Montgomery County, MD Public Campaign Financing Bill Introduced

According to an article in the Washington Post, two weeks ago, a public campaign financing bill (attached; see below) was introduced, cosponsored by all council members of Montgomery County, MD, a suburb of Washington, DC with about one million inhabitants, home to Silver Spring, Bethesda, Rockville, and Gaithersburg. The bill, which will have its first public hearing on March 4, would give the county only the third local public financing program in the East (the others are NYC and New Haven). When some have predicted the death of public financing, it's heartening that this local bill, as well as one in Congress, have been introduced this year.

Like NYC, Montgomery County's voluntary program, not to begin until the 2018 election cycle, would provide matching funds instead of grants (New Haven's provides both). However, its formula is more complicated.

Once a candidate has met rather high thresholds, the first $50 from each donor would be matched the highest (6-to-1), descending to a 4-to-1 match for the second $50, and a 2-to-1 match for the third $50. Since the maximum individual donation would be $150, far lower than NYC's and about half of New Haven's, each contribution would be fully matched. No contributions could be accepted from PACs or corporations.

The principal goal of the problem is to get small donors more involved by making their contributions more meaningful. In addition, no one could be a large donor or, looked at differently, everyone would be a large donor, so no one's contribution would be seen as an attempt to influence. Elected officials also argue that they will have more time to communicate with constituents rather than fundraise.

What makes it easy for Montgomery County to institute this program is a 2013 state statute that enabled counties to start public financing programs. It's important for interested local governments to seek state approval early in the process, and it's best to make the approval as broad as possible, to benefit other communities in the state.

One thing I don't like about the bill is that it has the program run by the state elections board. A local program should not be run by a state board, and even a county elections board is not the best choice. It is best to have a public financing program be run by an independent board with its own staff, so that officials have no role in its administration or enforcement of the rules, in order that it be and appear fair and impartial as possible.

The Post article notes that, despite the support of the entire council and good government groups, there are several constituencies to hear from, and details to work out. Therefore, it's not a sure thing. Let's hope it works and presents a good model to medium-size cities and counties.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---