By Adam Pagnucco.
Council Member Kristin Mink, who is running for reelection using public campaign financing, has distributed flyers urging her constituents to support Will Jawando for county executive. That would not be unusual in most circumstances, but here is the question:
Is that a prohibited contribution under Montgomery County’s public campaign financing law?
Both Mink and Jawando are using public financing, which distributes public matching funds to candidates based on contributions from individuals who live in the county. The law is contained in Chapter 16, Article IV of the county code. Generally speaking, candidates in public financing may only accept contributions from individuals. Regarding other contributions, Sec. 16-26 of the law states:
*****
An applicant candidate or a participating candidate must not:
(a) accept a private contribution from any group or organization, including a political action committee, a corporation, a labor organization, or a State or local central committee of a political party, except that an applicant candidate or a participating candidate may, subject to subsection (h), accept in-kind contributions from a State central committee of a political party, and from a Montgomery County central committee of a political party;
*****
This effectively bans contributions to publicly financed accounts from other campaign accounts aside from political parties. Mink and Jawando’s campaign committees are prohibited from contributing to each other.
Bear that in mind when viewing the flyer below that has been distributed by Mink’s campaign:
In the flyer, Mink promotes Jawando and writes, “I hope you’ll join me in supporting Will to serve as County Executive.” It’s an open endorsement that is not inherently unusual in Maryland politics. The question is whether it conforms to the public financing law.
Sec. 16-26 allows limited affiliation between campaigns. It states:
*****
(i) Candidate affiliation. A candidate who accepts a public contribution may affiliate with any other candidates, including non-publicly financed candidates, on campaign material if:
(1) the authorized campaign finance entity makes a direct disbursement to the payee for its share of the costs of the campaign material; and
(2) the campaign material displays the authority line of the authorized campaign finance entity.
*****
That has happened before, notably when 2018 council at-large candidates Brandy Brooks and Chris Wilhelm put out a joint mailer. But that mailer contained both of their authority lines and my recollection is that the two campaigns split its cost. The one above only contains Mink’s authority line. If she put out that flyer on her own without splitting its cost with Jawando and seeking his authority line, it may constitute an in-kind contribution that runs afoul of Sec. 16-26 of the campaign finance law.
This incident reminds me of other questions about Jawando’s campaign financing, including his transfer of money from his U.S. Senate account to a group that later endorsed him and his payment of federal campaign money to an individual who worked for his publicly financed executive campaign.
Candidates who seek taxpayer money for their campaigns have an obligation to follow every letter of the law that governs those payments. I hope the State Board of Elections will weigh in on whether the above conduct conforms with public financing.