Yet in a vicious circle--both a cause and a result of low voter interest--Maryland General Assembly members enjoy such an incumbency advantage that in the last election 81% kept their seats. That is no wonder considering that of 47 senators, for example, potential opponents thought it futile to oppose 17 of them in the general election.
Cynicism is increased by a campaign financing system that is, as President Johnson said 30 years ago, “more loophole than law.” We constantly tinker with the system, but have yet to address its major faults: campaigns are too expensive; special interests have too much influence; outsiders have little chance of competing; and fundraising consumes an inordinate amount of time, thus distracting legislators from the job they were elected to do.
Why address this argument to readers of Chesapeake? Because one of the victims is the environment. Big campaign contributions by businesses and by industry trade associations cannot help but influence General Assembly members votes on bills the industries think will significantly help or hurt them; and, pro-business votes are often anti-environment votes.
As examples, think of last year’s electric deregulation bills and
contributions by power companies; anti-sprawl bills and contributions by
developers; highway bills and contributions by highway builders; bills
to force disclosure of toxic chemical use and contributions by the chemical
industry; or the shrinking DNR enforcement budget and contributions by
logging, mining, fishing, and developer interests.
What is a clean money campaign?
Clean Money campaigns are an alternative to the current flawed financing system. Such politically different states as Maine, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Wisconsin have enacted Clean Money systems. Candidates voluntarily agree to become a part of the Clean Money financing system, which is publicly funded.
Candidates who do not wish to participate are able to raise and spend
private money, as they do today. Clean Money campaigns have
the potential to curb the influence of special interests, to reduce the
costs of campaigns, to assure real competition, and to free legislators
from the money chase.
Clean Money proposals in Maryland
The Sierra Club supports public funding of Congressional campaigns and encourages chapters to consider proposals at the state level, though the Maryland Chapter has no position. The League of Women Voters supports public funding of Congressional and General Assembly campaigns.
Proposals for Clean Money campaigns have been introduced
in the General Assembly in past Sessions and will be again this year. They
follow the general outline of the Clean Campaign laws adopted by Maine
and Massachusetts.
Qualifying funds and seed money
Clean Money candidates must demonstrate voter support by raising contributions of $5-$100 from 1/3 of one percent of the population of the legislative district (for House contests) and 2/3 of one percent for the Senate. This equates to about 670 contributors in a Senate district, and 340 in a House district. Candidates may also raise a limited amount of seed money to use in accumulating the qualifying funds.
q Spending limits. Clean Money candidates must agree to a voluntary spending limit based on previous election expenditures in the legislative district and adjusted for inflation.
q Private funds. Clean Money candidates may raise up to 25% of the spending limit in contributions of no more than $100 per private donor.
q Independent Expenditures. If a Clean Money candidate’s opponent does not participate in the system and spends more than the voluntary limit, the Clean Money candidate will be given matching public funds up to twice that limit.
q Funding source. The majority of the funds for Clean Money candidates will come from general revenues.
Kay Terry is 1st Vice President, League of Women Voters of Maryland