgomery in Annapolis. Big Daddy will gleefully embrace MoCo’s helicopters if they make it easier for him to send teacher pensions to the counties. Ike Leggett will no longer be able to draw lines in the sand over teacher pensions if the helicopter rotors are blowing them away. And if the State Board of Education gets a chance to punish Montgomery for its Maintenance of Effort compliance tactics, they will do it without regret.
The Executive Branch has already demonstrated its strategic insensitivity to our state budget leverage, but it is not too late for the County Council to do better. They should send the helicopters back to the launch pad, at least until the county and state budgets improve. If they don’t, the helicopters will crash land at the statehouse - and Montgomery’s agenda will go down with it.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Snippety-Snip!
Michael Laris, the Post's new MoCo reporter, has written a delightful account of snip-snipping between the County Council and the MoCo Delegation. The genteel Ann Marimow would never have written such a gossipy piece. We think Laris is off to a great start and look forward to more guilty pleasures like this tidbit!
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Who’s Doing the Best Job on the Environment?
The Maryland League of Conservation Voters (LCV) has released its 2009 scorecard. Four of Montgomery’s eight Senators and nineteen of Montgomery’s twenty-four Delegates earned perfect scores. Only two of the county’s legislators scored less than 70%. Read more to find out who they are!
LCV scored eleven committee votes and six floor votes for Senators, and eleven committee votes and six floor votes for Delegates. Many of these votes were on different bills because some were considered in one chamber and not the other. Legislators were not penalized for votes taken by committees on which they did not sit or for excused absences.
First, let’s recognize the legislators with perfect records this year. They are:
Senators Brian Frosh (D-16), Rich Madaleno (D-18), Mike Lenett (D-19) and Jamie Raskin (D-20).
Delegates Anne Kaiser (D-14), Karen Montgomery (D-14), Kathleen Dumais (D-15), Craig Rice (D-15), Bill Frick (D-16), Susan Lee (D-16), Kumar Barve (D-17), Jim Gilchrist (D-17), Luiz Simmons (D-17), Al Carr (D-18), Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18), Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18), Ben Kramer (D-19), Roger Manno (D-19), Sheila Hixson (D-20), Tom Hucker (D-20), Heather Mizeur (D-20), Saqib Ali (D-39) and Kirill Reznik (D-39).
Every other Montgomery legislator scored at least 70% and missed just one or two votes with two exceptions: Senators Rona Kramer (D-14) and Jennie Forehand (D-17).
Kramer voted wrong four times, by far the most in the county’s delegation. She earned a 50% score, which was tied by one Republican (District 2 Senator Donald Munson) and exceeded by another (District 35 Senator Barry Glassman, who scored 56%). LCV penalized Kramer for:
Voting against HB 309, which would have reauthorized a program for restoring historic buildings. The bill passed the House unanimously but died in the Senate Budget and Taxation Committee on an 8-7 vote.
Voting for a floor amendment to SB 666. The bill would have tightened requirements for developers to prevent forest loss from new projects. The amendment, which passed, exempted utility companies and the entire bill became law.
Voting against SB 672, a bill by Senator Jamie Raskin that would have established stormwater user charges to pay for stormwater management activities. The bill failed in the Senate.
Voting against SB 554, the Chesapeake Bay Nitrogen Reduction Act of 2009, which required nitrogen removal technology on new septic systems near the Bay. The bill became law.
Senator Jennie Forehand voted with Kramer on the stormwater and nitrogen bills. Because she serves on Judicial Proceedings, a committee that did not consider any environmental bills this session, she was not rated on any committee votes and earned a 67% score.
We previously reported that Kramer and Forehand were ranked best and second-best in the county by a right-wing business group. Now they are ranked last and second-to-last in the county by the state’s premier environmental organization. That is a bad combination for a Montgomery politician.
Here are LCV’s lifetime scores for Montgomery Senators:
100%: Brian Frosh (D-16), Jamie Raskin (D-20)
95%: Rich Madaleno (D-18), Mike Lenett (D-19)
88%: Rob Garagiola (D-15)
84%: Nancy King (D-39)
81%: Jennie Forehand (D-17)
65%: Rona Kramer (D-14)
And here are LCV’s lifetime scores for Montgomery Delegates:
100%: Bill Frick (D-16), Roger Manno (D-19)
98%: Karen Montgomery (D-14), Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18), Tom Hucker (D-20)
96%: Craig Rice (D-15), Heather Mizeur (D-20)
95%: Anne Kaiser (D-14)
94%: Bill Bronrott (D-16), Kirill Reznik (D-39)
93%: Luiz Simmons (D-17), Al Carr (D-18), Hank Heller (D-19), Charles Barkley (D-39)
92%: Jim Gilchrist (D-17), Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18)
91%: Susan Lee (D-16)
90%: Kathleen Dumais (D-15), Saqib Ali (D-39)
89%: Sheila Hixson (D-20)
88%: Herman Taylor (D-14)
85%: Kumar Barve (D-17)
84%: Brian Feldman (D-15), Ben Kramer (D-19)
Monday, June 15, 2009
Right-Wing Business Group Gives High Marks to Rona Kramer and Jennie Forehand
Maryland Business for a Responsible Government (MBRG), a business advocacy group that seldom has anything nice to say about Montgomery County state legislators, has made a partial exception for two of them: Senators Rona Kramer (D-14) and Jennie Forehand (D-17).
MBRG’s membership roster includes some of the biggest businesses in the state, as well as some of the most anti-union (Miller and Long, the Associated Builders and Contractors Chesapeake Chapter and Wal-Mart). Even one of our business sources describes them as “really right wing.” They recently issued a 2009 score card that ranked Senators on 11 votes and Delegates on 9 votes. Some of the bills MBRG criticized legislators for supporting were Delegate Roger Manno’s shift breaks bill, a bill making it easier for employment discrimination victims to claim back pay, a bill that instituted a very weak effort to crack down on employee misclassification and a bill expanding family and medical leave for employees. In MBRG’s opinion, a vote to help workers is a vote against business.
MBRG gives an award to legislators scoring at least 70% on its priorities. Only one Montgomery legislator met that standard this year: Senator Rona Kramer (D-14). MBRG credited her on the following votes:
Voting against a bill that would have restricted transfers of rental units covered by federal housing assistance.
Voting against a bill that would have cracked down on fraud against the state health department.
Voting against a bill that would have tightened requirements on lead paint testing and mitigation on owners of residential properties.
Voting against an amendment to a bill that would have limited credits to employers on some workers compensation claims.
Voting against a bill by Senator Jamie Raskin (D-20) that would have imposed a stormwater user charge that would have funded stormwater management activities.
Voting for an amendment to the workers misclassification bill that weakened penalties for tax-cheating employers.
Voting against the Preakness bill, which authorized the state to condemn and purchase the Preakness.
Kramer’s lifetime cumulative score from MBRG is 62% - 22 points higher than the next-best lifetime scorers in Montgomery (Senators Rob Garagiola and Jennie Forehand).
Forehand received a 59% score this year. She voted with Rona Kramer on the rental unit transfer bill, the lead paint bill, the workers compensation credit amendment, the stormwater user charge, and the weakening of misclassification penalties. She also voted against a bill that would have reinstituted partial electricity reregulation.
Here are the scores for the rest of the Montgomery Delegation:
40%: Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15), Delegates Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18), Kirill Reznik (D-39)
33%: Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17), Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18), Ben Kramer (D-19)
30%: Senator Nancy King (D-39), Delegate Heather Mizeur (D-20)
25%: Delegates Herman Taylor (D-14), Charles Barkley (D-39), Roger Manno (D-19)
20%: Delegates Anne Kaiser (D-14), Karen Montgomery (D-14), Craig Rice (D-15), Bill Bronrott (D-16), Bill Frick (D-16), Kumar Barve (D-17), Jim Gilchrist (D-17), Al Carr (D-18), Henry Heller (D-19), Sheila Hixson (D-20), Tom Hucker (D-20), Saqib Ali (D-39)
18%: Senator Brian Frosh (D-16)
17%: Delegate Kathleen Dumais (D-15), Susan Lee (D-16)
13%: Delegate Brian Feldman (D-15)
0%: Senators Rich Madaleno (D-18), Mike Lenett (D-19), Jamie Raskin (D-20)
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Feldman, Lee Re-Elected as Leaders of MoCo House Delegation
Following is the press release from the Montgomery County Delegation.
NEWS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Sara Hartman, 301-858-3018
Feldman Re-elected Chair and Lee Re-elected Vice Chair of the Montgomery County House Delegation
ROCKVILLE , MD , June 10, 2009 -- The Montgomery County House Delegation to the Maryland General Assembly unanimously re-elected Delegate Brian J. Feldman (D-15) as its Chair to serve a third year and re-elected Delegate Susan C. Lee (D-16) to serve a fourth year as Vice Chair at the Delegation’s annual organizational meeting yesterday evening.
Now serving in his second term in the House of Delegates, Delegate Feldman currently chairs the House Subcommittee on Banking, Economic Development, Science & Technology and is the House Chair of the legislature’s Joint Committee on Technology Oversight. He is also a member of the House Economic Matters Committee.
Outside of the General Assembly, Delegate Feldman is a practicing attorney with a Washington D.C. law firm and an adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University. He lives in Potomac with his wife and two children.
Delegate Lee has been a member of the House of Delegates since 2002. She is a Deputy Majority Whip and a member of the House Judiciary Committee where she also serves as chair of the Juvenile Law Subcommittee. Additionally, Delegate Lee holds the position of 1st Vice President for the Women Legislators of Maryland and she is a member of the National Conference of State Legislatures Communications, Financial Services & Interstate Commerce Committee. Delegate Lee is Of Counsel to a Washington D.C. law firm and lives in Bethesda with her husband.
###
Monday, February 23, 2009
The Money Chase: Montgomery County Delegation
Once again, it’s time to look at the mother’s milk of politics: cold, hard cash. Today, we examine the campaign funds of Montgomery’s statehouse delegation, as well as those of a few potential challengers. All data pertains to the year ending 1/14/09. We then weed through the data (with a little help from our informants) to determine who is in the strongest position and who needs to do more.
Strongest Position
1. Senator Rob Garagiola, D-15 (Balance $139,291.38, Net Gain $65,413.67)
Garagiola has far more money than he needs to win re-election, so he has the luxury of spreading his money to other Democrats around the state. That’s a sure way to build alliances, move up in leadership and keep Big Daddy happy.
2. Senator Brian Frosh, D-16 (Balance $138,876.99, Net Gain $30,400.42)
Frosh is invulnerable in his home district but must spread money around to other Democratic Senators to have a shot at succeeding Mike Miller. Fellow Senate President contender Mac Middleton has more money ($164,747.09) and may be better at playing this game than Frosh.
3. Senator Rich Madaleno, D-18 (Balance $10,726.87, Net Gain $2,514.58)
The money is irrelevant; Madaleno is immune to challenge in his district. If he ever tapped into the GLBT community and the connections associated with his seat on the Senate’s Budget and Taxation Committee, he would be a formidable fundraiser.
4. Delegate Brian Feldman, D-15 (Balance $60,168.93, Net Gain $29,348.62)
Feldman receives near-universal respect from our spies for his position in his district and his rapidly growing stature as Chair of Montgomery’s House Delegation. His fundraising total strongly suggests that he is not running against Comptroller Peter Franchot.
5. Senator Jamie Raskin, D-20 (Balance $50,761.48, Net Gain $23,776.80)
Liberal hero will be unchallenged in 2010. He would be raising even more money if it were not for his massive fundraising expenses ($37,092.58 last year).
6. Delegate Anne Kaiser, D-14 (Balance $30,394.02, Net Gain $8,349.39)
Smart steady Eddie has lots of fans among our spies. One of Montgomery’s best hopes for a rare high-ranking Committee Chair.
7. Tie between Delegate Tom Hucker, D-20 (Balance $62,703.49, Net Gain $35,402.91) and Delegate Heather Mizeur, D-20 (Balance $67,000, Net Gain $13,695)
Both freshmen have locked down their seats. Mizeur was the only freshman picked by our readers as one of the most influential elected leaders in Montgomery County last year. Hucker has raised 66% of his total contributions from businesses, PACs and political clubs. Many of our informants believe these two are destined to one day run against each other for Senate.
9. Delegate Saqib Ali, D-39 (Balance $87,423.54, Net Gain $63,631.29)
The King of Facebook is also the King of the Cash Drawer. Ali’s net gain far exceeded any other Montgomery Delegate. He is constantly rumored to be thinking of a challenge to Senator Nancy King (D-39).
10. Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher, D-18 (Balance $53,824.73, Net Gain $23,619.16)
Waldstreicher is the top fundraiser on a united slate. He put on a campaign clinic in 2006 and is ready to do it again next year.
11. Delegate Roger Manno, D-19 (Balance $48,474.03, Net Gain $24,836.74)
Only one thing seems certain in ultra-chaotic District 19: Manno is the most popular office-holder and will be back in 2010.
12. Delegate Bill Frick, D-16 (Balance $35,413.93, Net Gain $5,238.40)
Our informants name Frick as one of the delegation’s brightest people with the most potential to move up. He has raised money and consolidated his hold on his seat amazingly fast given his status as a 2007 appointee.
Needs to Do More
1. Senator Jennie Forehand, D-17 (Balance $71,044.34, Net Gain $4,705.66)
Forehand is already facing a challenge from former Delegate Cheryl Kagan, who raised $20,634.69 last year and has $44,224.76 in the bank. Kagan is smart, aggressive, highly-motivated and knows how to win in District 17. Some spies are comparing this contest to the Jamie Raskin – Ida Ruben Senate race in 2006.
2. Delegate Kirill Reznik, D-39 (Balance $11,725.30, Net Gain -$1,134.85)
Reznik, who is an appointee and has never run for office, is not raising enough money. If Saqib Ali challenges Nancy King, Reznik will not benefit from a unified slate. Will Hugh Bailey, who vied with Reznik for the appointment, challenge him in 2010?
3. Delegate Jim Gilchrist, D-17 (Balance $9,577.60, Net Gain $6,970.00)
Gilchrist defeated Ryan Spiegel by just 519 votes in 2006. Spiegel is now a Gaithersburg City Council Member after winning endorsements from Mayor Sidney Katz and several labor unions. If Gilchrist does not look stronger, Spiegel may be tempted to try again. Also complicating the situation is a possible open seat if Delegate Luiz Simmons joins Cheryl Kagan in running against Senator Jennie Forehand.
4. Senator Nancy King, D-39 (Balance $40,217.23, Net Gain $21,713.61)
King is facing a potential challenge from Delegate Saqib Ali, who has more than double her campaign balance ($87,423.54). A King-Ali race will not turn on money alone but King needs to make sure she has enough cash to compete.
5. Delegate Craig Rice, D-15 (Balance $23,626.28, Net Gain $16,831.15)
District 15 is home to some of Maryland’s wealthiest communities and Rice won by just 152 votes last time. Those two facts together mean that Rice needs to be raising more money than he is.
6. Delegate Henry Heller, D-19 (Balance $2,785.65, Net Gain -$684.90)
Most of our informants do not expect Heller to run again.
Challengers
As we discussed above, former Delegate Cheryl Kagan is mounting an energetic insurgency against Senator Jennie Forehand (D-17). This will be one of the marquee races in 2010 and we will give it more attention in a future post. District 18 Delegate candidate Dana Beyer (Balance $1,764.67, Net Gain $1,503.16) has never stopped running since her fifth-place finish in 2006. She has been making some noise on this blog and on her website, but she is not raising enough money to compete against a full slate. After loaning herself $75,000 in 2006, she may be looking at self-funding again. Former Delegate candidates Regina Oldak (D-16) and Ryan Spiegel (D-17) are not raising money or declaring their intentions - yet. Hank Heller’s possible retirement could set off another free-for-all in District 19. That is the same district in which two incumbent Delegates ran for Senate in 2006 - and lost.
Special Mention
Delegate Kumar Barve, D-17 (Balance $53,250.61, Net Gain -$2,562.21)
Despite his recent escapades, we do not see Barve as vulnerable. But as the House Majority Leader, he should have a bigger campaign account. We believe Barve should exploit his status as the funniest man in Annapolis to hold a ticketed event: “Bad Boy Comedy Hour with Kumar and Friends.” On warm-up: salty-tongued Senate President Mike Miller and a special reading of Saqib Ali’s latest Facebook updates.
Disclosure: I am the Treasurer of the District 18 Democratic Team.
Friday, February 20, 2009
MoCo’s Least Liberal Senator? (Updated)
Montgomery County is known for sending liberal Senators to Annapolis. But we may have found an exception to the rule.
Six Montgomery Senators are co-sponsoring a bill allowing employees to sue employers for violations of the state prevailing wage law: Jennie Forehand (D-17), Brian Frosh (D-16), Nancy King (D-39), Mike Lenett (D-19), Rich Madaleno (D-18) and Jamie Raskin (D-20).
Five Montgomery Senators are co-sponsoring a bill to repeal the death penalty: Brian Frosh (D-16), Nancy King (D-39), Mike Lenett (D-19), Rich Madaleno (D-18) and Jamie Raskin (D-20).
Five Montgomery Senators are co-sponsoring a bill that provides for marriage equality: Rich Madaleno (D-18), Jamie Raskin (D-20), Jennie Forehand (D-17), Rona Kramer (D-14) and Mike Lenett (D-19).
Four Montgomery Senators are co-sponsoring a bill denying corporations the ability to deduct executive compensation exceeding 25 times the pay of their lowest employees from their taxable income: Brian Frosh (D-20), Mike Lenett (D-19), Rich Madaleno (D-18) and Jamie Raskin (D-20).
Three Montgomery Senators are co-sponsoring a bill that authorizes judges to order people subject to temporary protective orders to give up their firearms: Brian Frosh (D-16), Jennie Forehand (D-17) and Jamie Raskin (D-20).
The one name missing from the above lists is Rob Garagiola (D-15). In addition, the Sun lists him as the only Montgomery opponent of death penalty repeal in the Senate. Rona Kramer declined to answer the question.
Update: The Gazette has more on Garagiola, Kramer and the death penalty.
