Donations you and organizations make to office seekers in future town elections will be made public under a campaign disclosure ordinance that will likely clear the Chestertown Council by early April.
Ward 1 Councilwoman Liz Gross said campaign finance had become an issue in the recent town election and that she welcomed the ordinance “as a step towards transparency and the way we do things here in Chestertown.” Gross said she was unable to find a small town like Chestertown with a campaign finance law but that “Chestertown could lead the way.”
Candidates for municipal office in Maryland are not required by state law to disclose campaign donations — but roughly a dozen localities have passed their own ordinances in the last decade.
Members agreed at Monday’s meeting to iron out specifics via email in time to create a draft resolution by the March 17 meeting.
Chestertown Mayor Chris Cerino suggested a maximum donation of $2,500 be allowed for mayor and ward candidates — in line with the state and federal maximum. But Ward 2 Councilman Marty Stetson said he favored a $1,000 limit for a mayor candidate and $500 for a ward candidate, similar to the town of Frederick.
Stetson has used Frederick’s campaign disclosure law as a boilerplate to draft the proposal for Chestertown.
Ward 3 Councilman Sam Shoge questioned the need to disclose individuals making small contributions.
“Would it be possible to only disclose if a donation exceeds a certain amount, say over $500 or $1,000.” Shoge asked. He said some of the contributions to his Ward 3 campaign came from family members in $50 and $100 increments.
“I don’t understand why you wouldn’t want that listed,” Stetson responded. “I’d be happy to [list] anybody that donates to me, and I would tell them that it goes on the campaign form.”
The ordinance would require candidates to have a campaign treasurer, register a bank account number for campaign funds and disclose individuals and organizations donating money. Records would be maintained by the Chestertown Board of Elections.
A candidate who violates the reporting requirements could be guilty of a misdemeanor and be subject to a $500 fine and/or up to 90 days imprisonment.
Stetson said there should be no limit on what candidates contribute to their own campaigns.
“That could be burdensome to someone that wants to finance their own campaign,” Stetson said. “If you’re financing your own campaign, you’re buying yourself, but if your getting it from somebody else with a big bunch of money, then he’s going to expect something [in return].”
The council agreed that there was no need for primary elections because of the size of Chestertown’s population and because candidates run unaffiliated. But there was agreement on the need for runoff elections in the event a candidate wins with a small percentage of votes in a crowded field of candidates.
Cerino said he worried during the last election what would happen if he had won with only 22 percent of the vote.
“Luckily that didn’t happen, but I think we should have a backup plan if that were to happen,” Cerino said.
Cerino won with over 45 percent of the popular vote in a field of seven candidates.
The council agreed to go the route of an ordinance instead of a charter amendment. Town Manageer Bill Ingersoll said it was more involved to change the town’s charter — but an ordinance would simply refer to back to Section 34 of the Town Charter, which governs elections.
“We need to evolve a section on elections where we refer back to the charter,” Ingersoll said.
Gross said the process should not become too burdensome to candidates and the Chestertown Board of Elections “with undo bureaucratic paperwork.”
Gross recommended that candidates file two reports during the election cycle — one in the middle of the campaign and one at the end. Frederick currently requires four reports during the election cycle.
Gross also added that expenses need to be disclosed in the reporting along with the donations.
Another measure in the ordinance requires surplus campaign donations be given to charitable organizations or the Town of Chestertown at the close of an election. Violators would be guilty of a municipal infraction that carries a fine not to exceed $400.
Bill Anderson says
Editor,
Why shouldn’t candidates who finance or contribute to their own campaigns be required to reveal that, and the amount? It might be nice for the public to know how important that candidate thought his or her election was to themselves.
Another matter — if there are surplus campaign contributions remaining after the election, let’s require the candidate’s treasurer to return those funds to the donors, on a pro-rata basis. After all, a donor may not desire for their contribution to be forwarded to a charity or to the town.
Janice Dickson says
Editor,
This seems like a make-work proposal.Already someone has asked what if a donor doesn’t support a particular charity.
And if a candidate has received donations from 35 people of varying amounts, how does the leftover get prorated? Leftover money divided by 35?
And what if 2 people made $2,000 contributions, and the remaining 33 people donated between $10 and $100. How can an equitable proration occur?
And what if I host a meet and greet for neighbors, and I spend $100 for coffee, tea, cookies, etc. and report a $100 donation. What gets returned to me?
And what if the candidate put in some of his/her own money towards the campaign? Does he/she get some money back?
And finally, what if out of the 35 people who donate, 33 donate as “Anonymous”?
This is silly. I fail to see the reasoning behind a requirement to list contributors.
Why does someone think this information is so important?
Bill Anderson says
Editor,
Here is how my pro-rata process would operate. The candidate received two contributions of $2,000 each, thirty three contributions of $40 each, and your reported contribution of $100. At the end of the campaign, it would be determined that the candidate had expended $3,960 of the $5,420 donated to the campaign.
If one divided the remaining funds of $1,460 by the $5,420 amount contributed, the result is that 26.937% of the contributions remain. Multiplying that factor by each contributed amount would produce the un-expended amount of each contribution, such that each of the donors of $2,000 would be entitled to receive $538.74; each of the thirty three donors of $40. would be entitled to receive $10.77. and for your $100 contribution, you should receive $26.94. If one adds the refund amounts, they will discover a total of 17 cents remaining unrefunded.
Not a big make-work project at all. I just did it in less than 5 minutes without using my computer.