House District 38B – monoblogue

District 38: a closer look at finances

Having looked at the races in District 37 yesterday, I know you’re waiting with bated breath for the really important one here in District 38 which will come at the end. (Always leave them wanting more.)

As opposed to the competition going on in its western neighbor, many District 38 denizens have their Delegates already all but selected. Barring a successful write-in campaign, both Delegate Carl Anderton, Jr. and Wayne Hartman will be representing their districts in January.

So let me review the parameters: I have pored over the campaign finance reports from each candidate submitted to the state Board of Elections beginning with the 2017 annual that covers from January of 2016. From there I subdivided contributions into five loose categories:

Donations from individuals within the area. For this exercise, the “area” is defined for both local districts as an address with a 216xx or 218xx zip code. Yes, the 216xx zip area is well outside the 38th District but it allows me apples-to-apples comparison with District 37 hopefuls – and there really aren’t a significant number of them, anyway.
Donations from individuals outside the 216xx and 218xx zip code area.
Donations from businesses within the area. Included in the definition of businesses are LLCs, LPs, and PAs.
Donations from businesses outside the area.
Donations from PACs. As a way of simplifying this, this also includes transfers from other campaign accounts, and (at my discretion) certain entities that were recognizable as similar to a political action committee, including larger businesses, unions, and governmental entities.

Having these all categorized and built into a spreadsheet, I can figure out several things: proportion of donations coming from each group, proportion of donations inside/outside the area, and an average donation. In many cases, I can compare and contrast candidates – but not always. Read on and you’ll find out why.

House District 38A:

Incumbent Republican (since 2010) Charles Otto vs. Democrat Kirkland Hall, Sr.

For Charles Otto:

2 donations from individuals in area for $525
1 donation from an individual outside of area for $250
2 donations from businesses in area for $450
No donations from businesses outside of area
6 donations from PACs and other committees for $4,600
Average donation: $529.55
Cash on hand (bank account balance) – $15,361.57

Because of one huge PAC donation of $2,500 skewing the results, just 16.7% of Otto’s money came from inside the area, with only 4.3% coming from outside the area and a whopping 79% from PACs and other committees. Out of the 21% coming from individuals and businesses, 13.3% was out of individual pockets and 7.7% was from local businesses.

Since 2010 Charles has had an outstanding loan to his campaign for $22,500. But as you can see, Otto doesn’t make a great effort to supplement his campaign with fundraising – it’s almost like an accident when someone sends him a check given that he’s only had 11 in over 2 1/2 years. Being his treasurer is almost as easy as being mine was.

Having said that, though, Otto is far more circumspect than his opponent.

This is what I found for Kirkland Hall. The first link is a screenshot taken of his most current campaign finance entity, taken yesterday on the Maryland SBE site. The second link is a different screenshot of another open – but considered inactive – campaign finance account for Kirkland Hall. This would appear to be a successful run for the Somerset County Democrat Central Committee. Unlike what I did for my three runs, apparently the account was never officially closed.

Hall has sent in ALCEs for 2 of the reporting periods, so we don’t have financial details of his campaign. But here’s the important issue – Hall is now overdue on his campaign finance reports for two consecutive reporting periods, the latest expiring in August. Enough days have elapsed since the first one was due to incur the maximum $500 fine, and he’s $180 and counting for this most recent period.

This is a screenshot of Kirkland Hall’s present campaign committee. Note the fines for lack of reporting at the bottom.

Note he was also a scofflaw on the 2018 Annual Report before fimally filing, with another $500 fine that was paid. And it’s not like he wasn’t warned about the May report. Yet the Hall campaign has been actively seeking financing during the time they were delinquent:

And as I can attest, his opponent doesn’t have “big money” flowing into his campaign – unless you count one $2,500 donation that came from the Maryland Farm Bureau PAC. But we don’t know how much Kirkland has because they’re not being forthcoming with their information. Could this be an intentional oversight as this is his campaign’s third offense?

On the other hand, the situation is much calmer in the other two District 38 subdistricts.

House District 38B:

Incumbent Republican Carl Anderton, Jr (since 2014) is unopposed.

For Carl Anderton:

98 donations from individuals inside the area for $9,318
12 donations from individuals outside the area for $2,350
13 donations from businesses in area for $3,750
4 donations from businesses outside the area for $1,500
15 donations from PACs and other committees for $5,250
Average donation: $156.11
Cash on hand (bank account balance) – $21,048.02

58.9% of his money came from inside the area, with 17.4% coming from outside the area and 23.7% from PACs and other committees. Out of the 76.3% coming from individuals and businesses, 52.6% was out of individual pockets and 23.7% came from businesses.

However, once it became obvious that Carl would not have an opponent his fundraising has all but ceased – since the 2018 report came due in January he’s only picked up a total of $1,850.

House District 38C:

Incumbent Republican Mary Beth Carozza opted to run for Senate, leaving an open seat. Wayne Hartman won the June 26 primary and is only opposed in the General Election by write-in candidate Ed Tinus – one of those Hartman defeated in the primary.

For Wayne Hartman:

83 donations from individuals inside the area for $31,255
16 donations from individuals outside the area for $5,920
45 donations from businesses in area for $29,208
5 donations from businesses outside the area for $2,329
1 donation from PACs and other committees for $1,000
Average donation: $464.75
Cash on hand (bank account balance) – $3,477.58

86.7% of Wayne’s money came from inside the area, with 11.8% coming from outside the region and 1.4% coming from a different committee. Out of the non-PAC money, 53.3% of his funding came from individuals and 45.2% from businesses. (Those numbers again fall short of rounding correctly.)

Much like Carl Anderton, Wayne all but ceased active fundraising after the primary. Unlike Carl, though, he still got some big checks – only 7 donations netted Hartman $5,550 – which has kept him in the black for his future plans.

Write-in Ed Tinus has mainly filed ALCEs since he began his campaign account in 2014; however, Ed stepped up his game to file a formal Pre-Primary 2 report that showed he contributed $40 to himself but spent $2,605 to leave himself a negative balance of $2,565.

So the undercard is complete – now comes what you’ve all been waiting for:

Senate District 38:

Republican Delegate Mary Beth Carozza (since 2014) is challenging Democrat Senator (since 2010, Delegate from 2006-2010) Jim Mathias.

For Mary Beth Carozza:

518 donations from individuals inside the area for $112,287
122 donations from individuals outside the area for $23,366.06
79 donations from businesses in area for $44,589.38
18 donations from businesses outside the area for $11,305
45 donations from PACs and other committees for $30,288
Average donation: $251.51
Cash on hand (bank account balance) – $140,987.98

For Mary Beth, 70.7% of her money came from inside the area, with 15.6% coming from outside the area and 13.7% from PACs and other committees. Out of the 86.3% coming from individuals and businesses, 61.2% was out of individual pockets and 25.2% came from businesses. (It rounds off wrong again.)

This is a sea change from her initial campaign, which saw Mary Beth receive a great deal of money from outside the district from her erstwhile cohorts in Washington, D.C. In the 2014 campaign I wrote:

In her first report that covered the inception of her campaign to the initial days of 2014, over 70% of her funding came from out-of-state, mainly from the Washington, D.C. area and Ohio. Those Ohio connections, as well as work for Maine Sen. Susan Collins, proved valuable in the category of federal committees, as Mary Beth received money from the Buckeye Patriot PAC, Dirigo PAC, and Promoting Our Republican Team PAC, as well as the campaigns of Mike DeWine, Steve Stivers, and Pat Tiberi. DeWine is a former Senator from Ohio who is now the state’s Attorney General, while Stivers and Tiberi currently serve in Congress representing parts of the state.

It appears that Mary Beth has since established the local connections to compete in this race against perhaps the most well-funded incumbent in this portion of the state.

For Jim Mathias:

469 donations from individuals inside the area for $91,115
178 donations from individuals outside the area for $43,127
157 donations from businesses in area for $82,339
106 donations from businesses outside the area for $34,914
301 donations from PACs and other committees for $124,610
Average donation: $310.57
Cash on hand (bank account balance) – $273,873.43

Jim collected 46.1% of his money from inside the area and 20.7% of his funding from outside this region. More importantly, Mathias collected 33.1% of his donation total from PACs and other committees, including a number of his General Assembly cohorts. (Rounding is off again.) Out of the non-PAC money, Mathias picked up 35.7% from individuals and 31.2% from businesses. It’s perhaps the most well-rounded report of any I’ve done in terms of equality of sources between individuals, businesses, and PACs.

With the exception of the brief Pre-Primary 2 period, though, Carozza has outraised Mathias among local individuals in each reporting period. On the other hand, among individual donors from outside the district Mathias has outgunned Mary Beth almost 2-to-1 with a significant amount from connections from the area surrounding his hometown of Baltimore.

From a business standpoint, Carozza has ate into Jim’s longstanding advantage and outraised him among local businesses in the last reporting period. She’s also negated his advantage among out-of-district businesses over the last three periods.

The biggest fundraising advantage Mathias enjoys, then, is the many thousands of dollars he has received from PACs over the last 2 1/2 years. It’s not that Carozza hasn’t received PAC money, but dozens of PACs in and out of the state have been handing over checks to Jim for several years, building up an intimidating war chest. (One interesting donation: ask the progressives if they appreciate Jim getting a check from the NRA. He did – $500 on January 3, 2018. Or ask the NRA if they really want to give money to someone with Jim’s overall voting record.) But Carozza, unlike Jim’s previous opponent Mike McDermott, has the money to compete in what may be the most-watched race in this part of the state.

Considering that Mathias has more in his bank account than the total of all the other candidates in both District 37 and 38 outside the 38th Senate race, and Carozza isn’t far behind (you would have to exclude Johnny Mautz and his $96k war chest to make it about even) and you can see where the focus will be.

Update 9-28-2018: This week Kirkland Hall – after I gave a gentle reminder to some of his supporters – finally filed a portion of his campaign finance:

For the period from August 30, 2017 to June 10, 2018 (the Pre-Primary 2 report) this is what Hall reported:

9 donations from individuals in area for $737
2 donations from individuals outside of county for $300
No donations from a business in area
No donations from businesses outside of area
1 donations from a PAC or other committee for $500
Average donation: $128.08
Cash on hand (bank account balance) – $291.56

Hall has already filed his ALCEs for the two Pre-General cycles; however, there is still a balance of $840 in fines as of this date.

CAR/Salisbury Independent forum part 3: District 38

Since I’ve now covered the county and District 37 races, it’s time to focus on the last political subdivision involved, District 38. The turnout for this one was disappointing because they failed to get the two Senate candidates, nor did they cover District 38C (although Democrat contender Judy Davis was in the audience.) On the other hand, District 38A received part of the billing despite the fact the district no longer covers Wicomico County.

So there were just four candidates to deal with: Delegate Charles Otto and former Crisfield mayor P.J. Purnell in District 38A and Delegate Norm Conway and Delmar, Maryland mayor Carl Anderton, Jr. in District 38B. I’ll start with the race that pits Otto, who was elected in 2010 after surviving a four-way Republican primary and rolling up 62% of the general election vote, against Purnell, who served as Crisfield’s mayor for the last eight years before not seeking re-election this year.

Their initial question concerned the wind turbine farm slated for Somerset County, but placed in jeopardy for a time due to objections from the Naval Air Station at Patuxent River, who was concerned about effects on their radar equipment from the spinning blades. Otto said he had committed to the developers about being neutral toward the project although he objected to the renewable energy portfolio. He believed, though, the project was sited in an “appropriate place” to alleviate health concerns, and would rather see wind turbines than solar panels that directly affect the environment.

Purnell spoke about his experience with wind turbines in Crisfield, where he secured a $4 million “green grant” to build a 750 kilowatt turbine to service the town’s sewage treatment plant. “If it doesn’t work it will be Purnell’s Folly,” he said. But he felt the electricity savings would benefit the city by allowing other items to be funded.

It led into a question on unemployment, and Purnell stated the obvious: “Unemployment is tough.” But he looked for anything he could to create jobs, including grants. “Economic development is a tough process,” said Purnell, who added that we needed to be prepared.

Otto used the aborted Walmart distribution center to point out how the state’s business climate affects job creation – on the very day Somerset County was to reopen discussions with Walmart about the site, the state passed its minimum wage law. Minimum wage and tax structure were the cause of many of our job creation problems, although the toll increase which makes it $1 per mile from the Bay Bridge to Salisbury for a truck doesn’t help either.

In terms of helping the realty industry, Otto blasted the Septic Bill he opposed as part of the “war on rural Maryland.” He vowed, “I’ll continue to defend property rights” in Annapolis.

On the other hand, Purnell believed “sustainability is the root of all our problems on the Eastern Shore.” He predicted we won’t be able to build in five to ten years.

In his closing statement, Purnell pointed out he’d cut Crisfield’s workforce, and made the case he believed smaller government was the answer. Otto talked about the state’s increasing spending and told the gathering, “I was taught to pay for it when I bought it.”

Again, this was a case where the Democrat in the race tried to convince the audience he was just as conservative as the Republican. It wasn’t so much the case in the District 38B race, which places a Delegate who has represented the area in Annapolis since 1986 (and was a Salisbury City Council member for a dozen years before that) against a mayor elected in 2011, who spent six years before that as a member of their town commission.

I noted the other day in my initial report that Anderton apologized for a mailing which depicted Conway as a masked criminal. But Carl was critical when he was asked the question about what he would do differently than Norm.

“Communication is key,” said Carl, who gave the crowd his cell phone number as a way of promoting access. He also noted that “I haven’t seen my Delegate in my town hall” during his entire tenure in Delmar government, reinforcing his belief that “we’re such an underdog in representation.”

Unlike the other participants, Norm had a different question regarding highway user revenues. Conway said that the Transportation Trust Fund had been repaid, but as for the lost highway user revenues it was his claim that the approach was the preference of MACO (the advocacy group for Maryland’s counties.) But “no one knew” the depth of the recession or the extent of the cuts needed, argued Conway.

Norm was asked then about tuition costs, noting they’d maintained a 3% level of increase while other states had done far worse. But he also bemoaned the fact that many students take much longer than four years to graduate, accumulating more debt along the way.

Anderton was asked about how to bring job opportunities here, but pointed out that Wor-Wic Community College, the site of the debate, won’t have its funding restored to previous levels until 2023. “The things that go on in Annapolis have to change,” said Carl. “We have to be fundamentally different (and) we have to do better.”

Something Carl wanted to address for the realtors was the tax differential, although he also spoke helping to create the success of the Heron Ponds development. Conway agreed the differential needed a review or discussion, but felt that eventually Sussex County, Delaware, with its extremely low assessed rates, “will have to face reality.” Norm also praised those moving into downtown Salisbury, calling it “a real plus.”

In his closing statement, Norm talked about how he had always set goals for himself. But Anderton stressed a different approach: “it’s all about teamwork.”

This was an interesting part of the forum because the two candidates answered mostly different questions, which made it difficult to compare and contrast. Obviously Carl wouldn’t have the same voting record as Norm has, but one thing which stuck out at me was that both of Norm’s questions touched on appropriations – how much money it would take to hold tuition costs at 3% increases or how best to cut to fit a budget. Some of that was out of his hands, but I would have really loved to have Norm answer how he could create jobs when things have gone steadily south during his last couple terms. There are reasons Sussex County is so appealing at the moment and advantageous assessments is just one.

As I think I said in a previous rendition, I think this forum would have been far better spread out over a couple nights. It was also disappointing we didn’t get to hear the exchanges between Jim Mathias and Mike McDermott for the District 38 Senate seat or Judy Davis and Mary Beth Carozza for District 38C – which, ironically, is the district Wor-Wic lies in. It went on for over 2 1/2 hours, but with 15 participants there was only time for three questions apiece, plus the opening and closing statements.

Overall, I don’t think anyone crippled their chances for victory so we’ll have to hang on for another couple weeks to see how it goes.

Campaign 2014: a District 38 look at finance

Yesterday I looked at District 37, which encompasses the heart of the Eastern Shore, but now I work to the Shore’s southern end and District 38. The district takes in the eastern part of Wicomico County and all of Somerset and Worcester counties, touching both Delaware and Virginia. One change in recent redistricting was the formation of three separate sub-districts: House Districts 38A, 38B, and newly-created 38C. This was important because the two Republicans who currently represent the area in the House of Delegates were gerrymandered into a single district.

As a result, Republican Delegate Mike McDermott decided to enter the District 38 Senate race against Democratic incumbent Senator Jim Mathias. At this point, they are the only two who have filed for the race, and they provide an intriguing financial story.

Mathias, as the incumbent and popular former mayor of Ocean City, has a significant financial advantage over McDermott, who also boasts mayoral experience in the town of Pocomoke City. Although his bank account balance is listed as zero, Mathias boasts an astonishing $207,875.92 cash balance compared to the $20,562.22 McDermott reports as a bank account balance. Moreover, in 2013 Mathias raised $142,795 compared to McDermott’s $13,285.

So the question becomes: where did the money come from? In the case of Mathias, his breakdown is as follows:

Ticket purchases: 66.78%
Maryland PACs: 25.7%
Total individual: 5.28%
Maryland candidates/slates: 1.65%
Non-federal out-of-state committees: 0.53%
Other: 0.07%

There were just 24 individual contributions made to Mathias, while 315 ticket line items were entered, resulting in an average contribution of $421.22. That’s a chunk of change! I take ticket purchases to mean attendance at one of Jim’s frequent fundraisers, for which he uses a Bel Air-based company called Rice Consulting, LLC. They even feature “incumbency protection” services. Out of $39,595.91 Mathias spent in 2013, Rice received $24,423.96 for its various enterprises from Mathias.

On the other hand, all of McDermott’s take fell into the “total individual” category, and his average donation among the 82 individual items recorded was a more modest $162.01.

Sourcing out the origins of Jim Mathias’s 2013 inflow, I came up with the following:

LLCs and similar legal partnerships: 26.73%
Law firms: 1.2%
Unions: 2.24% (this doesn’t include their PAC money)
Business: 29.57%
Out-of-district (outside the 218xx zip code area): 34%

While I have studied others who exceed this out-of-district amount, Mathias has the largest share for an incumbent.

In contrast, Mike McDemott received 7.53% from LLCs, none from law firms or unions, 9.97% from business, and just 5.08% from outside the district. He also has outstanding obligations (to himself) of $20,662.87 and used a consultant called Campaign On out of Owings Mills to the tune of $1,390.

Checking on the House of Delegate districts, we find that Republican District 38A incumbent Charles Otto was the only one to file a campaign finance report. His Democratic challenger, P.J. Purnell, didn’t file until late January.

So Purnell should know that Otto has just $9,120.77 in the bank and raised only $2,600 in 2013. Of that amount – which came from 11 donors, averaging $236.36 apiece – 19.23% came from LLCs, none from law firms or unions, 36.54% from business, and just 9.62% from out of district. That was one $250 contribution. Otto also has $17,500 in candidate loans still outstanding from his 2010 run, which may have shown him to be vulnerable.

Both Otto and Purnell will have to introduce themselves to some new voters, as the revised Somerset-based District 38A lost its Wicomico County territory and gained what’s essentially the southern half of Worcester County. Some of that former 38A Wicomico County area shifted to District 37B but a portion was added to a reconfigured District 38B, from which the new District 38C was carved. Instead of being a two-Delegate district which took in the eastern half of Wicomico County and all of Worcester, the new single-representative District 38B curves around from the town of Delmar to Fruitland, taking in a swath of the east side of Salisbury. It’s less territory for incumbent Democratic Delegate Norm Conway to compete in, but he has drawn a GOP challenger in Delmar mayor Carl Anderton, Jr.

Once again, the Democrat holds a significant edge in cash on hand, although Anderton raised some money in the last two months of the year after filing in mid-October. Conway boasts a current war chest of $89,566.22 and gained $55,111.70 in 2013 against Anderton’s $2,450 on $2,600 raised.

But like Mathias, Conway’s fundraising profile carries a lot of interesting quirks. He doesn’t have the ticket purchases like Jim does, but only 66.99% of Conway’s income came from individual donations. 31.18% came from Maryland PACs, 1.72% came from political clubs, and 0.11% came from candidate slates. Both District 38 incumbent Democrats boast a significant amount of PAC money.

Conway’s proportions of funding differ a little from his Senate counterpart, though:

LLCs and similar legal partnerships: 3.03%
Law firms: 1.71%
Unions: 5.15% (again, this doesn’t include their PAC money)
Business: 17.26%
Out-of-district (outside the 218xx zip code area): 20.44%

Out of 301 individual transactions, Conway averaged $122.65 per, just a shade less than the average Anderton contribution of $136.84 among 19 transactions. But Anderton received all of his funding via that route, with just 3.85% from LLCs, none from law firms or unions, 9.62% from businesses, and only 5.77% from out of district.

And Conway “only” spent $4,361.93 at Rice Consulting.

Because it’s a new district, the 38C race has no incumbent – but it has a clear money leader among the three who have filed.

Having a carry-forward of $50,565.65, Republican hopeful Mary Beth Carozza leads in a significant way over Democrats Judy Davis, whose bank account has $1,452.59 in it, and Mike Hindi, who filed an affadavit stating he’d neither raised nor spent over $1,000 on the campaign.

Carozza’s lead is built upon some of the same formula which propelled District 37B fundraising leader Johnny Mautz, Jr. as she used connections built up from time spent in Washington to provide plenty of money. Mary Beth raised a total of $72,897 over the year, which dwarfs the $3,548 income Davis reported, in Judy’s case all from individual contributions.

The split on Carozza was interesting for a Republican, with 47.3% from individual contributions, 30.62% from ticket purchases. 13.72% from loans (Carozza loaned herself $10,000), 7.89% from federal committees, and 0.48% from candidate slates. Many of the federal committees were Ohio-based, reflecting Carozza’s previous work for the Ohio congressional delegation. Adding her 180 individual contributions with the 92 ticket sales makes for an average contribution of $208.81, compared to the 83 individual transactions averaging just $42.75 for Davis.

Carozza doesn’t have a lot of contributions from various interest groups, as she has 1.94% from LLCs, none from law firms or unions, and 3.66% from businesses. But she’s received a stunning 70.57% of her individual take from outside the district, which dwarfs Davis and her 23.82% out-of-district income. (In most areas, Davis would be the outlier.)

With just a couple weeks before the filing deadline, these races are probably pretty much set, so it will be interesting to see where the money comes from at the next reporting date in April or May, depending on the committee. By then we’ll know the players and can see what sort of advantages the challengers have gained while incumbents labor under a restriction on fundraising during the session.