Supporters of public financing of state legislative campaigns said Wednesday that a poll shows voters believe corporate donations sway decisions in Annapolis and campaign finance reform is needed.

The poll, released Wednesday morning, was paid for by Progressive Maryland Education Fund and Common Cause Maryland. Both groups support ending corporate donations to candidates for public office in Maryland and laws that provide public money to finance political campaigns.

"Public faith is eroding exactly at the time we need it to stay intact the most," said Ryan O'Donnell, executive director of Common Cause Maryland.

The poll shows a public perception "of undue influence by special interest groups" when it comes to state politics, said Jon Cardin, a Democrat who represents the 11th District, including Owings Mills, Pikesville and part of Timonium.

Cardin has been the lead sponsor on similar bills in previous years.

The telephone poll, conducted by Gonzales Research and Marketing Strategies, surveyed 833 registered voters across the state.

Supporters of publicly financed state legislative campaigns say the results show that voters are concerned that corporate campaign contributions influence votes in Annapolis.

More than half of those who responded said major changes in how campaigns are financed is needed. Nearly 30 percent said minor changes are needed. Only 5 percent said no changes were needed, according to the poll.

Public financing for General Assembly races almost became a reality until a Senate Bill similar to one sponsored by Cardin failed in the Senate.

That bill would have created a $14.3 million fund for General Assembly races. About $5 million would have come from a similar fund that is available to candidates for governor who wish to take advantage of publicly financed campaigns.

An additional $9 million would have come from abandoned property revenues and a $5 state income tax check-off payed for by state tax payers.

O'Donnell said the bill ultimately failed "due to a surprise amendment offered by an opponent. That left the legislation, in our minds, on the 1-yard line," O'Donnell said.

Candidates could then voluntarily participate in a publicly funded campaign but in return would have to agree to abide by a sliding scale of spending limits. The limits would be based on what office the candidate ran for and whether the race was a contested.

Currently, the state operates a public financing fund for gubernatorial candidates. Participating candidates must agree to spending limits to be eligible for money from the fund. Limits are based on the population of the state at the time.

The limit for the 2006 election was $2.1 million.

Despite the failure of bills creating General Assembly public financing, Cardin said the poll gives reason for hope that supporters of public financing of political campaigns will achieve their goal.

"We're going about this in a healthy way and will continue to fight the fight," Cardin said.

---

user comments (4)

user brucerobinson says...

I served on the 2003 Study Commission for Public Financing of Legislative Campaigns. Near the end of the life of the Commission we were permitted to place ten questions on an annual poll. Every question that addressed "public financing of campaigns" received overwhelming support for the polled. The question that asked if people would support increased taxes to fund political campaigns also received an overwhelming response - NO.

Posted 5:12 PM, 10.14.09

• Permalink

user augieboy says...

Total reform - NO PUBLIC MONEY period! Public financing for General Assembly races, absolutely NOT, and in my humble opinion, the "GOOBERnatorial" candidates shouldn't be publically funded either, however, that boat has already sailed...

Posted 6:46 PM, 10.14.09

• Permalink

user stevetowson says...

The entrenched publicly funded "representatives"(for lack of a more definitive word) will never vote for that augie, because IT IS ACTUALLY IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, and not a good conduit for their own re-election. We'd see a major political shift in Maryland if we simply banned law offices/legal practices from contributing to political campaigns.

Posted 8:22 PM, 10.14.09

• Permalink

user brucerobinson says...

Steve, I would respectfully disagree that this is in the public interest. The principle recipients of favor are office holders. Augie has a good handle on the workings of the proposals for public financing. Public Financing is a euphemism for tax dollars paid by members of the public to the treasury. In a one sided state like Maryland, many of the incumbents see a finite pool of money from contributors that they must all share. but the incumbents are not all equal. Some have easy roads to reelection and some meet opposition. Incumbents have "house lists" of supporters who can be relied upon to not only help the incumbent meet the "qualifying contributions" limit, but are ready to do many other things to help the candidate beyond making cash contributions to a campaign. Challengers do not have a similar way to gain access to the ballot. A few states have tried the public financing scheme, and declared them successes right away. There may be an increase in numbers of candidates, but there is no change in percentages of incumbents returned to office. States have been running into problems, too. New York's much ballyhooed system has, as an unintended consequence, excluded minorities. In one state with inadequate monies in the fund, the courts ordered the sates to take the monies form other budget buckets and fund the candidates. When challengers do not participate, the state has to ante up more money to offset the money advantage. There are many, many more reasons not to adopt "public financing" of campaigns. They are for another time.

Posted 10:42 AM, 10.15.09

• Permalink