Gaithersburg City Councilmember Ryan Spiegel testified at the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee Hearing on the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protect Act:
Good afternoon. My name is Ryan Spiegel and I am proud to serve as a member of the Gaithersburg City Council, representing 60,000 residents and hundreds of businesses. I am also on the executive board of the Montgomery County Chapter of the Maryland Municipal League, though I am testifying as an individual today.
I *support* marriage equality. As an attorney with extensive experience in civil rights law, I strongly endorse the lofty aspirations for justice and equality so eloquently conveyed by other witnesses today, so I won't repeat what they've said.
But as a municipal elected official for one of the largest cities in Maryland, I am here to offer a pragmatic perspective on our efforts to emerge from the global recession. Local leaders throughout the state have been focused like a laser on the economy, stretching the limits of our imagination to explore every possible avenue for creating jobs -- and maintaining and growing opportunity for local businesses large and small -- particularly as the state government has been forced to reduce aid to local jurisdictions.
Right now, because marriage equality is already in effect just down the road in the District of Columbia, countless dollars are being diverted away from Maryland, to Washington D.C.'s hotels, restaurants, ballrooms, flourists, caterers, tailors -- not to mention all the attorneys, accountants, financial planners, and others who provide services to couples after they are married. Right now, many of our businesses are losing a critical sector of clientele, and in the process, we are not preventing anyone who wants to get married from doing so. So many of our businesses are missing out on a tremendous opportunity, because of a legal roadblock that - years from now - will seem like an antiquated notion.
If you believe in giving the best free-market advantage to our state's businesses, then I respectfully urge you to support this bill, and to remove obstacles to our competitiveness -- even if you are not personally comfortable with the notion of LGBT marriage.
To be clear, I believe in my heart that passing this bill is the right thing to do from a moral and legal standpoint. But I am here today to underscore that it is also the right thing to do from an economic standpoint. Of course, this bill won't force any vendors to be available for LGBT weddings if they don't want to be, but we need to level the playing field for those Maryland businesses that do. It's just one more reason to support this bill.
I thank the chair and the committee for your consideration.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Ryan Spiegel on Marriage Equality
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Bank on Gaithersburg
By Ryan Spiegel.
These days “bank” is a four-letter word. With all the headlines about government bailouts, greedy CEOs, and irresponsible lending, banks don’t exactly have the best reputation anymore. But there is one very good thing about banking institutions that are regulated by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation: your savings are insured up to $250,000. And in many cases, banks don’t charge you anything to have a personal checking and/or savings account.
Meanwhile, check-cashing venues can charge exorbitant, predatory fees and interest rates for payday loans and similar check cashing “services.” In many cases, those costs are well into double-digit percentage rates on the money that is yours. In other words, people are paying a very hefty price to access their own money, when they could be accessing that money for free – and keeping much more of it for themselves – if they used a bank.
Those who do not use mainstream financial institutions are often referred to as the “unbanked” or as “fringe banking” participants. Perhaps not surprisingly, there is a much higher percentage of “unbanked” people among the most vulnerable demographics in our communities – the poor, the elderly, the uneducated, immigrants, and minorities. A recent FDIC study estimates that 25.6% of U.S. households (30 million households) are unbanked or underbanked. Some might initially be reluctant to keep their money in a bank because they grew up in a foreign country where banks could not be trusted to keep assets safe. Some might have lived through the Great Depression or lost money in the Savings & Loan scandals of the 1980’s. But whatever the reason, stuffing cash under a mattress leaves you vulnerable to burglary or a fire, and it robs you of the interest that your money should be earning for you. (Even today’s low rates are better than nothing.) Usurious check cashing services prey upon these segments of society, charging a maddening 20, 30, or even 40 percent of people’s hard-earned income, which is extracted before it might otherwise circulate in the local economy.
That’s why I spearheaded the cutting-edge “Bank On Gaithersburg” initiative, which leverages the City’s leadership to bring together local banks and credit unions to offer attractive products for otherwise-unbanked members of our community. It costs virtually nothing to the City’s taxpayers, aside from some staff time and some marketing efforts, but the benefits are numerous and have the potential to affect many aspects of the local economy and quality of life. In exchange for agreeing to offer banking products designed with traditionally unbanked people in mind, such as basic checking and savings accounts with no monthly fees and no minimum balance requirements, participating banks and credit unions get the benefit of being identified and advertised by the City as “Bank On Gaithersburg” institutions. Such institutions might also provide informational materials in multiple languages and, in some cases, agree to accept consular documents as a form of identification in lieu of driver’s licenses. The City partners with other organizations, such as non-profits, to conduct outreach to “unbanked” communities and to provide financial education to assist families in becoming more financially independent.
But programs like Bank On Gaithersburg don’t just benefit the individuals who open bank accounts. The ancillary effect of getting more people to save money should actually reduce the demand for local government services. Think about it: if we can encourage a family to put even a modest amount into savings every month, then maybe they’ll be able to pay the mortgage or the college tuition or the medical bills for at least a few months longer if unemployment or other challenges strike, instead of facing foreclosure or bankruptcy right away. Maybe they’ll be able to weather the storm until a parent can get a new job. That translates into less tax dollars spent providing public assistance or administering foreclosure proceedings. Fewer bankruptcies and foreclosures may also mean that overall property values in an area don’t decline as much, which is good for property owners but also good for governments that rely on property tax revenue.
Folks who develop a reservoir of savings and interest income – or even those who just keep more of their regular paycheck by avoiding predatory check cashing fees and interest rates – may also have more freedom and flexibility to spend on extras like an occasional night out at a local restaurant or a shopping spree. By helping these individuals to gain the financial independence to enjoy goods and services sold by our local businesses, we are also helping the local economy.
Many smaller banks were hit especially hard by the Great Recession of 2008-2009, which in turn tightened up the flow of credit to small businesses and individuals at a time when they may have needed it most. But by encouraging the unbanked to open bank accounts, we are also helping to provide a fresh influx of capital to those banks. Lest we forget, banks generally are limited in their lending capacity relative to the amount of assets they hold. As more and more people open accounts and deposit money, banks will free up to lend out more of that capital to individuals and small businesses in the community. (As a condition of a “Bank On” program, a government might even be able to negotiate a requirement that the participating banks issue some of those new loans to businesses and people within the jurisdiction to ensure that the benefits are felt locally.)
Workers with bank accounts can sign up for electronic direct deposit, which helps them get their money faster (and start earning interest sooner). Direct deposit can also reduce the number of people on payday walking down the street with large wads of cash in their pockets, and thus perhaps reduce incentives for street robberies (which may also reduce the cost to government of responding to such crimes and help keep neighborhood home values higher). Additionally, direct deposit reduces the need for paper checks, which helps to save a few more trees for our environment. That’s why, as part of Bank On Gaithersburg, we are transitioning all of our City employees to direct deposit.
Another key aspect of “Bank On Gaithersburg” was the opening of a new Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (“VITA”) site within the City, providing free tax preparation assistance for eligible individuals. In particular, the VITA program helps lower-income individuals apply for the federal Earned Income Tax Credit (“EITC”) refund. This refund is essentially free money for many struggling families, but you won’t receive it unless you fill out the proper tax paperwork. Each year, thousands of EITC-eligible individuals never receive their refund because they simply didn’t apply, often because they don’t know about it. As part of the Bank On Gaithersburg initiative, volunteers from the IRS and area non-profits like Family Services, Inc. are working at VITA service centers to ensure that more eligible residents apply for, and receive, their EITC refund. And they can, in turn, use the refund as an initial deposit in a new savings account with an affiliated Bank On Gaithersburg institution, ultimately putting that money back into the local economy in the form of the aforementioned private spending or reduced need for government services. We are also working to provide Bank On Gaithersburg/VITA clients with similar assistance in applying for the City’s own Homeowner Tax Credit, which also requires homeowners to complete application forms in order to receive the credit.
As a result of the novel, comprehensive vision of this initiative, Gaithersburg was one of only eight cities nationwide to be awarded a grant from the National League of Cities to develop its “Bank On” program. In this dire financial environment, governments are looking everywhere for new approaches and ideas to reduce spending and spur economic growth. It is our hope that Bank On Gaithersburg can serve as a model for Montgomery County and the State of Maryland, and throughout the region, to help struggling families attain financial stability while also boosting local economies and creating long-term benefits for the entire community.
Ryan Spiegel is a Gaithersburg City Councilmember.
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Thinking Locally: An Alternative Path to Campaign Finance Reform in Maryland
By Ryan Spiegel, Gaithersburg City Council Member.
All of the rallying around “open government” efforts in Annapolis this year is a welcome development – from new rules that post committee votes online to bills that would require streaming video of hearings. But despite all of this attention to government reform, little is being said about the chances of passing a voluntary public campaign financing system this year. Supporters are already aware of how painfully close the Generally Assembly came to passage of campaign finance reform during the 2009 legislative session in Annapolis, after years of stagnation. And with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, people are once again lamenting the lopsided influence of money in our political process.
Public campaign financing has been proven to work in states like Arizona and Maine, and if we can’t get a bill through the morass in Annapolis, it’s time to start thinking about another way to implement public campaign financing in Maryland: Look to our cities and towns.
Elections for State and County offices (including Baltimore City, which is the legal equivalent of a County) are governed solely by State election laws and rules. But municipalities are free to create and change their own election and campaign finance laws. I have confirmed this with two attorneys who are experts on municipal law in Maryland.
We all learned in high school civics class that our dual sovereignty system of government encourages states to be laboratories of innovation, particularly when the federal government is reluctant to embrace change. By the same token, Maryland has more than 150 cities and towns that can serve as laboratories of innovation for the Counties and the State.
Shortly after I was elected to the Gaithersburg City Council in 2007, I proposed a voluntary public campaign finance system, but there has been little appetite for it among my colleagues.
Gaithersburg serves as an interesting case study:
Recent history indicates that a successful campaign for Gaithersburg’s City Council costs about $5,000 or $6,000, a mere fraction of the amount needed to run for the General Assembly or County Council, making it all the more feasible to initiate campaign finance reform at the municipal level.
Gaithersburg is one of the largest municipalities in the State, with 60,000 residents. It should be safe to assume that a campaign in other municipalities, the vast majority of which are far smaller than Gaithersburg, would be even less expensive. As far as budgets go, Gaithersburg’s annual budget is approximately $50 million. Even in these tough economic times, setting aside a small fund of, say, 10 to 15 thousand dollars a year for a voluntary public campaign finance system would be a drop in the bucket – three-hundredths of one percent of the overall budget. The City regularly approves contracts for ten times or even one hundred times that amount for municipal services and equipment. Remember, elections are only held every other year, so budgeting 10 to 15 thousand dollars a year would generate a fund of 20 to 30 thousand for each election cycle, enough to provide a public financing option for as many as six candidates. It is, of course, highly unlikely that so many candidates would be interested in a public financing option. The 2007 election in Gaithersburg, which followed a very rare retirement of all three incumbents, attracted seven candidates. That was unusual. In 2009, there were only five candidates for three spots, including the three incumbents.
And even if a large number of candidates registers to run, some of them will likely choose not to take advantage of public financing – perhaps for ideological or political reasons, or perhaps because they believe they can raise more money via private contributions. The public financing option is, of course, voluntary. There may be years when most or all of the accumulated pool of public funds remains untouched, so it can carry over to be used in future years without the need to budget additional money for it. So a public financing system at the municipal level would carry a very small price tag, considering the tremendous benefit it could deliver in the way of open government.
Critics have raised the concern that those who aren’t really serious about running would suddenly jump into races, knowing that a “free” chunk of cash is available to them under a public financing system. There are many ways to safeguard against this problem. First, in Gaithersburg, all candidates are required to submit a petition signed by at least 100 residents in order to be certified as a valid candidate. That’s harder than it sounds, and the effort already operates as an effective disincentive for people who are not serious about running. The 100-signature petition may already be enough to weed out the non-serious folks, and anyone who succeeds in submitting a valid petition approved by the City’s Board of Supervisors of Elections could be presumptively considered eligible for public campaign financing.
Second, some proposals for public financing, such as Common Cause’s proposal for the General Assembly, would require candidates to raise a certain amount of money in small-dollar donations to prove they are “viable” before they would be able to access public funds. And, of course, accepting public funds would come with various restrictions, such as a prohibition against raising or using additional funds from private donors. The trade-offs and limitations would discourage some candidates from selecting the public funding, and would prevent the public funding system from being perceived as a boondoggle.
Existing rules already require that all candidates, whether they use public financing or not, must account for all contributions and expenditures with proper documentation and regular public reports – subject to occasional audits. It’s not like someone can spend their campaign funds on a hot tub for their house. And even if someone were so insidious as to abuse campaign funds, there’s no reason why a public system would be any more susceptible to that sort of fraud than a private system. Someone can raise cash from private donors and still spend it on a hot tub. Civil and administrative penalties, as well as the criminal justice system, already provide ways to punish violators.
Meanwhile, the benefits are many. Qualified candidates who otherwise might be discouraged from running because they do not have the political and financial networks to raise money in the private sector would feel empowered to run a viable campaign based on their ideas and their credentials. Candidates from poor and underrepresented communities would have more of a fighting chance. Some incumbents are queasy about the idea of giving their challengers a free war chest. But in states and cities that already have public financing systems, the vast majority of incumbents still win reelection. So our incumbents shouldn’t worry too much. Besides, competition is healthy for democracy. And it’s probably not fair to characterize a reasonable sum as a “war chest.”
Voters often complain of the excessive influence of special interest money in the election process. In Gaithersburg, we have recently enacted several incremental reforms to be proud of: posting campaign finance reports online, ensuring that candidates cannot commingle funds or use campaign funds to pay fines, and limiting the overall amount that any person can contribute in a given election cycle, among others. But a voluntary public campaign financing system could level the playing field between the People and the special interests, and allow good candidates to have a real shot at victory where they otherwise wouldn’t. It could free up our elected officials to spend more time on policy, governance, and constituent needs than on raising dollars. Who would candidates be accountable to for their funds? The public!
If the State can’t get its act together on public campaign financing, it’s time for municipalities to show the State that voluntary public campaign financing can work.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Young Guns of MoCo, Part Two
The wait is over. Let the young guns list begin!
10. Ryan Spiegel, 30
City Council Member, Gaithersburg
7 Votes
Respondent: Ryan was an effective candidate for the House of Delegates who came in a narrow 4th place. He then led the One Montgomery slate and serves on the Gaithersburg City Council. He has a bright future for his passion, warmth, and ability to work with a diverse group of people and interests.
Respondent: Very much the up and comer. Was the only member of his slate to get elected in a contentious city election, but has since been able to get some good work done within the limiting confines of small city council politics.
Respondent: Big aspirations for a career in Annapolis, but may be waiting awhile before getting the opening.
Respondent: Anyone think he's not going to be a legislator in D17 or, if he wants, Mayor of G’Burg?
Respondent: Showed that he could bounce back from a tough loss, is working hard on the City Council. A potential mayor of Gaithersburg after Sid Katz leaves?
Respondent: Ryan is an upcoming leader in Montgomery County. He is well respected as a City Councilmember in Gaithersburg, and is both a strong policymaker and campaigner.
Adam: Gaining some stature in Gaithersburg and beyond. People are wondering what’s next.
7 (tie). Eric Luedtke, 27
Board Member, Montgomery County Education Association
Contributor, Free State Politics and Maryland Politics Watch
9 Votes
Respondent: What can I say? Eric is a natural born leader and proved this at an early age. He has not only been involved in a variety of community and advocacy organizations, but he’s a great teacher-leader and awesome dad and husband. What I like best about Eric is that he doesn’t do all of these things as “resume builders” (there are people out there who do this), but he does them because they are causes in which he truly believes. He is certainly ambitious, but not to the point where he doesn’t listen to and respect those that have led the way. This is why a lot of people like him and believe he is a true leader with the right ideology.
Respondent: School teacher and union geek. Will have good creds for a future state house run.
Respondent: He is smart, young, strategic and will be a force in the county for a long time.
Adam: Civic activist, union leader, political activist, intellectual, and overall good guy. One of the most versatile players in the county. Needs to blog more often!
7 (tie). Ben Moskowitz, 19
Former Student Member, Board of Education
Former Campaign Staffer for Chris Van Hollen, Steve Silverman and Saqib Ali
9 Votes
Respondent: It’s relatively easy to get young people interested in national politics or social issues like gay marriage, but near impossible to make them care about local politics. Ben Moskowitz, however, has been doing just that. As Student Member of the Board of Education, he helped organize a student caucus on the Purple Line last spring. Sure, he worked on Steve Silverman’s ill-fated campaign for County Executive, but what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, right? Here’s hoping he decides to come back to MoCo after he graduates from U-Penn in a couple of years.
Respondent: Ben’s been active for decades, it seems, and he’s still in undergraduate school! Elected as the SMOB, he has worked on countless campaigns. He’s serious, articulate and reliable.
Respondent: Wow - this kid is a born politician. He has been working on and helping run campaigns for many years and successfully got himself elected as the Student Member of the Board of Education. With that experience under his belt, plus his internship this summer at the DSCC, he will only become more of a threat to knock off almost anyone (once he graduates from College, that is).
Respondent: Left the county to go to college, but will return with an Ivy League education and more dangerous than ever. If you’re running a campaign, you need this guy with you and not against you.
Respondent: He is a political phenom destined for greatness. 18 or 19 years old but pure genius. Wonderful to work with. Wise beyond his years. An unbelievably aggressive campaigner and a sharp policy eye too.
Respondent: Ben may be away in college, but he’s not that far away. And he intends to remain active in MoCo. At the ripe old age of 19, Ben has already held high-level positions in the campaigns of MoCo luminaries. He may have a little growing up to do before he can run for office himself, but Ben is often referred to by Dem leaders as “the future governor” - and it’s only partially a joke. He commands the time and respect of County Council Members and Congressmen. He is a terrific tactician and tireless worker, but his real expertise is number-crunching. He can sort, manipulate, and micro-target with voter databases like nobody else.
Adam: May have the biggest upside of any name on this list. He is only 19 and has already been a valuable contributor to multiple campaigns. What havoc will this kid be wreaking across MoCo in ten years?
7 (tie). Jason Waskey, 27
State Director, Democratic National Committee/Organizing for America
Former Special Assistant, Office of the Maryland Secretary of State
Former Campaign Director, Maryland for Obama
9 Votes
Respondent: He has been one of the go to guys to actually run campaigns in Maryland and Montgomery for years, including doing great work on the 2006 coordinated. He dealt with the nuts and bolts of Obama’s Maryland operation, getting in on the ground floor in 2007 and staying with it all the way until election night.
Respondent: One of two co-chairs of the County Obama Campaign, Jason is well-connected and can only keep moving up. His recent appointment to the DNC as Maryland’s voice is a great coup for this young leader.
Respondent: Jason Waskey has made quite a name for himself through his leadership on the Obama campaign, standing out among many in Maryland. Few people put in the same kind of time, raised the same kind of money, and worked as hard to get Obama elected than Jason.
Respondent: Statewide Obama role includes Montgomery County - he is a leader to hundreds of Obama activists in the County. Knows more Maryland electeds than most delegates.
Respondent: Jason is a genius when it comes to political ground game strategy, and a tireless worker who puts everything into a task. He deserves most of the credit for the fact that Maryland made more phone calls and door-knocking trips to battleground states for Obama than any other state in the nation on a per capita basis. Look for him to be a Maryland hybrid of Rahm Emmanuel and Karl Rove (in a good way) for many years to come, and he may run for office himself one day.
Adam: The best-connected Young Gun. Few people in Maryland are closer to President Obama. Already a rising player in state politics.
Tomorrow, we’ll reveal Young Guns Six, Five and Four. Be here!
