Accusations Fly in District 20

"Outrageous attack mail" is what the Jamie Raskin says about the latest campaign literature mailed out by Incumbent Senator Ida Ruben's campaign. Raskin has seemingly received some powerful backing for his claims from Congressman Chris Van Hollen. The Raskin campaign is touting a statement released by Van Hollen stating:

This kind of Karl Rove politics has no place in the Democratic Party. The voters should demand a clean and honest campaign.

I'd like to see a full copy of Rep. Van Hollen's statement (assuming there is more to it) to verify Raskin's touting of the statement as an explicit criticism of Ruben and her flyer. I would also like to see Ruben's literature for myself so that I can judge if the accusations are a form of negative campaigning and distort Raskin's record or merely a legitimate, albeit harsh, attack. I don't live in District 20 so I didn't get a copy.

I am cautious because it would be a real blow to Sen. Ruben's campaign if the district's popular congressman, a former colleague of Sen. Ruben who has not endorsed either candidate, has now criticized the incumbent. I tend to assume that Raskin is characterizing Van Hollen's statement accurately since he is now featuring it so prominently on his website and it should boomerang against him if he is not characterizing it properly. Moreover, the whole incident draws attention to the interesting lack of endorsement of Ruben by Van Hollen--and Montgomery incumbents are generally famously willing to endorse each other for reelection.

Meanwhile, Ruben is also accusing Raskin of distortions. On her website, Ruben's campaign has reproduced a letter to the Gazette claiming that the same Raskin supporter who informed me via email of Van Hollen's statement of has distorted the actions of Ruben and other Maryland state legislators on electricity deregulation:

Jonathan Shurberg’s response to Mary Myers-Nelson’s explanation of Sen. Ida Ruben’s vote for the 1999 electricity deregulation law is another misdirected effort to discredit Senator Ruben for her reasoned vote for that law. Mr. Shurberg gives credit to Jamie Raskin in a matter that Mr. Raskin knew nothing about and said nothing about.

Ms. Myers-Nelson’s June 7 letter gave a detailed explanation of Senator Ruben’s reasons for her vote (which was also the vote of the vast majority of the General Assembly), with a clear explanation of the law’s mandate to the Public Service Commission to ensure a competitive electricity supply market. That was a vote for a provision that would make energy suppliers compete with each other, not a pro-utility vote. Her letter made it clear that the Public Service Commission failed to carry out this directive.

Ms. Myers-Nelson’s letter further explained the process of PSC approval of the deregulation proposals of the regulated electric companies in Maryland. She showed that a leading consumer advocacy group, a major university and various public agencies supported the proposals.

Instead of refuting any of these substantive points, Mr. Shurberg ignores them, criticizing Ms. Myers-Nelson for having the ‘‘temerity” to provide a detailed explanation of Senator Ruben’s vote. So much for Mr. Raskin’s concern for the protection of First Amendment rights. Apparently Ms. Myers-Nelson is not to be permitted to engage in serious discussion of a matter of public importance. I should think that Mr. Raskin’s supporters could do better than that.

Mr. Shurberg cherry picks from among a few local legislators who voted against the law to claim that Senator Ruben was isolated in voting for deregulation. He ignores the fact the Del. Sheila Hixson of District 20 was a co-sponsor of that legislation. He ignores the fact that the vast majority of both the Senate and the House of Delegates voted for deregulation. Senator Ruben was a part of the consensus on this issue, not isolated from it as Mr. Shurberg would have voters erroneously believe.

Mr. Shurberg also ignores the recent actions of Senator Ruben and the General Assembly to address the problem of electricity rates. Senator Ruben voted for and the legislature passed the law that removes and replaces the regulators who failed to carry out their mandate to ensure a competitive electricity supply market. It provides immediate relief to consumers for the sky-rocketing rates resulting from the regulators’ failures. And it mandates the new PSC to undertake studies of the state’s electricity markets with a view to making them competitive.

Again, while Senator Ruben was taking action, Mr. Raskin was silent. Mr. Shurberg says that Mr. Raskin was silent on this matter in 1999 because he wasn’t in the legislature. Now that he wants to be in the legislature Mr. Raskin is still silent. Mr. Raskin cannot make the hollow claim that he would have voted against deregulation because nothing in his record suggests that he ever focused on this complex issue.

Here is Mr. Shurberg's original letter criticizing Sen. Ruben:

I am writing in response to Mary Myers-Nelson’s letter trumpeting the qualifications of state Sen. Ida G. Ruben for re-election (‘‘Ruben knows what needs to be done to correct electric rates problem,” June 7 Open Forum). I find it hard to believe that anyone can even try to defend Sen. Ruben (D-Dist. 20) of Silver Spring on the issue of energy deregulation.

More than any local Democratic senator at the time, Sen. Ruben is responsible for the current mess. She voted, not once but seven times, for legislation pushed by energy companies. She was virtually alone among local Democratic senators in voting for this bill. Sens. Brian Frosh, Jennie Forehand, Paul Pinsky, and current Congressman Chris Van Hollen, all voted against the bill. Apparently, despite everything that has happened since then, Sen. Ruben wants the voters of District 20 to think that she was right and everyone else was wrong.

Then, even more incredibly, Ms. Myers-Nelson tells us that Sen. Ruben ‘‘knows what needs to be done to correct the problem.” If that’s the case, where has Sen. Ruben been on this issue for the past seven years? No real competitive market in energy has ever developed — yet Sen. Ruben speaks out only after the announcement of massive electricity bill increases for both Pepco and Baltimore Gas and Electric. And her spokeswoman has the temerity to tell us that all of this is evidence of Sen. Ruben’s superior qualifications? Wow. If this is an example of Ida Ruben’s ‘‘effective leadership,” I don’t want to think what the results of bad performance would be.

Ms. Myers-Nelson chides Jamie Raskin for his supposed lack of involvement on the energy issue back in 1999. I have two responses. First, may I remind Ms. Myers-Nelson that it was Ida Ruben who was the elected representative of District 20 charged with getting this decision right, and she botched it. Second, while Jamie Raskin may not have addressed this particular issue back in 1999, the voters of District 20 can look at Mr. Raskin’s long record of dedicated service to consumer and public interest issues and reach their own conclusions as to whether Jamie Raskin would have sided with the energy companies or with consumers. I think that answer is clear, and I suspect, so does Mary Myers-Nelson.

Sen. Ruben dropped the ball on the energy deregulation issue in 1999, and we the voters of District 20 are quite literally paying the price for her mistake. Her actions in siding with energy companies is emblematic of her ineffectiveness and failure of leadership. While other Montgomery Democrats saw the pitfalls of energy deregulation, Ida Ruben chose differently.

For this and so many other reasons, the Democratic voters of District 20 should similarly make a different choice on Sept. 12, and vote for Jamie Raskin for state Senate. On this issue and so many others, we quite literally can’t afford four more years of Ida Ruben.

It looks like the Democrats of District 20 will have to settle this one on September 12th.