MD’s Fundraising Loophole

By Barry Rascovar

Dec. 27, 2013 — LT. GOV. ANTHONY BROWN has a key advantage over his main foe for governor, Attorney General Doug Gansler.

Brown can continue raising millions of dollars during the General Assembly session through his conjoined ticketmate, Howard County Executive Ken Ulman.

But Gansler cannot solicit funds during that 90-day period because his political partner on the ballot is Del. Jolene Ivey of Prince George’s County. Both are elected state officials and thus are barred from doing any fund-raising until mid-April.

Loophole in State Law

It’s a quirk of Maryland’s campaign finance law that is inherently dangerous to the public good.

It contradicts the spirit and intent of the campaign law that seeks to curb fund-raising that could involve quid pro quos on bills.

The state elections board ruling notes that since Ulman isn’t an elected state official he can continue soliciting campaign funds during the legislative session, even though his ticketmate, Brown, fundraising for that 90-day period.

Brown-Ulman campaign

Brown-Ulman campaign

It’s a preposterous situation, one that Linda Lamone, the state elections board chief, should have recognized. To condone such a devious and mischievous loophole gives Brown, through Ulman, a powerful tool for leveraging special interests during the General Assembly session.

What makes this so ridiculous is that every dollar raised by Ulman directly benefits Brown. It’s a charade to pretend otherwise.

The two men are part of a united pairing on the ballot. You can’t vote for one without the other. They share a single ballot line. They are joined at the head, hip and heart.

To pretend the two are separate candidates is laughable. Brown couldn’t even file for governor without Ulman being there to sign on the same dotted line. They might as well call their joint candidacy “Brulman.”

Gansler’s allies filed suit to overturn Lamone’s implausible ruling. On moral and ethical grounds, attorney Dan Clements should win that lawsuit. Legally, though, Brown and Ulman may find a way to retain their fundraising advantage.

Clear and Present Danger

To allow one member of a gubernatorial team to avoid the fundraising ban could lead to scary situations.

When the Brown-Ulman team’s aggressive fundraisers call on special interests that have important bills pending in the legislature, those groups will eagerly write big checks.

Otherwsie, they risk angering Brown and the O’Malley administration. Suddenly, bills they are pushing could die, and bills they oppose could miraculously pick up the votes needed for passage.

There’s no way to segregate Ulman’s fundraising from Brown’s campaign. Whatever is collected during the legislative session will be spent by Brown’s minions, not Ulman’s. They are a collective “we,” not two individual “I”s.

A similar situation exists in the Republican primary: Harford County Executive David Craig can continue raising funds during the 90-day session but his running mate, Del. Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio of Talbot County, cannot.

Craig-Riccio-Haddaway team

Craig-Riccio-Haddaway team

That gives Craig’s fund-raising team added leverage in approaching special interests eager to win favor with another delegate during legislative deliberations.

Unfair?

You bet.

Unethical?

Yup.

Illegal?

If it isn’t, it should be.

#  #  #

If you enjoy reading this column, sign up for instant delivery of all future columns. Just click on the “Subscribe” button in the right-hand column. Best of all, it’s free!

Oh, it’s also  OK to tell others about this website. I could use some word-of-mouth support. Thanks.