Old news but just in case you missed it.Type rest of the post here
Showing posts with label mike miller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mike miller. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Big Daddy’s Big Money (Updated)
Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller is pouring big, BIG money into a handful of Senate contests. And so are his lieutenants. Let’s look at his slate account.
The Maryland Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has received $836,750 in contributions this year through 10/17/10. Here are the contributors.
Miller himself gave the slate more than half its money. Rob Garagiola, who tied Finance Committee Chair Mac Middleton as the second-leading contributor, was just named the Senate’s next Majority Leader. Howard County Executive Ken Ulman must not be very worried about his Republican challenger, Trent Kittleman, considering that he maxed out to the slate. And the maximum contributions by the teachers and SEIU are interesting considering that one of Miller’s top priorities is passing down teacher pensions to the counties, a goal opposed by the two unions.
Here is how the slate has been spending its money.
The combined $160,448 in mailing and postage is a lot of mail. Consider that a countywide mailing to regularly voting Democrats in MoCo costs about $30,000-40,000. Then consider that MoCo has eight Senate districts. That means this money could have conceivably paid for at least a couple dozen Senate district mailings depending on which voters, and in which parties, are targeted. Then there is the nearly 300 grand for “media.” And finally, $73,900 of the “other” spending went for “research.” Our guess is that they are not researching the exact mathematical value of pi.
The slate’s top target is Republican Senator Alex Mooney of Frederick County, an ultra-conservative who nearly lost to then-unknown Democrat Candy Greenway four years ago. Mooney’s opponent this time is former Frederick Mayor Ron Young. Mooney’s District 3, which includes Frederick City, has 34,626 Democrats and 31,042 Republicans eligible to vote in the general election. The slate has sent at least seven mailers into the district as of October 21, including two accusing Mooney of supporting “violent domestic abusers.” Because the slate reported $302,780 in cash on hand on 10/17 (and Miller himself reported having $341,372), Mooney will be seeing a lot more of those mailers.
Mooney’s race is not the only one in which Miller will be participating. Senate Democrats would really like to pick up the open lower Eastern Shore seat being vacated by Republican J. Lowell Stoltzfus (R-38). The contenders are freshman Democratic Delegate Jim Mathias and Republican Michael James, who lost the Delegate race to Mathias in 2006. District 38 has 36,325 Democrats and 30,644 Republicans eligible to vote. The Democrats also have a number of incumbents to defend, especially in swing jurisdictions like Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties.
But that’s not a problem, since Big Daddy’s Big Money ensures that he can play in as many races as he wants. Wouldn’t it be something if the Senate Democrats actually increase their number this year?
Update: Here are two examples of the slate at work in Anne Arundel County.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Roger Manno’s New Best Bud
September 7
Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller sends District 19 Senator Mike Lenett, whom he had endorsed over challenger Roger Manno, a check for $2,500. Lenett needed the money for his Gang-Bangers for Manno mailer, his Holocaust mailer and his nuke website.
September 14
Manno defeats Lenett by eight points.
September 17
Miller sends Manno a check for $4,000.
Well, that was quick. Congratulations Rog!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Ali Calls Out King on Slate Issue
District 39 Senate challenger Saqib Ali has called on Senator Nancy King to return all campaign money she has collected from the alcohol, tobacco and gambling industries. He is also urging her to leave a slate controlled by Senate President Mike Miller that we believe funded a push poll against Ali with tobacco money. King's campaign tried to rebut that allegation this afternoon. In the meantime, King has signed on to support an alcohol tax increase after Ali and his supporters have criticized her over alcohol-related issues for months. Following is Ali's press release.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 19, 2010
ALI CONTINUES GRASSROOTS FUNDRAISING PUSH, CALLS ON KING TO RETURN TAINTED CAMPAIGN FUNDS
State Senate Challenger Speaks Out Against Special Interest Involvement in District 39 Race
(Gaithersburg, MD)- State Delegate Saqib Ali reported that 77% of his campaign funds have come from individuals in his most recent campaign finance report. By contrast, his opponent Nancy King reported that only 24% of her funds were donated by individuals.
“I am proud that the vast majority of my funds come from ordinary people,” said Ali. “If elected to the State Senate I will be responsive to my constituents and not beholden to the alcohol, tobacco, or gambling industries.”
King also accepted $6,750 from alcohol and gambling interests in the past fundraising period alone, while a slate she is a member of took $3,000 from the tobacco behemoth Phillip Morris Corporation.* This slate also paid for a "push-poll" that spread verifiably false information about Ali.
“I have never taken a dime from the alcohol or gambling industries” said Ali. “We already knew that Nancy King had taken $8,500 from gambling mogul William Rickman through the notorious LLC campaign finance loophole. These new revelations further underscore just how beholden Nancy is to the special interests that control Annapolis and undermine the safety of our children. No real Democrat would ever rely so completely on dirty money."
Ali went on to say,"I urge Nancy to immediately return all the money that her campaign has directly or indirectly received from the gambling, alcohol and tobacco industries. She should also withdraw from the incumbent Senate slate which is funded by Phillip Morris Corporation. These actions must be taken in a public and independently verifiable way."
Ali, who lives in Gaithersburg, was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates in 2006 and represents Maryland’s 39th Legislative District, which includes Washington Grove and parts of Gaithersburg, Germantown, North Potomac, Montgomery Village and Derwood. In the private sector, he works as a software engineer. Ali received a Bachelors and Masters Degree from University of Maryland College Park in computer science. Ali and his wife Susan are proud parents of two young daughters, Sofia and Sascha. You can learn more about Ali and his campaign by visiting www.Ali4Senate.com.
###
* http://maryland-politics.blogspot.com/2010/08/big-daddy-smokes-saqib-ali.html
Friends of Nancy King Contributions from Alcohol and Gambling Interests (Source: Maryland BOE):
Maryland Jockey Club, $500, 6/28/2010
Arundel Amusements, Inc. T/A Bingo World, $1,000, 6/02/2010
Delta Bingo Holdings, Inc., $1,000, 6/01/2010
Donald Wayson Bingo Account, $1,000, 5/27/2010
Maryland Beer Wholesalers Association PAC, $250, 6/19/2010
MD-DE-DC Beverage Association, $1,000, 7/28/2010
Thoroughbred Horseman's PAC, $1,000, 6/04/2010
Blake Cordish (of Cordish Cos.), $1,000, 7/29/2010
King Campaign Responds to Slate Push Poll Story
Senator Nancy King’s (D-39) campaign sent us the following email in response to our story on possible financing of a push poll against Saqib Ali by Senate President Mike Miller’s slate.Dear Adam,
You made an offensive and unsubstantiated accusation about Senator King this afternoon. The purpose of this email is to provide you with basic information that you overlooked in building your argument.
You wrote: “No member of the slate other than King had a competitive race at that time, and therefore had need of a poll.” The critical words in your sentence are “at that time” - because Senator King was not a member of the slate “at that time.”
Attached you will find copies of documents from the Maryland State Board of Elections that show that Senator King did not join the slate until nearly two months after the expenditures you referenced.
Senator King would have appreciated a phone call or an email before you launched this scurrilous attack. She would gladly have given you this information, if you had extended the basic courtesy of contacting her before you published these malicious claims.
You are aware that several candidates have quoted your blog on their campaign literature. To avoid a situation where this post is used to attack Senator King in anyone's campaign literature, we request that you retract it and notify your readers that you retracted it. In the absence of a retraction, we request that you explain to your readers how your theory is valid in light of these facts.
Sincerely,
Amy Hartman
Amy Yockus Hartman
Campaign Manager
Friends of Senator Nancy King
Our Response:
My, what a strong tone in this email! We have long maintained cordial relations with Senator King, whom we have praised in the past. For example, on July 16, we wrote of King:Nancy King is a better public servant than a politician. She draws considerable respect from other elected officials and the educational community, which she served as a school board member for two terms. In person, she is an easy-going, gracious lady from upstate New York who is a good listener and never comes across as a self-promoter. She is also not the conservative knuckle-dragger that Ali is trying to define her as.
We will attribute the use of terms such as “scurrilous attack” and “malicious claims” by King’s campaign manager to the stress of the election season. Such rhetoric by staff tends not to reflect well on the candidate.
The documents prove to our satisfaction that King did not join the slate prior to the push poll. In fact, we ran King’s on-the-record denial of involvement back in May and we have no reason to doubt her word. Despite Saqib Ali’s contentions, there is no evidence that King was responsible for the poll and we never claimed that she was. Our problem is not with King, but rather with Mike Miller.
The facts are troublesome here. The slate is under Miller’s direct control. Its payments to the polling firm occurred right before the push poll went out and no other slate members were vulnerable. Furthermore, Miller’s antipathy towards Ali – whether justified or not – is well known. The nexus between timing, circumstance and motivation is too close to be mere coincidence. And the use of tobacco money makes the story that much more compelling. If King did not run the poll, who else besides Miller – whose Deputy Chief of Staff once drafted an email from King to Ali – would have the money and the incentive to do it?
It is time for whoever was responsible for the poll to step forward. Otherwise, we will be discussing this issue again.
Big Daddy Smokes Saqib Ali
On May 28, we reported on a push poll targeting Saqib Ali. No one claimed responsibility for it. But new campaign finance data points the finger in one clear direction: Senate President Mike "Big Daddy" Miller.
Back in January, Miller formed a slate account allowing members of his leadership team (including Senators Ed Kasemeyer, Brian Frosh, Rob Garagiola and Mac Middleton) to steer unlimited amounts of money to two Senators who were regarded as possibly vulnerable: Baltimore County's Kathy Klausmeier and Montgomery County's Nancy King. The GOP's efforts against Klausmeier collapsed, but King drew a primary challenge from Delegate Saqib Ali. Miller is eager to keep Ali out of the Senate because of Ali's grandstanding, trouble-making and general uncontrollability. The slate account is just one tool that Big Daddy will use in that endeavor.
The slate has now filed its financial report for the period ending August 10. The account reported receipts of $3,000 from Philip Morris USA Inc., $1,000 from Miller, $1,000 from Frosh, $4,000 from the Maryland Trial Lawyers Association PAC, $750 from the Allegheny Power PAC and $2,500 each from SEIU and the state teachers' PAC.
The slate made two expenditures of $6,200 (on 5/11/10) and $650 (on 5/24/10) to Momentum Analysis LLC of Washington, DC for "research."
The firm's services include "surveys," i.e., polls. The timing of these payments immediately precedes the push poll on Ali, which occurred during the week of May 24th. No member of the slate other than King had a competitive race at that time and therefore had need of a poll. At the time, a source close to Miller denied responsibility for the poll. The above evidence now suggests that source was not truthful with us.
If Mike Miller indeed used tobacco money to run a push poll against any Democratic candidate, that is a shameful act that stains the entire party.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Big Daddy’s New Slate
Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller has long used slates to spread money around the Free State. His objectives are to protect vulnerable Democratic incumbents, knock out weak Republicans and compete for open seats. Normally, candidate account transfers to other accounts cannot exceed a maximum of $6,000, but candidates participating in slate accounts can transfer and receive unlimited sums. Big Daddy’s newest slate reveals – if only in partial terms – who is paying and who is to be protected.
The Maryland Democratic Senatorial Committee Slate was established on 1/13/10, the cutoff for the January reporting period. That date is not coincidental as the slate did not have to report its receipts or expenditures until today (August 17). Here is its membership.
Ed Kasemeyer is the Senate Majority Leader. Brian Frosh, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Proceedings Committee, and Rob Garagiola, Chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus, are MoCo’s two biggest Senate fundraisers. Garagiola’s job as caucus chair is to help Miller preserve and increase the Democrats’ majority. Mac Middleton is the Senate Finance Committee Chair. Frosh, Garagiola and Middleton are all rumored to be potential successors to Miller. Kathy Klausmeier is a Baltimore County Senator who could have been expected to draw a credible Republican challenger back in January. (We do not think that district will pan out for the GOP.) And Nancy King is being challenged by Saqib Ali, Big Daddy’s least favorite Delegate.
Conspicuously absent from the slate are Budget and Taxation Chair Ulysses Currie, whose still-unresolved ethical scandal taints his money, and the other three MoCo Senators who are challenged by sitting Delegates: Jennie Forehand, Mike Lenett and Rona Kramer. We believe that Miller sees Lenett and Kramer as being able to take care of themselves, while Forehand will receive significant help only if she runs a vigorous campaign. (It may be a little late for that.)
With Klausmeier out of danger, the only remaining purpose of this slate – assuming it does not change its membership – is to protect Nancy King. The combined resources of Miller, Kasemeyer, Frosh, Garagiola and Middleton will easily exceed any money Ali can raise. Big Daddy would much rather use his war chest to thwart Republicans. As a matter of fact, the GOP should rejoice at every dollar this slate account expends on Democratic primaries. But regardless of that fact, the timing and membership of the slate says one thing loud and clear.
Mike Miller will do whatever must be done to keep Saqib Ali out of his chamber.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Big Daddy’s Hand Revealed in District 39
Recently released emails show the role of Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller in trying to negotiate a peace settlement between Senator Nancy King (D-39) and Delegate Saqib Ali, who is now challenging her. The settlement attempt failed, but it demonstrated just how much attention Miller is paying to this district.
The incident began when MPW’s Marc Korman contacted King about posting a District 39 team ad in the county Democrats’ spring ball program. King asked the three Delegates – Ali, Kirill Reznik and Charles Barkley – about it in this email.On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Nancy King wrote:
The reference to “Patty” indicates Patty Horton, who is King’s legislative aide.
Dear Charlie, Saqib and Kirill,
I got an email from Marc Korman asking if we were going to do a team ad for the Spring Ball. If you are interested in doing maybe a half page ad from our team, can you let me know? Patty can put it together with our picture if you so choose.
Also, are any of you interested in doing a District 39 reception closer to District 39 in late April, as a wrap up/kickoff/Team 39 event? We could use the money we were going to use for the night in Annapolis and get more of our 39 constituents there.
We also need to get together to talk about team literature and possible team signs. Your thoughts on any of this? Thanks, Nancy
Ali sent this reply to the other three legislators:-----Original Message-----
King sent the following email in return, but note the email trail that accompanies it. The source of the email was Patrick H. Murray, who sent it to King’s aide, Patty Horton.
From: Delegate Saqib Ali
To: Nancy King
Cc: Charles Barkley; Kirill Reznik
Sent: Mon, Mar 8, 2010 7:36 pm
Subject: Re: Team 39
Nancy,
You have called me "Crazed" and "Desperate" in the newspaper and made frivolous ethical allegations against me in an attempt to harm my reputation.
With due respect, don't you think you owe me a public apology before we even begin to think about "team"?
- SaqibFrom: Nancy King
We all know what happened to this settlement attempt, but the key bit of info here is one name: Patrick Murray. He is Miller’s Deputy Chief of Staff, but he is FAR more than that. Murray is a senior strategist in Big Daddy’s service, acting as his eyes and ears in all things political. The fact that Murray was involved in drafting communication between King and Ali demonstrates both how difficult that relationship had become by March as well as the level of attention it was drawing from Miller. It also shows how close King really is to Big Daddy.
Date: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: Team 39
To: Saqib Ali, Nancy King
Cc: Charles Barkley, Kirill Reznik
Dear Saqib:
We have both said and done things – deliberately or inadvertently – that hurt each other, and our personal relationship and our public reputations have suffered as a result. The email you sent on Monday is the first time that either of us has confronted the other directly about the situation.
Neither one of us has clean hands here. You have waged an unrelenting campaign to undermine my professional reputation and personal credibility, including a public meeting where you called me a liar in front of our constituents.
This situation is unfair for the residents of District 39, who expect us to put aside our differences and focus on the problems that our State is facing. We must rise above our personal concerns and put our constituents first. If an apology will help you, please allow me to offer one.
I am sorry for any pain I have caused you as a result of my poorly-chosen words. Moreover, I am sorry that our relationship has reached a point where we read about each other in the newspaper and on blogs more often than we talk directly. It is of no value to the people we serve for us to continue to walk down such a rocky path.
I hope you will accept this in the spirit in which it was intended – as a good faith effort on my part to extend an olive branch and to begin rebuilding our relationship. I can think of nothing that would be better for the people we represent.
You are a passionate advocate, and you put your heart and soul into your work. You are a dynamic part of the District 39 team, and we would like to work with you. As I indicated in my first email, the team is preparing for post-session meetings. We need to know whether you want to work with us in order to accommodate your schedule and include you in our efforts.
Please let me know by the end of this week how you want to proceed.
Thank you again for your candor. I understand your frustration with the situation, because I share it. Again, I hope you will accept this as a good faith effort on my part to move forward as a team, so that we can best serve the people of District 39.
Sincerely,
Nancy
-----Original Message-----
From: Patty Horton
To: hearsawho@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 10:14 am
Subject: Fwd:
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Patrick H. Murray
Date: March 10, 2010 9:11:35 AM EST
To: Patty Horton
Dear Saqib:
We have both said and done things – deliberately or inadvertently – that hurt each other, and our personal relationship and our public reputations have suffered as a result. The email you sent on Monday is the first time that either of us has confronted the other directly about the situation.
Neither one of us has clean hands here. You have waged an unrelenting campaign to undermine my professional reputation and personal credibility, culminating in a public meeting before session where you called me a liar in front of our constituents.
This situation is unfair for the residents of District 39, who expect us to put aside our differences and focus on the problems that our State is facing. We need to rise above our personal concerns and put our constituents first. If an apology will help you, please allow me to offer one.
I am sorry for any pain I have caused you as a result of my poorly-chosen words. Moreover, I am sorry that our relationship has reached a point where we read about each other in the newspaper and on blogs more often than we talk directly. It is of no value to the people we serve for us to continue to walk down such a rocky path.
I hope you will accept this in the spirit in which it was intended – as a good faith effort on my part to extend an olive branch and to begin rebuilding our relationship. I can think of nothing that would be better for the people we represent.
You are a passionate advocate, and you put your heart and soul into your work. You are a dynamic part of the District 39 team, and we would like to work with you. As I indicated in my first email, the team is preparing for post-session meetings. We need to know whether you want to work with us in order to accommodate your schedule and include you in our efforts.
Please let me know by the end of this week how you want to proceed.
Thank you again for your candor. I understand your frustration with the situation, because I share it. Again, I hope you will accept this as a good faith effort on my part to move forward as a team, so that we can best serve the people of District 39.
[SIG]
The Lords of Annapolis – and not just Miller – share a common view of King and Ali. They regard King as a solid citizen who does not cause trouble. They regard Ali as… well, this is a family blog, so we can’t print those kinds of words. The bottom line is that they DO NOT WANT SAQIB IN THE SENATE. You can bet that Big Daddy’s participation in this race will not be limited to peace offerings or rumored push polls. By the time this primary is over, there will be a lot of blood on the floor in District 39.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
MD Senate President Mike Miller on "Political Pulse" on Ch. 16 TV
Maryland Senate President Mike Miller will be on the "Political Pulse" political talk show on:
Thurs, April 22nd at 9:30 p.m.
Fri-Sun, April 23rd-25th at 6:00 p.m. and
Tues, April 27th at 9:30 p.m.
Senate President Miller will discuss various topics including:
1. Whether some teacher pension costs should be shifted from the state to the counties;
2. The 2010 Governor's race between Governor Martin O'Malley and former Governor Robert Ehrlich;
3. Some of the contested 2010 State Senate Democratic primaries in Montgomery County.
Political Pulse is on Montgomery Municipal Cable in Montgomery County.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Big Daddy’s Facebook Page
In a move that has changed social media forever, Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller has established a Facebook page for his fans. But this is not a normal page – it’s an online museum devoted to one of the most legendary personalities in the Free State’s history. Here are a few of our favorite photos!
“I know I look like a sportscaster, but it’s the seventies so gimme a break.”
“Don’t blame me. Whatever it is, it’s the House’s fault.”
“You wanna be my deputy full time?”
“Whaddaya mean you can’t have slot machines inside the church?!”
“Let’s do the Hustle!”
“Forget about it, young man. You’ll never be Senate President.”
“Do I actually have to eat this?”
“Cripes, they don’t clap like this for me!”
Stylin’ with Steny!
“Can I have somebody… anybody else give me this award?”
“You want another goddam amendment?”
“Did I hear you say that you’re a Republican?!”
“Bubba, who’s your Daddy?”
“If I could get to the top, so can you. Just do your homework, eat your vitamins and drink your Chivas.”
“Don’t worry, Mike – God forgives!”
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Miller Links Teacher Pensions and Maintenance of Effort
Buried in a Washington Post article about the budget is this momentous passage:One way to lighten the state's burden is to shift the rising cost of teacher pensions to local governments, said [Senate President Mike] Miller, a leading proponent of changing the system.
Miller has been a proponent of passing down at least part of the teacher pension costs to the counties for some time. A bill he filed last year would have cost the counties nearly a billion dollars over four years. But now Miller is offering to ease Maintenance of Effort requirements that compel counties to maintain per-pupil spending in exchange for a pension handoff.
"Anyone who knows anything about basic accounting knows that the people who set the salaries should also be responsible for the pensions that are a result of the salaries," he said.
To mollify critics of such a move, lawmakers might agree to loosen a requirement that local governments fund their school systems at the same level per student as the previous fiscal year, Miller said.
The combined effect of a county pension mandate and a loosening of public school spending requirements is easy to see: the counties will have a strong incentive to shift spending out of the classroom and towards pension obligations formerly covered by the state. That would have very serious consequences for public education.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
Miller, Busch Reject Legislative Pay Raises
Senate President Mike Miller and Speaker of the House Mike Busch have ruled out a pay raise for state legislators. We reprint their press release below.
PRESS RELEASE
For Immediate Release:
January 5, 2010
For More Information:
Alexandra Hughes
Speaker’s Office
(410)841-3917
Patrick Murray
President’s Office
(410)841-3700
PRESIDENT and SPEAKER REJECT PROPOSAL FOR PAY RAISES
ANNAPOLIS, MD – Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. and House Speaker Michael E. Busch issued the following statement today, in response to the General Assembly Compensation Commission’s proposal to increase lawmaker’s salaries:
“Any legislative consideration of a pay raise at a time when we are preparing to make more than $1 billion in cuts to the State budget is inappropriate,” said Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr. “The Commission was tasked with making an independent recommendation regarding compensation for the offices of Delegate and Senator, not for individual lawmakers. I appreciate their work, but we must stand with the citizens of Maryland who are working hard to make ends meet in these challenging times.”
Under the State’s constitution, the Commission is comprised of five citizens appointed by the Governor and four appointed by the legislative presiding officers, and does not include any members of the General Assembly.
“I want to thank the General Assembly Compensation Commission for their hard work in developing today’s recommendations. We have asked state employees and legislators to take furloughs, in order to keep people in the workplace,” said Speaker Michael E. Busch. “Now is not the time to accept pay raises for legislators. We respectfully decline the salary recommendation of the Commission.”
Pursuant to State law, the General Assembly Compensation Commission Joint Resolution must be introduced during the 2010 session and be rejected by a vote of both chambers of the legislature. A decision to reject the Commission’s recommendation will apply to all four years of the next term, resulting in eight years without any pay raise for members of the legislature.
# # #
Friday, December 25, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
No Need for Big Brother with Big Daddy
The Gazette’s Doug Tallman reported a rumor that a bronze statue of Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller might be installed outside the Mike Miller building. (Don’t you love it when MSM reporters start spreading rumors as do irresponsible bloggers?) But we don’t think a statue is enough!
All of Big Daddy’s kids (i.e., the Maryland Senate) know how indispensable he is. A statue simply will not do. Every office must have its own mini-Miller statue. (And no, it can’t be one of those rubber Bash-the-Boss statues.) Every office will be issued a bottle of Chivas Regal, re-branded as Royal Mike. The special state license plates for legislators will be replaced with new plates bearing Miller’s image. And there must of course be portraits in the bathrooms so that Big Daddy will never be far from his children. As for the toilet paper, well… let’s stop there.
The Mike Miller Senate Office Building, only a small part of Big Daddy’s realm.
But this is all still not enough! The statues and portraits will eventually crumble. The license plates will fall off. The Chivas bottles will sadly run out.
So to fix this, there must be a new state law. From now on, whoever takes over as Senate President must legally change his (or her) name to Mike Miller. Inserting “Big Daddy” as the middle name is optional. That will truly cement the great one’s legacy and ensure that the state will forever be run by Mike Miller.
Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to be?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Currie Back on the Fundraising Circuit
Embattled Senate Budget and Taxation (B&T) Chairman Ulysses Currie (D-25) is raising money again. Is that good or bad for Democrats?
Senator Currie, who has headed the B&T Committee since 2002, has been one of the Democrats' most prolific fundraisers. He has collected $919,083.76 in contributions since 1999, third in the legislature behind Senate President Mike "Big Daddy" Miller ($2,568,861.98) and Speaker of the House Mike Busch ($1,673,431.22). But Currie's take slowed down dramatically last year after his home was raided by the FBI and revelations emerged concerning his relationship with Shoppers Food & Pharmacy. In 2008, Currie collected a mere $18,173.48 (not counting any proceeds of his legal defense fund) as he and his donors largely avoided each other. But Currie is back on the rubber-chicken trail, announcing a Greenbelt fundraiser featuring tables of ten for a cool $2,500 each.
The B&T Chair is an enormous financial boon for its holder because of its jurisdiction, which includes "legislation relating to State operating and capital budgets, including revenues, expenditures, and supplementary appropriations; legislative budgetary procedures; State and county bond authorizations; taxation and property assessments; education financing; and pension and retirement matters." Anyone lobbying a tax measure must go through the Chairman. That means not having a Chairman who can raise money is a lost opportunity for state Democrats.
Why? The reason is that Currie's money has been distributed far and wide. The Senator has contributed $212,092.19 to other candidates and PACs since 1999. The biggest recipients include the Community Coalition Advocacy Slate ($25,000) - a slate for Prince George's Senators - the 25th District Team ($10,800), the Democratic State Central Committee of Maryland ($5,250), Baltimore City Council Chairwoman Stephanie Rawlings-Blake ($5,000), Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson ($4,000), Baltimore City Senator Lisa Gladden ($3,000), former Baltimore City Senator Ralph Hughes ($3,000) and Governor Martin O'Malley ($2,000). But the single largest recipient of Currie's money has been the Democratic Senatorial Committee Slate, to which Currie has contributed $155,000.
The latter slate is extremely important to Democratic Senators. It is controlled by the Senate leadership and is used to aid vulnerable incumbents, especially ones facing tough GOP challengers. It has spent $1.5 million since 1999 helping the Democrats. Among its biggest expenditures have been:
$302,248.92 on "printing and campaign materials" on 11/1/06.
$119,958.24 on "direct mailing by mail house" on 10/16/02.
$53,040.00 on "media (radio, T.V., newspaper, billboards)" on 10/25/06.
The fund also transfers large sums of money directly to Democratic candidates. Senate challenger Walter Shandrowsky received donations of $20,000 on 9/23/06 and $75,000 on 10/27/06 to help him against Bryan Simonaire in an Anne Arundel open seat race. (Simonaire still won.) Incumbent Kathy Klausmeier of Baltimore County received $45,000 on 11/1/06 to help her successfully turn back a Republican challenger. Many other Democratic candidates have received less than $10,000, often in the late stages of races.
Several Democratic Senators will face vigorous GOP challenges and more than one seat will open up next year. That means the need to leverage the B&T Chair to finance the Democratic Senatorial Committee Slate will be pressing indeed. But if Currie gets indicted and his money is spread to the slate - and thenceforth to other Democrats - will it be worth it? The Lords of Annapolis need to think long and hard about this.
Below is Currie's solicitation.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Maryland’s Administrator for Life, Part Three
State Board of Elections (SBE) Administrator Linda Lamone has earned a legion of enemies in her 12-year tenure at the agency. But she has one very powerful friend: Senate President Mike “Big Daddy” Miller. And he was there to help in her hour of need in the spring of 2005.
Dissatisfied with having a Democrat as the SBE Administrator, Governor Robert Ehrlich plotted to get rid of her. State law at that time required four of five votes from the Board for an ouster. Ehrlich had three Republicans and a sympathetic Democrat who suspended Lamone but the matter went to court. Lamone’s fate degenerated into a partisan fight between Ehrlich and the Democratic General Assembly leadership. The Democrats ultimately won by passing the “Linda Lamone for Life” bill over Ehrlich’s veto, which ensured that Lamone would remain in office even if voted out by the Board until the Senate confirmed a successor. The Gazette wrote this about the bill:The bill is so restrictive that the elections administrator could not be removed from office even if all five members of the State Board of Elections vote to fire her, even if she were convicted of first-degree murder, sentenced to death row and stripped of her voting rights. Only when the state Senate approves a replacement could she be removed. Now that’s job security.
Who determines when - or if - a replacement could ever be considered by the Senate? Mike Miller, of course. The Gazette presented this theory explaining Lamone’s alliance with Big Daddy: Lamone serves on the Attorney Grievance Commission, which heard a complaint from then GOP Chairman Michael S. Steele into Miller's contacts with members of the Maryland Court of Appeals over the 2002 redistricting map. Miller, who could have faced disbarment, emerged unscathed.
Regardless of Big Daddy’s relationship with Lamone, the two have overlapping interests. Miller is fairly satisfied with today’s campaign finance system because it has performed well in keeping his Democratic majority solid. Lamone seeks to block any reforms that challenge her power or create more work for her agency. The two agree on one thing: change should be regarded with suspicion. That explains Lamone’s testimony against the Montgomery County Delegation’s local bill allowing more disclosure in their jurisdiction. Her rationale for opposing the bill, which is that “the public’s access to campaign finance reports would be fragmented and more challenging,” has no basis in reality.
After the charges against him were made public, Miller told reporters that he did not even know that Lamone was on the commission.
Lamone calls the idea that she protected Miller “preposterous and insulting.” She was appointed to the commission by the chief judge of the Court of Appeals.
Chief Judge Robert M. Bell “obviously thinks enough of me that he's reappointed me several times,” she said.
Annapolis custom holds that local bills (those that apply only to one county) often pass the full General Assembly if they are supported by their delegations. But Senator Joan Carter Conway (D-43), Chair of the Senate’s Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee, bottled up this bill. That is how Linda Lamone was able to block a reform supported by the entire Montgomery County government as well as numerous progressive groups.
One Lamone watcher describes her performance this way:The State Board of Elections does an impressive amount of work. Lamone or her assistants show up at every relevant hearing, submit detailed testimony, and apparently devote many hours influencing legislation through backchannels and private conversations. The only work they seem unwilling to handle is the work of actually running an election.
Despite all of this, Maryland’s Administrator for Life enjoys enormous job security that depends on one man: Mike Miller. That makes Big Daddy Lamone’s true boss.
Rather than provide real impartial guidance to make Maryland's elections work better, Lamone is far more concerned with reducing her own responsibilities and deflecting any change the SBE would have to accommodate or adapt to.
Imagine the state police spending more than half their time defeating proposals that would require them to learn new technology, or receive training that would improve their effectiveness. Imagine the department of the environment spending taxpayer resources every year on lobbying campaigns to resist improvements to protect the Bay. This is pretty much what the SBE does in placing turf and self-preservation over the public good.
There is one silver lining. Maryland does not have a “Senate President for Life” law – yet.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Big Daddy and the Millers
Republican Ron Miller, who was crushed by Senate President Mike "Big Daddy" Miller by 40 points in 2006, is running against him again. Ron Miller put out a press release today announcing his candidacy and slamming his opponent for advocating a gas tax increase. It figures that the Republicans are going after Big Daddy on the one issue on which he is indisputably right.
Now if we really wanted to have maximum name confusion, we could get soon-to-be-retiring WSSC Wild Child Juanita Miller to run. Big Daddy spanked her by 29 points in the 2002 primary. (Want to bet that Mike Miller's thundering WSSC letter was not driven in part by the actions of Commissioner Juanita?) But we will have no such luck as she is running for the Prince George's County Council.
So what happens if Juanita Miller wins? Big Daddy and the Wild Child will have to work together hand in hand for the people of Prince George's County. Yeah, we'd pay serious money to see that!
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Big Daddy Spanks Jack Johnson Over WSSC (Updated)
Senate President Mike Miller is getting fed up with the problems at WSSC. Following is a letter he wrote to Prince George's County Executive Jack Johnson (referenced by the Post) in which he calls for "quick and decisive action" and "a WSSC that is ethical and competent."
Miller has long been concerned about WSSC. In 2005, he called turmoil at the agency a "cancer" and said, "Public confidence in the ability of this board to govern is nonexistent." Judging by the contemptuous reaction of Johnson's staff, Miller may have to take direct action to fix the agency. And if Big Daddy is serious, we will be cheering him on every step of the way.
Update: Miller offers more in the Gazette, including this beauty: "In another year we'll have another county executive and, hopefully, a better working relationship between the county executives and the commissioners." Youch!
June 15, 2009
The Honorable Jack Johnson
Office of the County Executive
County Administration Building
14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
Dear County Executive Johnson:
I am writing to express my grave concerns and frustration as to the level of total incompetence at the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (“WSSC”). As you know, in Prince George’s County, we are surrounded by the Patuxent River, the Potomac River, numerous tributaries of these rivers, and the accompanying watersheds that flow directly into these very environmentally sensitive areas.
Given the importance of these areas, it was truly beyond belief that, on May 11, 2009, 30,000 gallons of raw sewage spilled into a direct tributary of the Potomac River, the Piscataway Creek. Incredibly, on June 4, 2009, another 30,500 gallons of raw sewages spilled directly into the Piscataway Creek. This means that in less than one month, over 60,000 gallons of raw sewage has been allowed to pour directly into Piscataway Creek. This is not only incomprehensible, it is unacceptable.
I believe one of the most critical roles of government officials is to serve as stewards of our environment. The health and safety of our citizens depends upon our ability to protect the air and the water quality in the county. Additionally, it is not fair or equitable for one county to be allowed to have raw sewage polluting the rivers and tributaries that go beyond its own borders.
These recent events confirm that the WSSC has sunk to levels of incompetence that we should all be embarrassed to see. The needs have been well documented and yet WSSC Commissioners representing our County have sat idly by, while pipe after pipe has burst. Now, during the worst recession we have seen since the Great Depression, they raise rates by 9%. This rate increase coincides with public disclosure of thousands of dollars of ratepayer funds being used by WSSC members to pay for things such as political and charitable events. All during a time when there still is no General Manager of the Agency. Given this information, why on earth should we or the citizens of this County believe that they need the rate increase or even know how to address these serious issues with additional funds?
It is far past time for a massive overhaul of this agency. We cannot simply shrug our shoulders and accept delays and excuses for things such as raw sewage flowing into sensitive environmental areas again and again. I would, therefore, formally call upon you to act in your official oversight roles to take the reigns of this situation.
The first step must be the expeditious appointment of a General Manager, who possesses the sufficient credentials and expertise to take over the agency and resolve these issues immediately. Next, the County Council should call for hearings and demand a comprehensive plan for an effective resolution of these matters, as soon as possible. The use of ratepayer funds for questionable activities by WSSC members should also be reviewed. If these issues cannot be addressed at the local level by the time the General Assembly convenes in January, State legislators cannot in good conscience allow things to continue as they have been.
I look forward to your decisive and quick action and am willing to assist you in these efforts in any manner possible. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns and I would further ask that you please advise me as soon as possible as to actions the County plans to take in this matter. The citizens of our County deserve a healthy environment in which to live and raise their families and they deserve a WSSC that is ethical and competent.
Sincerely,
Thomas V. Mike Miller, Jr.
TVMM/vlg
cc: Prince George’s County Council
Monday, March 16, 2009
Details on Big Daddy’s Teacher Pensions Bill Revealed
As we have previously chronicled, Senate President Mike Miller is determined to unload the obligation of paying for teacher pensions on Maryland’s counties. On February 6, Big Daddy introduced SB 710, a bill that would pass on those costs to the counties over a four-year period. The fiscal note is now in, and it shows that the counties would bear more than a billion dollars in costs from Miller’s proposal.
Currently, Maryland’s defined benefit plan, the State Retirement and Pension System (SRPS), covers over 350,000 active and former state employees, teachers, state police, judges, law enforcement officers, correctional officers and legislators. School employees, who are employed by state-chartered Boards of Education, have their pension costs covered by state contributions. Some local governments also cover their direct employees but contribute payments towards their pensions.
Miller would like counties to pay for the costs of funding their teachers’ pensions for two reasons. First, as the fiscal note states, only two other states (Texas and Kansas) cover all teacher pension costs on behalf of their counties out of 34 who responded to a survey for that information. Second, Miller contends that since pension benefits are tied to compensation, which is currently set by local school boards and funded by county governments, the counties are essentially passing on an unfunded mandate to the state. (This may be the first unfunded mandate your author has encountered that is actually passed upwards!)
The fiscal note shows the following distribution of costs to the counties in fiscal years 2011-2014 if Miller’s bill were adopted:
In terms of total costs, the counties would collectively owe $100.2 million in FY 2011, a figure that would rise to $452.7 million in FY 2014. Montgomery would owe the highest amounts ($88.9 million by FY 2014), followed by Prince George’s County ($67.4 million in FY 2014), Baltimore County ($52.3 million) and Baltimore City ($42.7 million).
But these figures need to be adjusted by population since pension costs depend partially on average salaries. Following is our calculation of per capita costs in each county for the four-year period using 2007 population estimates from the Census Bureau:
On a per capita basis, Howard County taxpayers would owe the most: $268.76 per resident over the FY 2011-2014 period. Following are Calvert County ($240.87), Montgomery County ($228.25), Charles County ($218.31) and Frederick County ($208.45). These counties possess many of the state’s best-performing schools, and under Miller’s bill, they would face the highest per capita liabilities for pensions. Big Daddy’s proposal thus contains a perverse incentive: counties can escape liability for pension obligations by shorting teacher compensation and passing pension costs onto other counties. Those counties that try to attract the best teachers would face added financial consequences from doing so.
Mike Miller has a point when he claims that counties have less incentive to control pension costs when they do not pay for them (although they certainly pay significant amounts in salaries). But Miller has conveniently left out a salient fact that operates in the opposite direction: the state’s retirement system is in poor financial condition because of prior decisions made by the state government.
We will investigate that issue tomorrow.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Five Senators and the Death Penalty
The failure of death penalty repeal in Maryland came down to the actions of five Senators. Here is their story.
To understand the part played by these five, we must first understand the sequence of the major floor votes on the death penalty. First, Senate President Mike Miller allowed the chamber to vote on whether to substitute the repeal bill for an unfavorable report from the Judiciary Proceedings Committee. This vote succeeded by a 25-22 margin and started full Senate debate on the bill.
Next, Senator James Brochin (D-42) proposed an amendment that forbade use of the death penalty in cases relying solely on eyewitness testimony. That amendment effectively changed the purpose of the bill from repeal to restrictions on the use of the death penalty. The amendment passed by a 25-21 margin, with one Senator later changing his vote to produce a 24-22 outcome.
After another amendment by Senator Robert Zirkin (D-11), Senator E.J. Pipkin (R-36) moved to send the bill back to the Judiciary Proceedings Committee. His motion would have preserved the status quo: the death penalty would have been left unchanged. It failed 23-23, keeping restrictions on the death penalty alive.
These five Senators played key roles:
Alex Mooney (R-3)
Mooney, a social conservative on most issues, was considered a swing vote on death penalty repeal. He voted to send repeal to the floor, voted for the Brochin amendment and voted to send it back to committee. Mooney was the only GOP Senator to support a floor vote. He favored amending the bill and then killing it.
John Astle (D-30)
Astle, an Anne Arundel Democrat who often has close general elections, refused to answer the Sun’s question on his death penalty position. He voted with death penalty opponents against sending repeal to the floor and initially voted for the Brochin amendment, which would have preserved the death penalty. But Astle, who said he was “wrestling” with repeal, later changed his vote to oppose the Brochin amendment. His vote change would not have defeated the Brochin amendment because it merely altered the margin from 25-21 to 24-22. Astle then voted against recommitting the bill, effectively preserving it in its amended form. He is sure to face questions about his decision-making.
Jennie Forehand (D-17)
The Sun listed Forehand as favoring repeal but she did not co-sponsor the 2009, 2008 or 2007 repeal bills. Forehand voted along with repeal supporters to send the bill to the floor. But she missed the Brochin amendment vote (which initially passed by 25-21 but later had a 24-22 margin after Astle’s vote change). Forehand told the Sun that she was in the amendment room during the Brochin vote. She later voted against recommitting the bill to committee.
Our sources cannot explain why Forehand missed the Brochin amendment vote. When Senators wish to introduce floor amendments, they do not have to physically visit the amendment room – they can just place phone calls. Furthermore, on high-profile votes, legislators who are interested in having their votes recorded rarely leave during those votes. Forehand’s departure was inexplicable, especially considering the fact that she never introduced an amendment.
Nevertheless, even if she had stayed and voted against the Brochin amendment, it would still have passed 24-23 (assuming Astle had voted against it as well). Forehand’s action by itself did not determine the bill’s fate.
Rona Kramer (D-14)
Kramer did not answer the Sun’s question on her repeal position. She voted to send the bill to the floor, voted for the Brochin amendment and voted against recommitting it. Effectively, she acted to restrict but not kill the death penalty. If both Astle and Kramer had voted against the Brochin amendment, it would have failed by a 23-23 vote. Kramer was therefore a critical player in stopping outright repeal.
Andy Harris (R-7)
As conservative blogger Brian Griffiths originally pointed out, Harris missed the recommit vote, which failed 23-23. If Harris had been present to vote in favor of recommitting, the death penalty restrictions in the Brochin amendment would have been struck down and the status quo would have been preserved. Recommit sponsor E. J. Pipkin will be sure to use this against Harris if the two run against each again for Congress.
As for Mike Miller, he is the ultimate winner. Miller gave the Governor and the many repeal supporters in his chamber the courtesy of a floor vote. The ultimate outcome was to preserve the death penalty (as Miller favors), even in a restricted form. Miller kept the debate to a couple days, thereby retaining control over the Senate’s business. And if the House passes anything different, both proposals will fail because the Senate will not go to conference.
Mike Miller was able to pull this off because he knows every one of his Senators – and just as importantly, their districts – better than anyone in Annapolis. He was probably able to forecast every single one of the above events within one or two votes. He knew repeal supporters did not have enough votes to prevail and let them have their day. His acumen is the product of twenty years experience in his position, thorough knowledge of Senate history and constant study of three generations of his colleagues.
And as for Senators Mooney, Astle, Forehand, Kramer and Harris? They will now have to face the consequences, for better or worse, of their actions in the Great Maryland Death Penalty Debate of 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
