By Adam Pagnucco.
Part One discussed issues with campaign finance data from the State Board of Elections (SBE). Now let’s get to discussing the performance of the three county executive candidates who reported contributions from others and expenditures: Council Members Andrew Friedson, Evan Glass and Will Jawando.
Friedson is using traditional campaign financing. That means he can accept contributions of up to $6,000 for the cycle from individuals and entities such as businesses, unions, PACs and other groups. This is the same system used by all General Assembly candidates and all county-level candidates until public financing went into effect in the 2018 cycle.
Glass and Jawando are using public financing, which is an option for candidates running for county executive or county council. They may only accept aggregate contributions from individuals of up to $500 per cycle along with up to $12,000 of self-funding. Public matching funds are available for contributions made by in-county residents based on a formula dependent on contribution size. According to county law, here is the match formula:
*****
For a certified candidate for County Executive, the matching dollars must equal:
$7 for each dollar of a qualifying contribution received for the first $50 of each qualifying contribution;
$4 for each dollar of a qualifying contribution received for the second $50 of each qualifying contribution;
$2 for each dollar of a qualifying contribution received for the third $50 of each qualifying contribution; and
$0 for each dollar of a qualifying contribution received for the remainder of each qualifying contribution.
*****
So according to that formula, a maximum $500 contribution from a county resident would be matched with $650 in public funds, making it a total of $1,150. Bear in mind that this is nowhere close to the $6,000 Friedson can collect from each donor.
Another important characteristic of the system is that county executive candidates are limited to $870,170 in public matching funds for each election (the primary and the general). After hitting the limit, they may still collect as many individual contributions as they wish but their pace of fundraising will inevitably slow down significantly.
I recently wrote a ten-part series on the lessons we learned from public financing in its first two cycles of use (2018 and 2022). Here is a big one: public financing is not designed to deliver the most money to participating candidates, but it is designed to get them enough money to compete. In that respect, public financing has been a success. In 2018, the winning county executive candidate and 6 of the 9 council winners used public financing. In 2022, the winning county executive candidate and 7 of the 11 council winners used public financing.
Accordingly, there is no way that Glass and Jawando will outraise Friedson. Because of the limits on contributions and matching funds, their system will not allow it. Furthermore, Friedson did not have an opponent in the 2022 cycle, enabling him to build his campaign war chest – and he has excelled at that.
So a fair expectation for Glass and Jawando is not that they would match Friedson but that they would have enough money to campaign. Let’s bear in mind that the winner of the last two county executive elections – Marc Elrich – used public financing to win his races despite being outspent by more than six to one. The contrast between Glass and Jawando will also be interesting to see if one is catching on more than the other.
Next: Let’s dig into the numbers.