Category Archives: Montgomery County

campaign finance, Montgomery County

MoCo Passes Public Financing Law

Common Cause MD has issued a press release that the Montgomery County Council has approved public financing for County elections. I’ll let you know of any major changes to the bill as I find out. But for now here is Common Cause’s statement:

Rockville, MD – The Montgomery County Council today took a huge step forward for fair elections by passing with a unanimous vote Bill 16-14, creating a program for county council and executive campaigns that would fight big money interests by empowering small donors in County elections.

“Voters expect public officials to make decisions that advance the public interest. But the hard truth is that special interests too often get special attention from candidates and officeholders,” said Jennifer Bevan-Dangel, Executive Director of Common Cause Maryland. “Voluntary small donor, public financing systems like the one before the Montgomery County Council on Tuesday put big ideas, not big money, at the center of our elections and make it possible for people of modest means and lacking connections to established power structures to run and win elections. We are thrilled that Montgomery County is leading Maryland forward. The amendments added today only strengthened the bill, and this is truly a model piece of legislation for other jurisdictions to follow.”

“Montgomery County is the most populated jurisdiction in the state, home to one million people. Its total budget is nearly the same size as Los Angeles. Because of the County’s influence in Maryland and proximity to Washington, D.C., the passage of public financing here will reverberate across the state and the country!” said Kate Planco Waybright, Executive Director of Progressive Maryland.

Nick Nyhart, President & CEO of Public Campaign, said “Today, the Montgomery County Council stood up to big money politics. Their vote to raise up the voices of everyday people in politics is part of a growing movement of millions of Americans fighting for a democracy that’s truly of, by, and for the people.”

“In our democracy, the depth of your pocket should not determine the volume of your voice,” said Maryland PIRG Director Emily Scarr, “In the face of ever increasing election spending by mega-donors and corporations, the Montgomery County Council took a big step today by tilting the balance of power back to ordinary citizens.  More of our counties should quickly follow suit.”

Under the Fair Elections program, candidates for County Council or County Executive who agree to limit their fundraising by accepting only low-dollar donations from individual donors in their districts will qualify for matching funds.In jurisdictions from Hawaii to Connecticut, such small donor-based Fair Elections reform have improved the election process. The programs encourage prospective candidates traditionally shut out of the political process, including people of color and of modest means or those who lack connections to established sources of political power, to run for office. They make politics more competititv and stimulate more substantive legislative debates.

The Fair Elections Maryland Coalition is working to implement this important reform in other counties and in contests for the state legislature.

Share
campaign finance, Montgomery County

Riemer Proposes Change to Public Financing Bill

In the public financing of elections, as in much legislation, the devil is in the details. And the legislation proposed by outgoing Councilmember Phil Andrews has a lot of details, so it can be hard to keep up.

During the Government Operations Committee’s review of the proposal, Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer sponsored an amendment that altered the public financing bill  in a crucial way.

The original bill allowed only donations made within Montgomery  to be matched by public funds. Hans’s amendment eliminated that limitation so that donations made anywhere in the U.S. would be matched by County funds as outlined in the law.

Councilmembers Hans Riemer and Nancy Navarro voted for the amendment, and Councilmember Cherri Branson voted no. Of course, the full Council can reconsider the issue when it takes up the bill.

The argument against the change is that it makes it easier for individuals who don’t live in Montgomery County to influence the outcome of our elections. The amendment also aids the many MoCo residents who have good DC networks but fewer County ties. It further augments the power of interests within the County who have the ability to gather checks from people elsewhere.

For the other side of the argument, I asked Hans to explain why he sponsored the amendment:

I’m a strong supporter of publicly-funded elections and I am confident that this system will help revolutionize Montgomery County politics.  As I supported the bill at committee last week, I proposed several amendments to strengthen it and make it more attractive to potential candidates.

[One] amendment removes the requirement that donors be county residents, because I support a limited amount of fundraising from outside of the county. I believe the most important goal of this bill is to give candidates a viable alternative to raising large donations from corporations and special interest PACs.

In Montgomery County, we are part of a large metropolitan area where many people grew up somewhere else, and many residents work outside of the County. As any first time political candidate can attest, a lot of initial fundraising comes from family, friends, colleagues–the people that know you best and support you because they believe you will be a great public servant.  Removing this base of support from the matching system risks making public financing a nonviable option for some candidates, and they will either opt-out or not be able to run a competitive campaign.

At the same time, my proposal retains the provision that only in-county donations count towards the qualifying thresholds. This will ensure that no candidate can base their campaign on out-of-county supporters.  In order to qualify, a candidate will have to have a huge base of support in the county, because the thresholds are appropriately high.

As is no secret, Hans is originally from California and has benefited from financial contributions from outside the County so cynics might say he knows of what he speaks. However, he makes good points here. Moreover, Councilmember Riemer is now announcing a proposed new change to the legislation that would limit the impact of the committee amendment:

I also plan to propose limiting the amount of money that can be matched for out-of-county donors, to 10% of the total — the current law in the Connecticut public finance system, a model that advocates have pointed to as an example on many points.

I think these measures make the system more attractive to potential candidates, and thus strengthen the system.  The goal is to give candidates a good alternative to raising large checks from wealthy individuals, corporations, and PACs.

As I alluded in my original post on the bill, a balance is important to strike. On the one hand, goals include preventing any one interest or individual, particularly from outside the area, from gaining too much influence. But in order for the bill to work, the incentives to opt into the system need to be strong enough to dissuade candidates from just raising money on their own under the current arrangements.

As John outlined the other day, making hard for people to raise money can serve as a strong disincentive to opt in–not to mention result in the unintended consequence of increasing call time. No one wants candidates to spend even more time raising money rather than meeting with voters.

On the smart decision front, the County has already indexed the limits to inflation. This choice will help avoid the problem with the original Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, which set fixed limits that inflated away before the were raised in 2002.

One major remaining flaw with the bill is that it fails to address the problem of self-funding candidates who can afford to drop hundreds of thousands of their own money on the race and avoid the system. There are solutions, such as substantially raising the match, so that candidates in the system find it easier to participate. The Council should address this problem when it takes up the bill.

Share
alcohol, MCGEO, Montgomery County

MCGEO Paves the Way for Alcohol Reform

[UPDATE at the end of this post.]

During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in Montgomery County District 5, Evan Glass pushed hard for liberalization of Montgomery’s antiquated monopoly on the sale of alcohol in the County. Despite his narrow defeat, the next four years presents the best opportunity for reform in ages.

MCGEO, the union that represents the employees at County owned liquor stores, bet disastrously on the wrong candidates in the recent Democratic primary. The attempt by MCGEO under the leadership of Gino Renne to flex its muscle and become the leading force among unions and possibly in County politics backfired and earned the union far more enemies than friends.

Montgomery County Council
Let’s look first at County Council races. In District 1, MCGEO endorsed Duchy Trachtenberg’s bid to return to the Council in a challenge to incumbent Roger Berliner. Duchy even hired MCGEO’s former executive director as her campaign manager. Trachtenberg lost with 21% of the vote. MCGEO didn’t just lose; it looked puny and ineffectual.

The big race in District 3 went no better for MCGEO, Gaithersburg Mayor Sid Katz defeated their choice of Ryan Spiegel, who won less than one-quarter of the vote. In Districts 2 and 4, MCGEO did not endorse either incumbent in the primary even though they were unopposed. No relationships built there.

Tom Hucker, who was expected to win by more, limped home to the District 5 nomination in his battle against newcomer Evan Glass. While MCGEO should have a friend in Hucker, his narrow victory hardly impresses and its not clear yet how much weight this new member of the Council will carry with his colleagues.

In the at-large races, MCGEO supported incumbent Marc Elrich so a bright spot for them there. However, they also supported Beth Daly, the most serious challenger to the other incumbents, who all won reelection. No real reason for Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal, or Hans Riemer to prioritize MCGEO’s interests. And Hans has already expressed public interest in alcohol reform.

General Assembly
MCGEO played it safer in the General Assembly but surely has teed off the three incumbents whose opponents it supported in District 18. It gave $1000 to Sen. Rich Madaleno’s opponent. Madaleno won despite being heavily outspent by his self-funding opponent who dumped over $300K in the attempt. Unfortunately for MCGEO, he is already one of the more influential insiders on the Budget and Taxation Committee.

While MCGEO supported Jeff Waldstreicher, it also gave $1000 to Natali Fani-Gonzalez, which certainly cannot especially please incumbents Al Carr and Ana Sol Gutierrez. The two incumbents romped home easily with Fani-Gonzalez placing sixth out of seven candidates.

The Results
MCGEO spent a lot of money and political capital in an effort to look strong but made its weakness apparent. Its ill-conceived campaign to plant friends on the Council and instill respect of its power has left it vulnerable. Montgomery officials can move ahead with alcohol reform. They know they have nothing to fear.

UPDATE: MCGEO made another terrible investment in the District 17 Senate race. They donated $6000 to Del. Lou Simmons, another heavy self-funder. Despite having a clear financial advantage, Lou lost the nomination to former Del. Cheryl Kagan by 9 points.

Share
Montgomery County, purple line

Purple Line Station Downgrade, No Tunnel Under Wisc. Ave.

In closed session yesterday, the Montgomery County Council concurred with the recommendation of County Executive Ike Leggett and decided not to go move forward with the funding to facilitate redevelopment of the APEX building and a much improved Purple Line stop in Bethesda.

The Council had already greatly expanded the size of the building that could be built on the spot in the hopes of enticing the owner to redevelop or to sell to a developer. However, they balked at agreement with the roughly $70 million in costs to the County to facilitate the deal and make it economically feasible.

There are three major effects of this decision:

Less Well-Designed Purple Line Station

The Maryland Transportation Administration (MTA) had pressed the County to move forward with the APEX acquisition to allow construction of a well-designed Purple Line station. While the State now claims that the new station, projected to handle around 24,000 trips per day, will still be adequate, the failure to acquire the building requires major changes.

Passengers will need to cross the tracks–something MTA previously described as problematic but now says will be alright. Additionally, one of the platforms will have to be much smaller and the ease of accessibility to the system will decline. There will still be elevator banks for direct Purple to Red Line connections, though the entrances will need to be moved.

No Tunnel under Wisconsin Avenue

People wanting to continue on the much-used Capital Crescent Trail will have to make their crossing of Wisconsin Ave. at grade. Currently, there is a wide tunnel under the Air Rights Building that facilitates bike trips under Wisconsin Ave.

The original plans promised a new smaller tunnel under the Air Rights Building in tandem with the new Purple Line. This promise  evaporated after the project had moved on to a later stage when it became deemed to expensive.

Hope for the tunnel reemerged with the redevelopment of the APEX building. Indeed, Montgomery County government leaders expressed greater enthusiasm for the tunnel, most recently at a publicly televised debate before the Democratic primary.

The lack of a grade separated bicycle crossing will also likely anger area bicyclists concerned not just about ease of travel but public safety. The Washington Area Bicyclist Association (WABA),  has predicated its strong support on grade-separated crossings of major thoroughfares along the trail.

Less Development at APEX Site

One of the major goals of the construction of the Purple Line has been to stimulate development and economic growth, crucial to expanding the County’s tax base to pay to maintain infrastructure and services.

It will be more difficult and therefore much more expensive to tear down and construct a new larger building on the APEX site after the construction of the new Purple Line stop. As a result, it may never happen. Any redevelopment would be pushed much further into the future until (if ever) it become a profitable venture.

Conclusion

The developers working to arrange the deal (i.e. the purchase of the building from the current owners and money need to render its redevelopment economically feasible) could come back with a better set of numbers. So maybe it will all work out.

Right now, however, the County will be left will a Purple Line stop described to me as “adequate” or “functional” at best at its critical terminus and economic engine in Bethesda. It does nothing for trust in government, due to repeated broken promises from both MTA and the County over the tunnel and the politically convenient timing of these decisions.

Share
campaign finance, Montgomery County

Public Financing in MoCo

PF AtLarge PF DistrictPF Exec

The Cost and Impact of Public Financing

Montgomery County has moved closer to adopting a public financing system for county elections with approval of the bill by the Government Operations and Fiscal Policy Committee. As the Council packet explained, the bill proposed by retiring Councilmember Phil Andrews would encourage candidates to raise money in small amounts.

A candidate would need to obtain a specific number of small contributions from a County resident of between $5 and $150 in order to qualify for public funding. Each of these qualifying contributions must be received within 365 days before the primary election and at least 45 days before the primary. A candidate for Executive would need to collect at least 500 qualifying contributions and an aggregate total of at least $40,000 to qualify. A candidate for At-Large Councilmember would need 250 qualifying contributions and an aggregate total of at least $20,000. A candidate for District Councilmember must collect at least 125 qualifying contributions and an aggregate total of at least $10,000.

A candidate for Executive certified to receive public funding would be eligible for a matching contribution of $6 for each dollar of a qualifying contribution for the first $50 of the contribution; $4 for each dollar of the second $50; and $2 for each dollar of the third $50. The match for a candidate for Councilmember would be $4 for each dollar of the first $50, $3 for each dollar of the second $50, and $2 for each dollar of the third $50. . . . The maximum public contribution for a candidate for Executive would be $750,000 for the primary and $750,000 for the general election. The maximum public contribution for At-Large Councilmember would be $250,000 and the maximum public contribution for each election for District Councilmember would be $125,000.

A candidate who voluntarily accepts a public contribution must pay for all campaign expenses with the qualifying contributions, the matching public contributions, and a personal loan from the candidate and the candidate’s spouse of no more than $6000 from each.

But the really interesting part–the impact on the candidate funds–was placed at the far end of the report and has been highlighted in the screenshots at the top of the post. A key caveat in any examination of the Council analysis–and indeed, the point of the system–is that some candidates would change their behavior in response to the new incentives. So take these projections of its impact with a dollop of sour cream.

Would the Bill Achieve Its Goals?

The reason that the presidential public financing system died was the ability of candidates to raise far in excess of the amount available through the system. The rise of expenditures by outside groups and their legalization by the Supreme Court has also contributed to the demise of the system.

Not all candidates would necessarily want to participate in the system. The Council Staff report explained that only two district candidates and one executive candidate could have raised more through the proposed system than they raised without it. On the other hand, three of four at-large candidates could have raised more through the public financing system. Over time, the incentive to participate could decline and even disappear as in presidential elections. It will have no impact on candidates who can afford to self-finance their own campaigns.

Another issue that the bill cannot address is the participation of outside groups. Though the incentives to participate in the public financing system could constrain large donations and the total amount spent, it has no impact on expenditures by outside groups from MCGEO to the Koch brothers.

Moreover, it is not fully clear to me that it would necessarily level the playing field for candidates. In some cases, it might increase the advantage of incumbents or the person who has raised the most money. Challengers or less-well funded candidates might still like it because the initial dollars are the most crucial to viability. The marginal impact of expenditures tends to decline as the amount spent rises.

Some final potential quirky effects. First, potential donors might like if they cannot give such large amounts because they would not be asked to write such large checks. Second, candidates may perversely have to spend more time raising money if they have to raise it in small amounts rather than in large chunks from fewer people. The problem will get worse over time unless the limits are adjusted for inflation, like the federal limits in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (a.k.a. McCain-Feingold).

Share
Council District 5, Montgomery County

North Response to Luedtke Post

I received the following response from Terrill North to Del. Eric Luedtke’s post about the needs of the northern end of Montgomery County Council District 5. Like Evan Glass, he is a candidate for this open council seat.

David,

I’m glad Del. Luedtke is paying attention, but as the unnamed candidate he mentioned canvassing the area I’d like to add a few details.

I began talking with my neighbors in Burtonsville “officially” in 2010 when I led Impact Silver Spring’s efforts knocking on over 4500 doors and meeting with community leaders examining local needs.

Residents told us they wanted:

·         constructive activities for the youth, and
·         better job opportunities for adults.

That year (with seed money from Councilmember Navarro), we expanded Impact’s afterschool program (then serving 60-90 kids in Long Branch) to East County (now serving over 400 youth primarily in East County).  This year, we worked with a coalition of stakeholders to launch the first workforce development program serving East County (so local residents could benefit from job opportunities coming with the FDA Science Center).  We are also currently working to bring Montgomery College continuing education programs to the East County Regional Services Center.

I’m already enacting the plan for East County based on resident concerns.

As a candidate, spending a lot of time in East County is second nature to me because most of my in-laws live there; I’ve been hearing their concerns without asking since long before 2010!  Since my campaign kick-off at Cuba de Ayer on Route 198 in February, I have been actively engaging Burtonsville voters (and non-voters).  I will be in White Oak this weekend meeting with 230 families from another multi-cultural youth program I work with, structuring a summer day camp featuring sports, meals, and academics (modeled on the program I saved from Bush Administration cuts in 2007 as a Hill staffer).  That’s after judging an oratorical contest for East County youth that morning (1st annual competition of MoCo youth in the Baltimore Urban Debate League).

I will disagree with Eric about one thing, I don’t think East County is ignored.  The key, however, is that residents need to vote!  The precinct at Greencastle Elementary had an 8% turnout in the 2010 local primary, compared to 40% at Takoma Park Elementary.   I spoke at a D14 Democratic Club forum last week where the only Burtonsville residents in attendance were candidates for central committee.  The more folks vote, the more quickly issues will be addressed.

I develop institutions that improve the lives of District Five residents wherever they live.  I put as much effort into establishing a workforce development program in East County as securing over $1 million for stormwater mitigation in Takoma Park.  Best of both worlds!

Regards,
Terrill

Share
Council District 5, Montgomery County

Common Cause on Barclay Scandal

The following is a press release from Common Cause MD:

Common Cause Maryland calls for greater oversight of School Board expenditures

(Annapolis) – With two breaking stories in one week regarding expenditures by School Board members across Maryland, Common Cause Maryland calls for greater oversight and clearer policies by school boards regarding the use of taxpayer funds.

In Montgomery County, a Public Information Act discovered that school board member Chris Barclay made personal charges to the county-funded credit card. The documents also revealed meal expenses that did not follow school board procedures for authorization[1]. In Wicomico County, state auditors found school board members purchased gift cards using county credit cards, as well as several purchases made at a produce market owned by a school board member, raising questions of conflict of interest[2].

“These discoveries raise questions about both the strength of expenditure policies and the implementation of those policies,” said Jennifer Bevan-Dangel, Executive Director of Common Cause Maryland.  “School boards have to make the best use of very limited dollars. Lunches, gift cards, and personal charges on the county card hurt public trust and hurt the students that the board is supposed to serve.”

Common Cause calls on county School Boards to evaluate their spending policies and make sure they provide clear oversight for member expenditures and reimbursements. School boards should consider revoking credit cards and moving to a reimbursement system, as many county governments (including Montgomery County) have done.

Common Cause Maryland also noted the importance of the public information act in bringing these stories to light.

“Public access to government expenditures is a fundamental tool to ensure that officials are held to the highest standards. The Montgomery County story is a clear example of the importance of a well-functioning public information act that gives the public access to the information they need.”

# # #

Contact: Jennifer Bevan-Dangel, 410-303-7954, jbd@commoncause.org

Share